From My Special Friend Neoamor………..more profundities coming our way and what a great writer, huh?-A.M.
Rachel Maddow delivers a report, that on the surface appears to be only employing the “National Enquirer Effect”.
The NEE (facilitates “NEE jerk reaction”) is the strategy that base human herding instincts can be exploited to easily produce a desired opinion among a large populace: If you deliver the intended bias correctly/cleverly enough.
The bias must not seem like opinion, the conscious mind would catch that. When used properly, it delivers bias without obviating bias.
One aspect of the tactic, is that public figures that are established as “authorities” need only exhibit ridicule or other responses toward certain ideas/material, and because of their “authority status” within the populace, large segments will adopt the same perspective; that the concept is indeed ridiculous, and without the viewer having or needing any additional meaningful data. People accept the adherence to the opinion of the authority figure, in an effort to be perceived as very similar to the authority figure. Both by the self and others. Acceptance of celebrity/hero worship in any form, within the population, assists this approach. Although, it probably doesn’t even have to be a person. “Mass media” is considered to be an authority by many, so the individual delivering the bias, may not matter to some.
This opinion/bias delivery system bypasses any conscious discernment, and accesses an instinctual conformity/acceptance mechanism directly. In other words: It doesn’t matter what perspective is being transferred to the audience, only who is transferring it. Conscious discernment would analyze the data itself, if the data were to be delivered simply as data, without the display of opinion/ridicule/bias. Notice the way voice inflection is used to slyly deliver bias during this segment, while Rachel is simply reading a statement.
The desired public opinion may not result, if the data were to be delivered in an unbiased context, or not delivered at all. Bias must be clearly exhibited, for the audience to subconsciously understand what they’re supposed to believe. Or disbelieve, in this case.
“Conspiracy theorist” is a great example. The concept on it’s own, is quite valid and has merit, if looked at logically/rationally. However, it has now been “installed” as a subconscious trigger for the desired emotional response in much of the population. That demonstrates a successful implementation of what I’m referring to. “Conspiracy theorist” is now a degrading label, and identifies a person who should be considered “kooky”. Most people won’t ask why that is. Most likely you felt the trigger activate the subconscious emotional response, as you read the words “Conspiracy theorist” at the beginning of this paragraph.
The basis for the strategy being called the NEE, is that the “National Enquirer” only published ridiculous stories. So anything that the broader public was supposed to regard as ridiculous, need only be presented alongside the overtly exaggerated content in that “newspaper”. The National Enquirer itself, was only a part of the strategy. Though it’s a logical and effective approach on it’s own, it may not be effective enough for certain demographics. Complementary approaches would seem necessary.
The NEE and it’s associated emotional bias is demonstrated in a very obvious way, by this segment. If you watch it armed with the understanding that it may be primarily delivering bias. If you cannot detach from the information itself, and analyze only how it’s being delivered, you will not see what I see.
You may already have a fully formed bias where this topic is concerned. In either direction. If you have a blind faith belief that UFOs are in fact “other worldly visitors” without ever seeing “anything” yourself, you are using the claims of others as if they were factual personal experience/data. That is not discernment. It is always about considering possibilities, and not blind belief, in my opinion. If you have a blind faith DISbelief of this subject, my above statements also apply to you. I would say that the mountains of data of first person claims from credible authorities on this topic, move the improbability/probability meter well above only “possible”. Coming to an understanding of probability, requires research and effort. Although I do understand that many people don’t do “effort”, unless it pays the bills. Too many credible people admit personal experience on this, for it to be a completely mythical subject. Don’t expect T.V. to tell you about all of that though.
The alleged second layer in this video, is what interests me. On the surface Rachel appears to be predictably employing the NEE, as you would expect; this is “network” delivery after all. However, look at how much data is actually passed to the viewer during the segment. Look at the slide that remains on the screen from the beginning. What is that slide actually and subliminally suggesting? “Look up” comes to mind. 🙂
If you were to mute HER “audio chatter” bias delivery, it might seem that some of the segment is actually promoting the concept of “Off Worlders”. Usually a network segment like this would not contain nearly as much “air time” in favor of the topic, as this one does. I just found that odd. It seems to have more to it than just the standard bias delivery.
Whatever the real motivation is behind this segment, I/we can only theorize. It may simply be the obvious use of the NEE. I must consider the possibility that I am reading more into it than is really there, and it is transparently attempting to deliver bias, and nothing more.
It’s your call: