A journalist's objective is to report facts on the ground so that it reaches the people. Any ethical journalist would never think of trying to distort whatever is going on on the ground. However, it seems that editors have seen that it is necessary to push their agenda's by taking part of a story and taking it out of context. It is a disgusting and cowardly act that can only be done by cons, pure and simple. The following photos are three representations, two lies and one truth, despite the fact that they are all the same photo.
As you can see, the one on the left sows a US soldier pointing a gun at an unarmed Iraqi civilian, pushing the idea that the US soldiers are terrorizing innocent civilians. On the right, we have an American soldier giving water to an enemy soldier, giving the impression that the US soldiers are kind hearted and wish no harm upon anyone. But in the middle lies the real, full picture displaying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This isn't a persuasive article to try to get you to like or dislike the US soldiers; the whole point is to illustrate that journalists and editors can be dishonest, even when presenting facts. Because half of a fact could be complete fiction; it is always better to show the compete truth, no matter how much you feel the urge to push your agenda. News isn't a political campaign, news is a compilation of full facts and nothing else.
The beautiful game used to be about football, plain and simple; now there is nothing simple about it. The main goal of a club nowadays is not to win the league or have the best 11, now it is about maximizing profits and selling merchandise and corporations making contracts with players as models. Yes it seems all so modern nowadays that fans get an exact replica of their favorite team's kit right down to the last detail. Corporate sponsors make sure to make the most of these fans' money and slab their company logo on only the most popular football teams in the world. Companies sometimes pay hundreds of millions of Euros to make sure their logo is seen on the winning team's shirt.
It doesn't stop at that, because companies also make individual deals with popular players to sell their products. So rather than a player focusing on his technique, he is focusing on cutting sweet deals to make the most out of his fame and glory. It seems like everybody wins, doesn't it? Well, many times it causes no harm, but there have been incidents in a few countries where players eventually were benched due to their lack of interest in the team's well-being.
Having an advertisement like this on a freeway is a bad idea for many reasons. In general ads can be very problematic when they are placed on roads; they distract drivers and can lead to serious and fatal accidents. Many different special interest groups have argued against placing ads on the roads, but the corporations seem to win these cases and place their advertisements in these unsafe locations. What do you think would happen if you were driving down the road and saw an add like this?
Product placement has become more and more obvious in movies and television; so obvious that it seems impossible for a single band can appear all over a movie, like Audi in Iron Man. But even more so than that, TV shows like MTV's Cribs make the hosts of the various houses show the inside of their fridge and sometimes even talk about their "favorite product." A producer who agrees to place advertisements in his scrips, but makes it as a spoof is Seth McFarlene, creator of Family Gy, American Dad, and The Cleveland Show. He tends to display the brand he's supposed to display and makes it so obvious that everyone would know he is forced to show them.
On one of the episodes of American Dad, he makes Stan Smith go to Burger King with his son steve, even though it has nothing to do with the rest of the story. Steve asks his father, "But why did we have to go to a Burger King?" and Stan replies, "Because the economics of television have changed, Steve... Have it YOUR way!"
TIME US Edition TIME Europe, Middle East & Africa TIME South Pacific
Aside from the oddness of the cover of the magazine on the left, if you looked at these three covers you would probably think "oh, they're just three different editions." Well no, these are the exact same edition (May 21) but the covers had to be altered because some countries would not allow the US edition cover to be displayed. This is not the only reason why certain magazines publish different covers for different regions. Sometimes certain stories have a bit more significance than others due to the regional preference of the readers. If you notice the edition on the far right has a cricket player to appeal to the readers in that region. The stories and content in these three magazines are exactly the same, the stories have just been "reprioritized" according to region. This occurs many times by many different magazines; some even change the content itself to suit other cultures; Cosmopolitan, for example is known for giving women sex tips and advise, but Cosmopolitan Middle East puts a limit on how much sex can be talked about in the magazine's content. It is especially interesting to get two different magazines of the same edition, same name and compare the content or covers of the two. I would advise those who are living in Dubai, to go to Giant or Carrefour's magazine sections and try to find two regional versions of the same edition, it can be quite a lot of fun.
