Power of Story Send a Tweet        
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Adding By Subtracting

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Cheri Roberts       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Author 9170
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
- Advertisement -
One thing the other side does most effectively is to frame how they portray the Truth Movement deciding what our soundbyte will be and then they repeat it, over and over. That’s a typical marketing maneuver, frequency sells. The more time someone hear/sees something, the more likely that something will be ingrained in their mind as fact. The other side also takes bits and pieces of still disputable data from our message and highlights it to make us less credible.

For instance, let’s take Larry Silverstien and his controversial “pull it” statement. Of course I and many like myself believe he is indeed saying “Pull it” defined by controlled demolition, but because we cannot - beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that to be true, it can sometimes make our message less credible when we use it. The absolute best and irrefutable evidence we have for an inside job is the fact that no plane – or anything else hit World Trade Center 7. There was no jet fuel, there was minimal fire, and there is still no report as promised by the 911 Commission. Since the official hypothesis for the collapses - of WTC’s 1 & 2, are do to jet fuel fires, let’s run with that regarding WTC7. Why do we need to grasp onto and project the more circumstantial evidence of a statement when we have physical evidence of the crime?

The above is strong enough evidence for a new investigation and that needs to be acknowledged by the American people. The rest of the world understands it, what’s stopping mainstream America from understanding it? I really think it goes back to that marketing maneuver I was talking about.

We need to drop the more controversial and circumstantial aspects of our repertoire in the language we use. In doing so we give them only solid facts to debate us with. Who cares if Silverstien said, “Pull it” when we can’t definitively prove it? They care, and they use it against us as if we are grasping at straws of evidence. We don’t need to grasp at straws. We have Truth and WTC7 on our side. We need to use the same marketing ploys they do. We need to unify the message, trim the fat from the edges and repeat the message over and over. By subtracting the easily debatable stuff, we add to our credibility as a movement.


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Cheri has worked in media for more than 20 years in one capacity or another. Her media years were spent mostly in broadcast radio; from being a live on-air radio host to creating and implementing engaging and effective marketing and promotional (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Michael Hastings: A Non-Conspiracy Theory

Do You Have a Social Media Burial Plan?

The A-"bility" of Social Media

Brett McGurk, Embarrass-ador to Iraq

Why the Petraeus affair matters... SEX

6 Ways to Flirt With Your Wife Instead of Me