Neuro-Linguistic Programming used by News Anchors

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

A fantastic example of NLP in action.

Like when you see the magician saw a lady in half, it's a fantastic example of real magic in action.

Note how Derren Brown always says at the start of a show he uses a combination of hypnosis, magic suggestion and NLP to achieve these effects.
So what you are seeing isn't what you're getting, just what Derren Brown wants you to see.

But if you believe everything you see on TV.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Like when you see the magician saw a lady in half, it's a fantastic example of real magic in action.

Note how Derren Brown always says at the start of a show he uses a combination of hypnosis, magic suggestion and NLP to achieve these effects.
So what you are seeing isn't what you're getting, just what Derren Brown wants you to see.

But if you believe everything you see on TV.

yeah i do, thanks king

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

As for the no planes theory.. I didn't see anyone on tv backing that theory, but if they were on tv I should hope they would be treated with respect, regardless of their views.

Treated with some respect? Yes, but encouraged and applauded? No chance.

Thousands of pilots, engineers, firefighters, architects in the U.S, millions of people all over the world (including the majority of Muslims) believe it was an inside job.

That doesn't mean it was.

You're telling me that in a country of over 300 million people, a news station had nothing better to do than ridicule a college professor for his beliefs ?

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

A pathetic statement in my opinion.

You call my logical statement pathetic and yet expect us to believe that the professor was hand picked to take part in a carefully orchestrated interview, the goal of which was to brainwash the masses into reacting to 9/11 CTs in a way they naturally would anyway! Why can't it just be that Fox wanted to do an interview that would guarantee viewers? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

I would say it was high on their agenda to get this right.

Why?

No, but it helps, doesn't it ?

It makes no difference because people are going to react that way anyway.

joebucks

King Mob wrote: »

That they have been trained with NLP for the purpose of controlling those who watch them.
Or evidence that NLP can do any of the crap that's being claimed?

I asked you for what your interpretation of NLP was and you refused to give it.

I have provided evidence for training of what I believe part of NLP to be. Which is the use of verbal and non-verbal communication to influence the audience. Look into what TMT media trainers do or what Electric Airwaves, the company that trained Nick Clegg do before dismissing the evidence I have provided.

Until you can disclose your secret opinion of what NLP does, your contribution here is unhelpful.

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

Treated with some respect? Yes, but encouraged and applauded? No chance.

So you have changed your tune. You first stated he deserved to be treated the way he was because his theory was absurd and offensive and you compared it to aliens building the pyramids.
Now you believe he should be treated with respect.
There's a good boy.

Sightaridis wrote: »

That doesn't mean it was.

I'm not trying to prove it was. I am questioning, should we treat all those many millions of people with the same disrespect that FOX has shown the professor ? Obviously the answer is NO !!! which tells us that FOX are in the wrong. Which tells us that you are in the wrong for defending them.

Sightaridis wrote: »

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

Thats not just what you said is it ?

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day.

So now you're back tracking ? Either they had nothing to do that day ?
Or it was a clever PR stunt ?

Sightaridis wrote: »

You call my logical statement pathetic and yet expect us to believe that the professor was hand picked to take part in a carefully orchestrated interview, the goal of which was to brainwash the masses into reacting to 9/11 CTs in a way they naturally would anyway! Why can't it just be that Fox wanted to do an interview that would guarantee viewers? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Some will have that view already, some wont. These tactics will reinforce their beliefs or help them decide. It's clearly manipulation.
It's what FOX do, they are a known propaganda machine. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy, unfortunately many things are and have always been.
Here is another example of FOX mass manipulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntcdkgy3emc

Would you suggest he a nut who hates his country ? I don't think so. I would suggest the anchor does more so.

Sightaridis wrote: »

Why?

Because as you suggested. It was a PR stunt, they probably sparked a lot of interest. So they had to get it right.

Sightaridis wrote: »

It makes no difference because people are going to react that way anyway.

It does make a difference. TV influences peoples opinions all the time, especially news channels. The can influence peoples behaviour, emotion, reactions and beliefs. Take yourself for example.




Don't feel like you have to reply to this, it's getting tedious and repetitive, you are backtracking and you're wrong.

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

You first stated he deserved to be treated the way he was

I never said that.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

So you have changed your tune.

I haven't changed my tune. Firstly, I never claimed that the professor's claims were absurd, I said often 9/11 conspiracy theories are. His theory that it was a controlled demolition, while I don't agree with it, I wouldn't call it absurd. Those who claim there were no planes or that the Jews did it, that is absurd.

Secondly:

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Now you believe he should be treated with respect.

When did I say he shouldn't be? Just because I said he shouldn't be encouraged doesn't mean he deserves no respect. Again, you're finding things that aren't even there, you seem to have a talent in that area.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Thats not just what you said is it ?

Excuse me?

Here's what I said:

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day. An interview with a CT abut 9/11 is always going to spark viewer interest.

Then a few posts later:

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

My point was that Fox likely had nothing of interest that day, so they lined up an interview that would be interesting. But I guess your explanation is a lot edgier.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Would you suggest he a nut who hates his country ? I don't think so. I would suggest the anchor does more so.

The guy is not a nut nor does he hate his country. In my opinion he's just got it wrong. As for Bill O'Reilly, this is nothing more than him being his usual asshole self. Anyone he disagrees with will get the same treatment as that professor.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

It does make a difference. TV influences peoples opinions all the time, especially news channels. The can influence peoples behaviour, emotion, reactions and beliefs. Take yourself for example.

Me huh? The guy who has about 4 stations on a TV he never watches. Great example there.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Don't feel like you have to reply to this

Don't worry, I wont let your slimy attempt to discredit me go unanswered.

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

As for Bill O'Reilly, this is nothing more than him being his usual asshole self. Anyone he disagrees with will get the same treatment as that professor.


Don't worry, I wont let your slimy attempt to discredit me go unanswered.

It appears we have come full circle.

Fox using biased assh0le anchors who will insult, intimidate and belittle anyone who differs from their opinion.

While they may or may not be using NLP tactics they certainly are manipulating audiences.

You do a good job of discrediting yourself.

Torakx

When you notice you are argueing thats when its gettng personal imo and a change in some form is handy, ussually perspective.

I do agree what the anchorrs are doing is used on not just specific targets and sometimes not at all.
What i believe is the case is the anchors are made or just are very aware of, company politics and who their employers want them to build up and take down for want of better descriptions.
I think this is when nlp trainning or really well trained public speakers have an advantage over normal people.They know the power of gestures and body language.They know how to raise and lower the tone of their bvoice and i would imagine it is a big aspect of the job just saying things in the correct tone.
I hear actors have something like seven different ways to say the same word.I cant remember now what the comment was but there are alot of different tones that alot of people dont pick up on.
Same goes for gestures.
Obama uses gestures when speaking about good things his hands or fingers may point towards himself as he speaks about health policy and picking the "right choice" as he points to himself.
There are many subtle ways to use gestures that go semi noticed or unnoticed.Allowing people to talk and create layers of meaning at the same time.
I think nlp is partly a sham because i dont believe you can be trained so fast to do this.It could take many years of practise and observation.
So yes there are people taking advantage as ussual with nlp like many others things,but i do not see that as a reason to discount all the positive things or even the negative that do have an effect.
Anchors and politicians use it to be more able to manipulate public oppinion.
Teachers should be using it to make better connections with the kids they are teaching.
It has its ups and its downs.Overall i think its a topic worth looking into just to gain some basic insights into human behaviour.I value psychology just as much,maybe a fair bit more.Every bit of information has benefits for me.
Its naive to think this is the be all and end all of human behavioural studies but also naive to think it has no effect at all.

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

You do a good job of discrediting yourself.

Your last post was basically you accusing me of saying things I never did, so lets not talk about discrediting ones self.

Joshua Jones

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9023362.stm

I watched this Newsnight interview recently and by the end of it I was spitting feathers. Dame Anne Lesley, Daily Mail journalist and member of "secret think tank" calls the interviewee a "Kitten" and says she doesn't respect his opinion.

His cause, A global day of peace. The scoundral.

Seriously, I dont know how people would justify war rather than promote peace.