|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 9, 2022 17:33:32 GMT
Which got me thinking that you can do something interesting with a BBC broadcast and understand it from an entirely different frame of reference. Normally we follow the BBC in a linear way from start to finish we listen and often we are told a story. What is happening as we listen is we build up a contextual picture of a situation. We understand this through contextual reasoning. For example "He got angry" vs "He got angry because someone shot his wife". Listening to the latter tends to create agreement because there is reasoning and context to his actions. Because we hear this is reasonable we don't give it a second thought - as in it is accepted and understood. We listen to each story and the same format is followed and we are seeing it as perfectly real.
It is often said that those who take things out of context are deceiving you. Lets try the example: "he got angry" - conclusion: he is a moody sort of person and therefore not very nice. Taking away context invites misinterpretation, or does it?
So here is a BvL idea. What you do is take it all out of context, like you randomly pick the shortest phrase, as in you are chopping all verbal communication up into is base statements, no reason, no linkage, but like your shortest possible soundbite. Now because context is stripped away you have no chance of any bias. You can then process your statements to get the metrics of the BBC output. So just to run with an example we can look at a simple metric of 'is the BBC happy Y/N?' Get your base statements and run them through this discriminating condition and you have a stat. This might seem quite limited, until you realise you can get any metric you like in this way. Lets try another. Is the BBC in favour of traditional marriage Y/N? Now run all your statements through this discriminator, which is a tri-state thing, as per yes, no or irrelevant to the question. Now once you have done this you can compare to say the opinion polls on the various issues.
It's worth pointing out that the emotional brain will adjust its views according to this simple technique, e.g. say the question is "is it safe to walk the streets?" and such statements like "An IRA bomb exploded in Dublin" would have to be a no and "a passer by saved his life" would be a yes. There is a hypothesis I have that the entire output is a series of impressions like as if impressions were notes on a piano and the story is a tune, like an emotional tune. It's no more than theatre for a bit of the dopamine hit in the brain. It's also even more revealing if you include the tonality and way something is said, such as say pleasant woman/unpleasant woman or what have you. The tonality is another information encoding device. It's the subliminal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 7:05:28 GMT
The media has psychology graduates and media studies experts that advise everyone from advertising to programming. That has made idiosyncratic expression on the part of script writers and artists very restricted. There is a code and a theme and when one looks at a number of adverts or TV dramas, etc one sees this spreading across the genres.
Of course, if you mention this you will be set upon as a badass, but it is true and verifiable by observation at the very least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 12, 2022 9:50:19 GMT
The media has psychology graduates and media studies experts that advise everyone from advertising to programming. That has made idiosyncratic expression on the part of script writers and artists very restricted. There is a code and a theme and when one looks at a number of adverts or TV dramas, etc one sees this spreading across the genres. Of course, if you mention this you will be set upon as a badass, but it is true and verifiable by observation at the very least. Thanks
This bit of information is very interesting. You see the BBC is now almost entirely scary. I've been using this technique to answer "how happy is the BBC" and I score a point for each or comment which is uplifting in some way and compare them to those which are negative and represent death, loss, or something else to bring you down like overtly graphic descriptions of a terrible illness. I'm convinced they are deliberately depressing the nation and as such the nation fails because it thinks what is the point. The obsession with death is now so bad that it is morphing into a death cult. Loads of people are committing suicide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 10:23:13 GMT
I'll add another area that is lately hugely depressing and bad for people and that is the way the media presents wildlife programmes. Nothing but sorrow, killing, hardship and ecological collapse. I don't watch them any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 12, 2022 11:23:05 GMT
I'll add another area that is lately hugely depressing and bad for people and that is the way the media presents wildlife programmes. Nothing but sorrow, killing, hardship and ecological collapse. I don't watch them any more. Typically you can't listen to Radio 4 for five minutes without a death or murder being mentioned. They use women for all the political and factual stuff these days and I think it may be the case these psychologists are manipulating them. The males on the BBC are reserved for comedy, and anything non-serious, and a lot of it to do with football.
If one views the traditional role of the male as guardian and protector then it is like a reversal of the natural role. I don't know if you ever saw the advert, but it was a long time ago where a man and a women are in this fast flowing jungle river and they are about to flow over a waterfall and to their death. The woman looks to the man, the man has an idea and sees and overhanging branch coming up and he jumps onto it, saving himself, but leaving the woman to go over the edge to her death. The punchline was "Right Guard won't let you down". This to me is like an allegory of the BBC's psychology: its an emergency (always is) and the men are cracking jokes, a bit like Boris Johnson. You see how insidious this is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 12:57:40 GMT
Yes, if we see adverts with this crap in it, we put off the sound and we make a note not to buy their products.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Oct 12, 2022 15:22:12 GMT
From taking things out of context to suicide, quite a jump. What else can be seen in randomness? For instance, ive just heard the words " digital economy", on Al Jeeera. Are they sending secret signals to Kharkiv? Or those that run Al Jazeera ordering pizza secretely, from Tel Aviv?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 13, 2022 9:45:31 GMT
The crucial turn as far as the BBC is concerned came in the late 60s when its then Director-General, Hugh Carleton-Greene, jettisoned its Reithian principles turning instead to embrace the 'permissive society'. Since then it has developed a corporate fetish that it must serve equally what it considers its many audiences, even at the expense of neglecting its core one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 13, 2022 13:13:48 GMT
Yes, if we see adverts with this crap in it, we put off the sound and we make a note not to buy their products. The ad was simply an illustration of the psychology of all of us, whether we like it or we don't. One of women's biggest innate fears is being let down by their man. In primitive times where our brain was developing, this act of neglect would be certain death to a woman. They needed their man to survive. Today such an ad would be seen as too offensive because people are in denial of basic psychology. The BBC on the other hand know what they are doing. You aught to ask why they do it, and it is because they are brainwashing us, and a regular way to do that is through something called cognitive dissonance. The ad worked, and in the narrow sense of advertising it was a classic, but of course it too was brainwashing the population. I just used it to illustrate how the media use primitive psychology to fuck our minds up and stress us out, which ultimately leads to a destructed country in poverty and continual war and protest, just as our enemies like to see us.
Oh by the way, talking of propaganda, I was painting my porch the other day and for a few hours all I could hear was my neighbour's TV which was playing some old US films circa 1940s/50s ish time, definitely black and white era. This is another example of how you can see things differently when they are taken out of context. Nearly all of it was music , but all the music was military music which if you think about the kind of US military music of that era it tends to evoke a sense of pride and jolliness to it. The 3-4 hours worth of material eventually showed itself as a regular pattern: like first the jolly pride music and then the screams of death and fear in war. Did you ever see A Clockwork Orange? I think that might have been banned for touching on the technique too obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 13, 2022 13:37:30 GMT
From taking things out of context to suicide, quite a jump. What else can be seen in randomness? For instance, ive just heard the words " digital economy", on Al Jeeera. Are they sending secret signals to Kharkiv? Or those that run Al Jazeera ordering pizza secretely, from Tel Aviv? Reductio ad Absurdum |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2022 13:49:45 GMT
The crucial turn as far as the BBC is concerned came in the late 60s when its then Director-General, Hugh Carleton-Greene, jettisoned its Reithian principles turning instead to embrace the 'permissive society'. Since then it has developed a corporate fetish that it must serve equally what it considers its many audiences, even at the expense of neglecting its core one.
The truth is that the BBC was formed as a mouthpiece for propaganda and did its job best of all during WWII, where it served a very important function. Other than that, it provides some fairly good quality programs but trusting it (especially in the recent openly politicised climate) is probably not the wisest idea without strenuous fact checking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 14, 2022 6:29:06 GMT
The crucial turn as far as the BBC is concerned came in the late 60s when its then Director-General, Hugh Carleton-Greene, jettisoned its Reithian principles turning instead to embrace the 'permissive society'. Since then it has developed a corporate fetish that it must serve equally what it considers its many audiences, even at the expense of neglecting its core one. Yes we're back to the very think I've just written about on the other thread, the catastrophe of education changes that started in the mid-sixties and carried on under Thatcher. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 14, 2022 7:14:01 GMT
@oran777 : that's an interesting article however it hardly shows that the contemporary BBC is still adhering to its original Reithian principles; none of the personalities quoted date from after the 1970s, and none of the BBC organisations post-date Radio 1. Today the BBC is a very different animal.
