This One Might Lead To A Happy Ending

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
The pro-life activists are charged with criminal conspiracy to invade privacy and 14 counts of filming people without their permission in Los Angeles, San Francisco and El Dorado counties.​

Pair who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood facing 15 felony charges
By Bradford Richardson
Tuesday, March 28, 2017

David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt charged in filming at Planned Parenthood

Hollywood’s movie producers film people without their permission all of the time. Those people you see walking by in a street scene are not asked for their permission nor are they paid. Every day television, especially news shows, use pedestrians passing by on the street without first getting their permission. That is why I always said that producers should have to hire, and pay, extras for every person they show in a film.

Better still, people who are filmed without their permission should be allowed to sue film makers of every stripe for an invasion of privacy. Whenever you see a camera pointed your way you should immediately tell the film maker not to use your image and demand the tape. At the very least you should negotiate pay and benefits for your services. It goes without saying: GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING.

The best part is that everybody who objects to being filmed can count on broad support.

Labor unions certainly object to working without pay.

The criminal class vehemently objects to being filmed. They alone make up a large constituency; maybe the largest when you add in illegal aliens.

Trial lawyers see a rosy future filing invasion of privacy lawsuits.

Supreme Court justices are small in number, but their influence will definitely come out against cameras. The Nifty Nine will not have cameras filming the proceeding for the same reason criminals object to having their mug shots hanging in post offices.

Incidentally, people in primitive cultures might have it right. They believe being photographed steals their soul. So I will close by reposting my favorite joke about photographs:

An anthropologist in search of lost tribes led an expedition up the Amazon. He was sure he hit the jackpot when he found a hitherto unknown tribe of pygmies. After a few weeks he could speak the simple language well enough to communicate. In an attempt to find out exactly how far removed from the outside world the pygmies were he showed the chief some photographs he had brought with him for just such a test.

When the anthropologist showed the pygmy chief a photograph of President Eisenhower the chief shook his head no. The scientist got the same reaction when he showed the chief photos of Winston Churchill, FDR, Stalin, and Mao. Then he showed the chief a picture of Mickey Mouse. The chief’s face lit up like a kid taking a test who finally got one right. Smiling from ear to ear he said “I know him. That’s Disney’s rat.”
 
198228_5_.jpg
http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-03/198228_5_.jpg

The press, meaning television, catching hell these days prompts me to add some observations about filming. I go on the assumption that the words television-journalism, filming, and camera are synonyms.

When you get right down to it the question is who runs the government —— media mouths or Americans? If Lincoln was alive today he would answer:


Government of the media, by the media, for the media, shall perish from this Earth.​

Hollywood sells their machine-made pictures as creative art. True art and true artists cannot be bent to fit a government lie. “The camera never lies” when, in fact, the camera never does anything but lie. Hollywood cameras and television cameras combined with sound to create the greatest propaganda apparatus ever known. Even still photos are often combined with printed text to promote a lie.

The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. The only real “news” I’ve seen lately is members of the press talking to the camera and to each other and calling it news.

No camera lies more than the television camera.

Liars in high places love the camera because it is the most effective propaganda tool ever invented; it can sell thin air as fact as well as alter reality when accompanied by the right words —— propagandists always have the right words. The best part is that the photographer is never charged with perjury for the images he produces.

In a just world Don Hewitt (1922 - 2009) would have been held criminally liable for what he did to Nixon in his first debate with Kennedy. Hewitt later bragged he elected two presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton. In an unjust world a picture can be discredited but never the photographer. Hewitt enjoyed a long and profitable career at CBS.

Obama’s daily appearances in television clips saying this and that reaffirmed the TV camera’s position as the number one liar. After all, Obama said it on TV so who would dare call him a liar?

Liars cannot look you in the eye. Liar always look a camera in the eye. Proof: Democrats look the camera squarely in the eye and say the “American People” voluntarily pay tax on their income.




Why do Democrats look right into the camera and lie? They know they are lying. They know that their lies will not standup to serious examination. So what makes them so bold? The answer is simple: They also know that the MSM will never expose them.

Question: Do you consider motion pictures an art form? If you answer yes then movies must be defined as organized art at worst, or collaborative art at best. Question: Who is the artist? Is it the writer, the director, the actor, the film editor, the cameraman, the producer, the prop man? Note that the makeup artist used to be the only person in the industry that was called an artist.

Photography came before motion pictures and television. I cannot say why, but electronic imagining never made it to the level of an art form. When electronic imagining, i.e. video tape and iphone snapshots, replaces silver-halide negatives will video cameramen be upgraded to artists? Or will the silver crowd be demoted to the ranks of hobbyists? They all take pictures; so I would not want to make the call.

What happens to all of those video cameras when VCRs and video tape are obsolete? And what happens to the miles of home movies, wedding receptions, etc. that people have on tape? What happens to the movie collections some folks have on tape? Will those tapes play on the TVs of the future? Or will they have to be transferred to a flash drive at great expense? Or will people have to keep their analog TVs and VCRs just to play their tapes? I do not know the answers to those technical questions.

On a more mundane level one question always puzzled me about high-priced snapshots sold by art galleries. What happens to the negatives? At least if you purchased a Picasso you knew he was not going to run off a few more “originals” after he had your money in his pocket. And can anyone honestly see any of today’s photographs selling in the distant future will command 40 million-plus in today’s dollars?

In my youth I mistakenly blamed motion picture cameras for destroying the culture. I now knew better. There is no doubt that the television camera became the most powerful destroyer of worlds after photography was invented.

The paparazzi are a hybrid. The pictures provided by the paparazzi sell newspapers and magazines —— not products. Paparazzi make a buck selling pictures of the good, the bad, and the ugly captured in unguarded moments.

Cinematographers are supposed to be artists and TV cameramen are supposed to be artisans; that supposedly puts them a notch above the paparazzi. In truth, the three are only separated by obituaries; the death of a well-known cinematographer is reported far and wide; the other two depart unlamented.

It has been said that men fall in love with their eyes. If there is any truth in that old chestnut a lot of horny masturbating worms are having sex with photographs. Unfortunately for the worms there are a few “Hollywood beauties” who are so repulsive in the flesh they would make the Frankenstein monster go gay were it not for photography.

A two dimensional image of photogenic women is now the standard defining female magnificence. Women who buy makeup because they think they will look like an airbrushed photograph after applying the stuff would be better off spending their money taking a course in reality.

Plain Jane's who photograph well are worshiped irrespective of their personalities. Even those show biz women who are so unattractive nothing can improve them are said to possess an inner-beauty that only the camera ——and the photographer —— can see.

Finally, the camera caught a good one:


 
But Flanders, old Buddy, old Pal, Donald J. Trump was elected President despite the MSM's hate for him, and despite wall-to-wall coverage intended to denigrate, embarrass, harass, and force him into compromising statements and actions. So their influence does not appear as strong as you fear.
 
But Flanders, old Buddy, old Pal, Donald J. Trump was elected President despite the MSM's hate for him, and despite wall-to-wall coverage intended to denigrate, embarrass, harass, and force him into compromising statements and actions. So their influence does not appear as strong as you fear.
To DGS49: True. Trump did win as did, Nixon and Ronald Reagan regardless of media efforts to stop them. Nevertheless, media wins most of the time; so I will continue praying for:
Government of the media, by the media, for the media, shall perish from this Earth.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top