i was so shocked when i saw this last night i had to return

[Sage]

...today with my digicam!


yes it's a REAL BILLBOARD FOR ALL TO SEE!
http://www.newgpu.com/personal/ocsama.jpg

[Guden Oden]

They chose a pic of him in his youth, how nice of them. These days he looks a lot more haggard and his beard is grey.

[hey69]

so that's a advert for a radiostation? :?

[101998]

There is another one on 67 just before you hit 35 coming into downtown, it has a picture of Saddam and says "Captured", one of Yasser Arafat and says "Dead", then one of Bin laden and says "Next".

[Sage]

There is another one on 67 just before you hit 35 coming into downtown, it has a picture of Saddam and says "Captured", one of Yasser Arafat and says "Dead", then one of Bin laden and says "Next".

yeah one of my coworkers who lives in FW told me that there's one where she lives that "has pictures of all three of those assholes and says 'two down, one to go' ."

I find this somewhat amusing but somewhat disconcerting that this readio station is putting up these huge billboards in one of the largest cities in our nation. What does it say to other people about our society?

I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"

[nutball]

I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"

Or 1934.

[Sage]

i was referring to the book

[nutball]

i was referring to the book

I know. I was referring to the year.

[RussSchultz]

I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"
Yeah, that suppression of free speech and all.

[Sage]

I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"
Yeah, that suppression of free speech and all.

hey, I never said I thought that they shouldnt be able to do it. just that it scares me that they chose to excersise their right in that way.

[epicstruggle]

In what way is this like 1984 or even 1934?? I read the book and dont see any connection between the 2.

epic

[Sage]

In what way is this like 1984 or even 1934?? I read the book and dont see any connection between the 2.

epic

because it's propaganda. It's something we already know but, it's being repeated to us constantly and publically in order to keep us fixated on an enemy, thus distracting us from the real truth. I'm not saying that there's a big conspiracy (some would, but there's also people that think the moon landing is a conspiracy as well....) but if this sort of thing spreads then pretty soon you're going to be seeing "enemy of the state" signs everywhere. And, by then, we will be so used to them that we take them at face value even if we know nothing about the face that's on them, thus allowing a government to fixate the publics attention on an ambiguous "enemy" that they really know nothing about and, as a result, don't see that the government is the one who'se screwing them over at every turn and, indeed, using this ambiguous enemy to scare people into submission.



please note this has NOTHING to do with the Bush administration. I'm talking about the big picture, American society at large. I'm saying that the current government could or would institute a 1984-esque society. However, if we keep moving in that direction then it will happen all on it's own. Someone WILL come along and take advantage.

[epicstruggle]

The terms 1984, big brother et al, are misused all the time. You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda. Sorry. Its advertising, for a certain audience. Unless you want to curb their freedom of speech you have to let them advertise however they want (within reason).

epic

[Sage]

The terms 1984, big brother et al, are misused all the time. You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda. Sorry. Its advertising, for a certain audience. Unless you want to curb their freedom of speech you have to let them advertise however they want (within reason).

epic


yes, right now it's being put up by a private entity. but once people get used to it then it won't be such a shock if the government starts doing it. things don't change all at once like that, changes are slow and gradual. you have to think further into the future and the full implications of things.

Also, sadly, I do have to let them do it. I think they should be allowed to advertise whatever they want... within and without reason. Throwing in "within reason" is pretty dangerous because what exactly defines "within reason" ? ANY limit on civil rights can be dangerous if the wrong people decide to exploit it.

[T2k]

Well... 570 KLIF proudly announces " We're A Fox News Affiliate" - should I say any more about this? 8) :D

[epicstruggle]

Also, sadly, I do have to let them do it. I think they should be allowed to advertise whatever they want... within and without reason. Throwing in "within reason" is pretty dangerous because what exactly defines "within reason" ? ANY limit on civil rights can be dangerous if the wrong people decide to exploit it.
Actually there are many laws that limit what type of advertising you can place. You cant have naked people on billboards, you cant put an ad up that causes major distraction (in chicago some years back, someone painted a giant michael jordan picture against the side of a building, caused major road back ups, city ordered it taken down), .... So there are limits to advertising.

epic

[Guden Oden]

You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda.
But if the people who owns the radio station and politicians sleep in the same bed together (which in the case of the current administration and Fox is true), would you still see it the same way?

You don't think private money can't be used to change public perception of something so official policy can change too? Whaddya think lobbying groups have been doing for the last 100+ years, huh? :lol:

[epicstruggle]

You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda.
But if the people who owns the radio station and politicians sleep in the same bed together (which in the case of the current administration and Fox is true), would you still see it the same way?

You don't think private money can't be used to change public perception of something so official policy can change too? Whaddya think lobbying groups have been doing for the last 100+ years, huh? :lol:
however much they might or might not support the current admin, has no bearing on their right to advertise(within reason) their local radio station.

epic

[epicstruggle]

a timely story. :)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&u=/nm/20050112/od_nm/media_advert_fcuk_dc&printer=1

UK advertising regulators signaled a weariness of the double entendre used by French Connection to sell its FCUK brand and warned the clothing chain again, this time over a promotion for its line of fragrances.

In an ad placed for French Connection by Zirh International in the Boots pharmacy chain's magazine, a picture of a young couple sitting on a bed in their underwear included fold-out samples of perfume with the phrases "open here to try fcuk her" and "open here to try fcuk him."

The company is currently required to submit its outdoor adverts to the ASA for approval before they are posted, the second two-year sanction to which it has been subjected.

epic

[Sage]

Actually there are many laws that limit what type of advertising you can place. You cant have naked people on billboards, you cant put an ad up that causes major distraction (in chicago some years back, someone painted a giant michael jordan picture against the side of a building, caused major road back ups, city ordered it taken down), .... So there are limits to advertising.

epic

yeah and, as long as they are not advertising something illegal, there should be no limits *UNLESS* the people can get a petition together to have a judge lok into it.

Also, I think that zoning that regulates advertising (but not the content) is not unreasonable.

[Sage]

however much they might or might not support the current admin, has no bearing on their right to advertise(within reason) their local radio station.

epic

epic, noone here has said they they shouldnt have the RIGHT to do it