There are so many events covered by the media these days it becomes hard to keep up with all the world updates. But one issue that has been consistently priorities for years is the Iranian nuclear issue. Senators, congress members, presidents and kings have been standing strongly against Iran for some time now, all with their own political interest, but let's leave that aside shall we? I am not a supporter of Iran having nuclear arms, but I do not see any reason to panic over it. Israel, Pakistan, India, the US, Russia and many other countries have nuclear bombs and they don't seem to be using them quite often. So why is it fair to assume that Iran will strike the moment they develop this massive weapon?
What do we see in the picture above? It isn't rocket science to try to figure out the language of this photo; in fact it is multi lingual. Typical American fantasy has the "bio hazardous" clock reaching the last minute before Iran is apparently going to blow the world up. The famous mushroom cloud is another sight feared to be seen if Iranians get their nuclear arms; funny how it resembles the ones America dropped on Japan. Even down to the last detail, an empty desert is feared to become of one of "the allies of peace," which I'm assuming is Israel.
This is not the first time the United States uses images like these to promote their propaganda, and I'm sure it won't be the last; it is just sad to see that media outlets, which are supposed to be objective, fair, and balanced, amplify the government's propaganda by drawing little pictures like this one and misleading the masses.
Obamaville: An Attack Ad by the Rick Santorum Campaign
Attack ads are always carried out in political campaigns by each candidate against the other. Obamaville is particularly interesting because it contains two types of attacks: blunt, and subliminal. Before My analysis of Obamaville, I would recommend you watch the minute long ad below.
Firstly, the narrator in the video states the class of people the video is addressing. the "small American town" represents probably the majority of the Republican party's base; so the video starts off by saying that these small towns are in danger if President Obama remains in office. The video also puts a time frame of two years. Why? Well this deadline is completely random and has no factual basis whatsoever.
Suddenly, they show a glimpse of Main Street, cold and quiet with no population around it. Which is an odd thing for Republicans to be doing, seeing how they tend to make Wall Street a priority.
The next few moments are extremely dramatic and unrealistic. It is something one would expect to see in a horror film; all intended of course. If anyone can be described as fear mongers, it is the Republican party.
Suddenly, there's a flash of many images at once! What are they? Well, the first one is an eye, then a group of men who seem to be mobsters smoking cigars, then a man in prison. These are more subliminal than blunt messages really, which is probably why the producer of this video made those pictures so fast. But the message had to be delivered, so they just added a person's lips saying "Shhhh." Attacking Obama for surveillance is quite odd for Republicans, considering the most horrific and illegal law that was passed called "the patriot act" was passed by Republicans. Right.. Spying on American citizens is OK as long as one of your own is in office, huh?
The video goes on to talk about businesses shutting down, but the Republicans have been talking about that since the beginning of the recession, which they virtually blamed it on Obama before he was President! And they seem to neglect the fact that unemployment went from over 10 % to 8.3 %.
Another quick attack on Obama was his views on health care, by saying "the wait to see a doctor is ever increasing." of course in my personal opinion, I think Americans are ridiculous for not already having free health care for all its citizens, but they have started picking up the habit of being behind; and health care seems to be something they still need to debate for a while.
I cannot explain how hard I laughed when I saw the image of the man holding the gas nozzle to his head! But back to the point, Obama is being blamed for high gas prices; again the prices were going up under the Bush administration, and Obama was being blamed by some Republicans since then! It is a free market, and in a free market, gas prices go up. If you want to defend the free market so much, deal with the consequences,
"Freedom of religion under attack." Coming from the party that has called Islam a cult, Atheism a sign of the devil, and science witchcraft; attacking Obama on restrictions on religious freedom is not such a good idea.
While the video was showing Iran and Ahmedinijad, there was a quick clip showing the Iranian President's face transform into Obama's face. What are they trying to say? Are they implying that Obama is a secret agent for Iran? Are they implying that Obama supports Iran "attacking the US and its allies"? Ridiculous!
Then there's another quick subliminal meaning showing the men in suits marching, then it quickly switches to Wall Street; implying that President Obama wants to introduce Socialism and take over businesses. The video even ended with a red colored filter to say that Obama and his government are left wing socialists! Believe me, I would love a Socialist president in the United States, but I don't thing that will happen any time soon.
