Fox News Subliminal Messaging
I'm Australian and I only just started watching Fox News recently to see what it was like. I just watched Hannity on Fox News and, for a few days, they have purposely flashed images during the intros and after the end of commercial breaks on most programs.
But it wasn't until now I knew what they were doing. After the ad break, they flashed the woman from the Quibids ad. Fox News posted about Quibids on their website too.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/06/24/penny-auction-sites-could-cost-chunk-change/
THEN THEY FLASHED THE NISSAN LOGO. I typed in Fox News Nissan, they run a lot of news stories about Nissan.
We're in trouble as a race. I'm fucking angry.
But it wasn't until now I knew what they were doing. After the ad break, they flashed the woman from the Quibids ad. Fox News posted about Quibids on their website too.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/06/24/penny-auction-sites-could-cost-chunk-change/
THEN THEY FLASHED THE NISSAN LOGO. I typed in Fox News Nissan, they run a lot of news stories about Nissan.
We're in trouble as a race. I'm fucking angry.
3
Comments
EDIT: My point was not that they advertised things, my point was they consistently use either hidden or sudden images which are very effective and often unchallenged by the general public. Like me, who assumed for the first few times the random images I didn't understand were unrelated.
However, now that I see images I do recognise, I know all the things I have seen were subliminal imagery.
I remember meeting a British/Kenyan woman a few years ago who went on a lengthy rant about how having characters consuming products from specific brands in movies in her country (not sure if she meant Kenya or the UK since she was a dual citizen) was illegal and how it was evil and class-driven because coca-cola was so much more expensive and upperclass-ish than other colas, or something. Of course, in the U.S. this is a very popular form of advertising that is most certainly not illegal, and since coca-cola costs about the same amount as bottled water, it's really not a class issue at all here.
I'm not sure if what you're talking about is similar, but to me it sounds like it may be.
Actually that study was discredited back in the 70s, IIRC.
I'm sort of in the mass media communications department at my school. We've discussed this at length. I'll go track down the various findings of that in my textbook if you really want, but honestly considering how far behind I am on homework, if I open it I'll probably spend 3 hours doing actual important work.
Most likely, what's going on is tiny snippets of advertisements that get clipped before they go live. It happens with live programming all the time. Considering those commercials are going to be from the same ones that run during other times on the air, there you are. Reasonable explanation.
I'm sick of how people always cry foul whenever Fox News does anything. People just look to pour on any last thing they can hold on to to hate them. I'm not a fan of them. In fact, I am cynical and jaded toward "news" because the concept that journalism still exists in a pure way ended with the internet. My point is, enough already. Just tune it out, and your life will be better for it.
It's whatever. It's all bull and nonsense. Rather than decrying the shortcomings of the human race, just tune it out and focus on living your life. I am a firm believer in the concept of Thought Police, so when I feel like a place is thought-policing, I just ignore it. It's the only way it goes away.
Obviously it's not and never will, but I know plenty of shows where characters use Apple products. I think it's dishonest, unnecessary, manipulative product placement.
@sandmanCCL If it doesn't work, then answer me this: if there's nothing to hide, why dishonestly advertise in the span of a few 1/8 seconds? Clearly it does work because there'd be no reason fo doing it.
Yes I thought of the 'clipped' theory but it's not true. I've never known a commercial to show their logo first when it comes to vehicles.
It's not about me, I don't care much for my own sake when it comes to Fox, they don't supply info anyway, but I worry that people watch that channel and lap it up man. I can't fix the world but I can atleast ignore it, always hoping people do the same.
Oh, and @Ward has already said something about that too, I guess, so I'm probably a bit repetitive there ;-)
The recent US presidential campaign ads are a prime example. The Democrat-Republican two-party duopoly receives millions of dollars of corporate sponsorship, some of which is used to shut out any third-party contenders from participating in the debates on major media networks. The Republicans and Democrats learned their lesson after Ross Perot participated in the debates in 1992 and got 19% of the popular vote. They decided (yes, they run the Commission on Presidential Debates) that third-party candidates had to get 15% across five national polls in order to participate. The problem is you can only get votes if people know about you, which requires millions of advertising dollars. Ross Perot is a billionaire and his campaign was mostly self-funded. But if the media isn't interested in covering you and giving you a voice, then your campaign is doomed (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, for example). Since most people are passive recipients of media information, they will only know about the corporate-sponsored candidates. As long as Democrats and Republicans are allowed to receive millions in private donations that they can use to buy media advertisements and press coverage, they will always dominate the political landscape.
As Alan Ginsburg once said, "Those who control the media--the images--control the mind."
Every other news station covered it, extensively. The station partly owned by Boeing? Not a single story about it.
Anyway, do you feel compulsed to go buy a Nissan now? If the answer is "no," chances are neither is anyone else being exposed to these snippets. And seriously I've seen this kind of thing on TV for literally my entire life. It's not subliminal. It's just that with live TV it's really difficult to transition 100% perfectly all the time. Weird little things pop up from time to time.
I mean, they could have chosen two completely different colors, like green and yellow or something.
If i'm not wrong this kind of pratice is forbiden by the "falcon law" or something like this, i don't know if it's an international treaty or orientation only, but i know this kind of advertisement is forbidden, cos it not only can but it will influence anyone watching the TV.
I researched on internet and found some references for the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Treasury Department, Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, i didn't check any of them but even then the articles that i read say that those are only superficial references against the pratice.
In Brazil, based on our customer law (the name would be something like customer regulation act in USA), it's a forbidden pratice (this law is made to recognize the overhaul customer weaker in business with companies), even if this law (act) do not explicity forbide the pratice of using subliminal advertisement in microsseconds, it would be still forbidden. The problem is that the 3 times i saw it, where late (around 2 to 4 a.m.) in breaks of not so famous TV programs, so i doubt anyone has a copy of this misuse to proof their unfair pratice.
THIS MUST BE STOPPED. EVERY ONE PUT ON YOUR TIN FOIL HATS AND GET TO YOUR BUNKERS.