Election 08 (Make your prediction)

It has already been decided by the people who run this country who will be the next president. They did their job in getting the media to play along. If their efforts fulfil their intentions then Obama wins. If racism trumps brainwashing, McCain wins.Since I believe that the power of the media to persude voters if much more powerful and effective than racism, my prediction would be...Obama: 286
McCain: 252Edited by onifre, : changed mccain

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Lol...I doubt that! Only makes for a good Dan Brown read...

I would be happy to see something like that but I doubt it. My mistake on the numbers I meant 252 for McCain. Ive changed it thanks for catching that. I almost blew my chances at bragging rights.

Hi Buz, Don't try to claim bragging rights yet sir! You must wait till the election's over.

I like it spelled Kutulu 08, that way we already have the post-election victory song performed live by Metallica!

No, we're concerned with them having nuclear capabilities becuase then Israel and the US couldn't impose fear into the Iranians.

First, pundits are about as in the dark as we are. They're given a piece of paper with what to say every time they're on tv. How do you know what Germans thought? This is typical right-wing bullshit. Talk about ripe for the picking, every time Jerry Falwell open his mouth the religous nut jobs follow every word like it's Gods word. Apparently Fox News has the same effect on you guys. Lol

Ouchhh...not even close bro!

The power of the media bro, if it can make people stand in line over night for a cellphone, it can sway votes in any direction.Time for McCain to take a job as a Walmart greeter, with a little red vest giving patrons a thumbs up and telling them where the specials are! I could totally see that.

If that makes you feel safe, more power to you.But take a look at this link, maybe you'll change your mind as to the power of media persuasion and whether or not they know how to persuade properly. 404 Not Found "Propaganda Media" is based upon "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published in August 1979 by Department of the Army Headquarters in Washington DC; and "Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Media Subcourse PO-0816" by The Army Institute for Professional Development, published in 1983:

quote:

---

Propaganda Media are categorized by methods of dissemination: face-to-face (interpersonal), audiovisual, audio, and visual.

​

Face-to-face (interpersonal) communication is the most effective means of transmitting a persuasive message. It is employed in rallies, rumor campaigns, group discussions, lectures, show-and-tell demonstrations, social organizations, social activities, entertainment, and individual person-to-person contact, all providing a participating experience for the individual or group to recall later.

​

Audiovisual media such as television, electronic tape recordings, and sound motion pictures are the second most effective means of communication available to the psychological operator. Effectiveness is based on seeing and hearing the persuasive message. These media are an excellent means of transmitting persuasive messages and eliciting a high degree of recall.

​

Audio media (loudspeakers and radio) lend themselves to the transmission of brief, simple messages and to personalization by use of the human voice. They require little or no effort by the audience, and generally, they have more appeal than visual media. Also, the barrier of illiteracy may be more easily overcome with audio media than with visual media (printed material).

​

Visual media can transmit long, complex material. Animated or still cartoons may be used to convey themes to illiterate and preliterate target audiences. Visual media generally have the least amount of popular appeal.

​

Themes are reinforced and the target audience given broad coverage by using several media to deliver the same basic message. For example, radio and television can augment leaflets; face-to-face communication can support newspaper circulation.

​

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF MEDIA

​

Acceptability and credibility. A complete target analysis will indicate how acceptable and credible a particular medium is to the target audience.

​

Availability. The availability of media, the mechanical capability of message production, and the capability to deliver the message, as well as the ability of the audience to receive and understand it are important.

​

Timeliness. Production and dissemination lag for each medium must be considered. For example, a medium requiring a long production or dissemination time would not be suitable for a message exploiting a target of opportunity.

​

Quantity. The media selected should be mixed, one medium reinforcing the other, and delivered in sufficient volume to insure that the entire target is exposed to the message. Care, however, is required to prevent counterproductive over saturation of the target audience. This requires analysis of intensity and timing of propaganda dissemination.

​

Themes. The theme to be conveyed will have a bearing on the selection of the best media to transmit the message.

​

Suitability. The media selected must be suitable for the target. The language selected, vocabulary, and level are also important factors. For example, it would not be appropriate to use newspapers or other printed text to deliver a message to an illiterate audience. A professional journal might be the most suitable means of reaching a professional audience.

​

CATALOGING

​

Propaganda units should prepare catalogs of media material which applies to recurring themes and general audiences. These catalogs should include printed material, loudspeaker and videotapes, motion picture films, and specialty items available for psychological operations.

​

TELEVISION

​

Television, including video tape recording (VTR), is one of the most effective media for persuasion. It offers many advantages for propaganda operations, and its wide application in other fields contributes to its acceptance and use. It is appropriate for use in limited, general, and cold war and is particularly effective in FID (Foreign Internal Defense) and consolidation operations.

​

In places where television is not a common communication medium, receivers may be distributed to public facilities and selected individuals. A possible limitation in enemy countries, however, is that television receivers may be set to allow reception on only one or two channels under government control.

​

Television is an all encompassing-mass communication medium. Like radio, it makes use of the sense of hearing to convey an idea. Like printed material, it makes use of the sense of sight, adding the element of motion. And like the motion picture, it combines sight, sound, and motion. Television is immediate; in effect, it places the viewer in two locations simultaneously, creating the illusion of participating in a distant event.

​

ADVANTAGES

​

Speed. Television programs can reach large segments of the target audience rapidly. The transmission of events can be instantaneous.

​

Overcomes illiteracy. Illiteracy is not a barrier; an audience need not be able to read.

​

Unifies. Television brings people in widely separate locations closer together by exposing them visually to the same ideas and concepts.

​

Aural-visual. Television appeals to two senses, each reinforcing the other. This gives the viewer a sense of involvement.

---

I suggest reading the whole link to fully grasp the potential for media persuasion. Also, ask yourself why the US Military would want to know the psychological effects and advantages of media persuasion? Going as far as to have a field manual for it. Perhaps to get citizens behind going to war?Just food for thought.--OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

John Stewart...(from the Daily Show)I didn't want to get deep into this debate but, I did not mean that the media has a liberal bias, in fact I hate that term. Nor am I saying that the wrong person won, however, im not saying the right person won either, im saying the person that was suppose to win won. Follow the media coverage of Obama from 2004 after his speech at the Democratic convention. In fact ask yourself why they choose him to give the keynote speech? This was beyond the media. The media is just a tool for special interest, in fact most of them are as much in the dark as we are, they are doing their job honestly, perhaps, at least the majority I would say.Dont deny the power of propaganda and the power of government control. Obama was suppose to win for reasons that are probabaly beyond our understanding, but his name, his features, and his background, in a time when the image of the US is horrible and with the EU pushing for globalization, Obama is the perfect poster child to represent the US. Those with interests in foreign affairs stand to lose alot of money if the US continues to be hated, Obama was the right choice, and the media got the people behind him. Again, im not saying this was a good thing or a bad thing but it was the right thing to do.

The media isn't always the tool used for persuasion. Bush stole the first election, flat out. The second election, IMO, the democrats didn't want to win so they put the boring John Kerry up to run against Bush. The democrats stood to gain alot by Bush continuing his stupidity, and they did gain what they wanted, which was control of the House and Senate. 2 years later they win the presidency giving them the majority on all 3 branches.However, since I believe there is only one party, with 2 sections to maintain the illusion of democracy so the people still feel they have a valued opinion, I believe the whole thing is controled. Mitt Romney was the bettr choice to run against Obama, the only problem with that is he would have beaten Obama, or had a much better chance. So, they put McCain, the lesser of the 2. But, if you followed the polls during the middle of the campaign McCain was actually gain popularity, and was ahead on the polls, how do you fuck his whole campaign up? Sarah Palin. She guaranteed the lost to Republicans. Obama wins, the US is no longer racist, the middle east will start to like us better, things calm down and globalization can begin.This is all my skeptical opinion of course so feel free to ignore me completely- lol.

I think the word you're lookinig for is c(y)nical Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Rrhain,The question was "show me one media person who was as partial towards Obama as Hannity was partial against him."My only point was that Jon Stewart was as partial to Obama as Hannity was against Obama. It had nothing to do with his treatment of the two candidates. I know Stewart and McCain are friends, I've watched most of his appearences on the Daily Show. But Stewart was partial to Obama and he never hid that fact. Yes, but I think you are wrong for applying that title to what I said. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

There is, this country is run by one party, or rather I should say one class. There may be two fractions of it, that differ slightly, but that doesn't change the fact that the Upper Class runs this country and it is their interests that are in mind, not ours. The two party system is st up to give us the citizens the illusion of democracy. You were told who to vote for, and you only had two choices, both from the upper class of society, or as Thomas Jefferson called them "the responsible class" of society.Al Gore would have done things differently, I agree, but Gore didn't win...but technically he did win, he just had it taken away from him. Why, because he wasn't supposed to win, he wasn't the right man to fulfil the agenda they had planed. The person that they wanted was taking control no matter how it needed to happen.Now, other than the towers being hit, which im still not trusting of the fact that they didn't know some kind of attack was going to happen, the administration has acted as they please from the beginning. Doing all those things you mention in your post, but so what, he was allowed to do so, even re-elected, no one could say shit. For all the hatred people have for Bush and all of the known fuck ups he had during his term, no one could do a thing. They do as they please, granted, some worse than others, but the do what they please none the less. Why, 'cause they all work together for the purpose of their interests. It is a one class system that works for the benefit of that one class. Perhaps Obama will be different, I know right now he is the new hope for America, I wish him well, but he is an illusional leader, he is a poster child to represent America, maybe he uses that knowledge to gain his own advances, maybe he's silenced and told what to do, only time will tell. The rich take care of the rich, Clinton and Bush senior are good buddies, and Bush Jr. as well. They are not in touch with society, neither is Obama. He said alot, he preached to the masses and the masses followed, he made alot of promises but now it's time to see if they let him deliver on those promises.As for this comment, At least Nader wasn't bought out by special interest groups, as Obama has been. He was free to speak his mind. Obama was not, he was even forced by the public to turn his back on long time friends like the Rev. Wright simple because America, and it's citizens, didn't like Rev. Wright. Obama was a black lawyer in Chicago during some hardcore times, how do you think he really feels about white people coming from those days? And I for one don't blame him for having any of those feelings, but if he did he should have man'd up and said "Yes, Rev. Wright is my friend, we used to share alot of those same feelings, it was tough times then for black people and our anger was warrented"...but he didn't, he turned his back on his friend like he was advised to do. Who else will he turn his back on? Lets hope not us, who he doesn't even know, right? I would hate for you guys to lose your illusionary Messiah. As for me, I don't care either way. I'm not under any false hopes for this, or any, presidency. I don't need to be part of any campaign run like a popularity contest. I don't need to feel included every four years and allowed to take a vote so that I feel like I made a difference. If you do, then enjoy.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spellingEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky