Gordon Lightfoot Forums - View Single Post

Loon · 03-27-2003, 08:21 PM

Clear Channel owns one two three four and often five stations in large metropolitan areas. They can be heard by 60 to 80% of indivduals living within a metro area. They have the ability of creating a uniform message put out through multiple media channels that saturate a market with a single message.

Which companies are supporting anti-war rallies?

Most are sponsored by church, local non profit, university and true grass root groups.

Which major corporation is staging, paying for promoting anti-war rallies? Proof?

When a people are exposed to one message exclusively, this message they take to heart. This is media mechanics 101. The media is the message. Advertising works. Those who choose to ignore the power of the media upon individuals are bound to fall under the spell of the media themselves. What one does not know, will most certianly hurt one.

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Thanks for posting that. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be as it was mostly about Clear Channel and all sorts of alleged ties with Bush which who cares anyway? Not very supportive of the notion that a lot of companies are supporting the pro-war rallies which does not matter anyway. It matters none who starts or funds the rallies or protests. What matters is that they are peaceful and conducted within a tasteful time period.

We can go on and on with which celebrity started this protest and what company funded this rally and what ties they have with politicians and what personal motives they have for doing such things. All protests and rallies are sparked by a personal agenda. Whether that someone is a corporation or a left-over hippy makes no difference.

Sorry, I just don't see the relevence of that article when it comes to pro-war rallies.

Loon, you said "Pro-war rallies have corporate sponsorship and big budgets." I am sure they do. So does the anti-group. That is like saying Bill Clinton had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. Or better yet, George W. Bush had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. It's neither here nor there. They are both true statements, but what do they prove?

By the way, there also should not be pro-war rallies at this time during the war either. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I just hope that the anti's get a grip and act responsible, at least.

[This message has been edited by Loon (edited March 27, 2003).]

03-27-2003, 08:21 PM	#17
Loon Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Reno, Nevada Posts: 7	Clear Channel owns one two three four and often five stations in large metropolitan areas. They can be heard by 60 to 80% of indivduals living within a metro area. They have the ability of creating a uniform message put out through multiple media channels that saturate a market with a single message. Which companies are supporting anti-war rallies? Most are sponsored by church, local non profit, university and true grass root groups. Which major corporation is staging, paying for promoting anti-war rallies? Proof? When a people are exposed to one message exclusively, this message they take to heart. This is media mechanics 101. The media is the message. Advertising works. Those who choose to ignore the power of the media upon individuals are bound to fall under the spell of the media themselves. What one does not know, will most certianly hurt one. quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman: Thanks for posting that. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be as it was mostly about Clear Channel and all sorts of alleged ties with Bush which who cares anyway? Not very supportive of the notion that a lot of companies are supporting the pro-war rallies which does not matter anyway. It matters none who starts or funds the rallies or protests. What matters is that they are peaceful and conducted within a tasteful time period. We can go on and on with which celebrity started this protest and what company funded this rally and what ties they have with politicians and what personal motives they have for doing such things. All protests and rallies are sparked by a personal agenda. Whether that someone is a corporation or a left-over hippy makes no difference. Sorry, I just don't see the relevence of that article when it comes to pro-war rallies. Loon, you said "Pro-war rallies have corporate sponsorship and big budgets." I am sure they do. So does the anti-group. That is like saying Bill Clinton had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. Or better yet, George W. Bush had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. It's neither here nor there. They are both true statements, but what do they prove? By the way, there also should not be pro-war rallies at this time during the war either. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I just hope that the anti's get a grip and act responsible, at least. [This message has been edited by Loon (edited March 27, 2003).]