For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I need to spell out what I mean by Reithian principles. According to the Great Man the mission of the BBC was to 'Inform, educate and entertain' (in that order). He also decreed that the BBC broadcast "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance."
I wonder what he would have made of 'Ru Paul's Drag Race' occupying a prominent prime-time slot on the BBC's flagship television channel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 14, 2022 11:27:45 GMT
@oran777 : that's an interesting article however it hardly shows that the contemporary BBC is still adhering to its original Reithian principles; none of the personalities quoted date from after the 1970s, and none of the BBC organisations post-date Radio 1. Today the BBC is a very different animal. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I need to spell out what I mean by Reithian principles. According to the Great Man the mission of the BBC was to 'Inform, educate and entertain' (in that order). He also decreed that the BBC broadcast "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance." I wonder what he would have made of 'Ru Paul's Drag Race' occupying a prominent prime-time slot on the BBC's flagship television channel. Using my statistical technique it is very clear the BBC is like some sort of suicide machine, bringing people down and giving them a sense of hopelessness and "why bother". However it goes further than simple wall to wall hopelessness, but rather it alternates between that and inane stupidity (comedy) or the worship of the meaningless, e.g. kicking a ball around a field or some highly obscure irrelevance. It is this technique which is often used in interrogation, to break someone down. To do it you flip between one emotional extreme and the other, so we can go from say a programme about the Khmer Rouge to a clip of England winning the world Cup. As the mind is unnaturally flipped between extremes, it can't deal with it, because it is not hardwired during evolution to deal with such contradiction. The result is it eventually gives up and becomes compliant.
These techniques were developed some 100 or so years ago for military purposes, but are now used in peacetime to sneakily exert power over the population. The problem for our country and one main reason why it fails like it does is the ones using these techniques certainly are expert in their application, so they have power over everyone else as they hold the steering wheel of the country, but aside from their degree in media psychology they are vacuous. The country consists of a lot of people who hold degrees but only because they have put all their time and effort in one subject and so neglect everything else. A media presenter's understanding of logic or economics for example is often worse than a child.
Anyway, this is our national problem. Those who people are manipulated to listen to are some of the stupidest and they take their stupidity without question. If you then pit that against an expert in the subject of say bond markets, they are the opposite way around. They do not sound convincing because they do not use these underhand tricks and are straightforward. The population then conclude they are the wrong ones and the liars, and then all hell breaks loose. By the way, when i say think, I mean unconsciously think. The emotional brain will decide things without the conscious brain always being aware of it. For example the emotional unconscious brain might be watching an interview and the chap is wearing glasses so that unconsciously biases their brain to place him in the academic pigeonhole. Indeed much of this is unconscious and why they get away with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 14, 2022 17:59:32 GMT
@oran777 : that's an interesting article however it hardly shows that the contemporary BBC is still adhering to its original Reithian principles; none of the personalities quoted date from after the 1970s, and none of the BBC organisations post-date Radio 1. Today the BBC is a very different animal. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I need to spell out what I mean by Reithian principles. According to the Great Man the mission of the BBC was to 'Inform, educate and entertain' (in that order). He also decreed that the BBC broadcast "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance." I wonder what he would have made of 'Ru Paul's Drag Race' occupying a prominent prime-time slot on the BBC's flagship television channel. Using my statistical technique it is very clear the BBC is like some sort of suicide machine, bringing people down and giving them a sense of hopelessness and "why bother". That is really interesting. Please could you provide the methodology for your 'Statistical Technique' and share the analysis you did on the BBC |
|
