Hugh, you know I am a fan of your work. I think you will find few regular posters on this board, and I imagine few lurkers, who will disagree that keyword control and engineering is an important topic, and that mass media plays an important role in social propaganda. I would even expect that most would agree that mass media propaganda makes ample use of keyword engineering. The links you post on the first page of this thread should be of interest to all. So in theory, RigInt should be fertile ground for your efforts.
Personally, I agree that there are clear examples of films releases, both major and minor, and of news stories, that are used to frame, as you would put it, the public's associations and expectations. If a story or an idea are serious and potentially troublesome, use a movie to cast them as comedic or childish, for example. Keyword engineering, is part of the arsenal for these operations.
Problems begin when you identify and try to document specific examples, and especially when you try to link them to alleged motives for deflecting attention from certain events or framing certain ideas. For example, when you present a particular instance of alleged KWH, typically a poster will ask you for documentation that might show at least motive and opportunity on the part of any agent or agency. Instead of interpreting that as a useful prompt to investigate the particular historical sequence relevant to this event, and interpret it in the light of your general KWH ideas, you tend to see it as an attack on your theoretical system. Your response is to default to a defense of the theoretical principles on which there is already wide agreement at RI. Needless to say, this can lead to an unproductive non-dialogue in which posters question specific instances, and you respond with broad theoretical statements.
Pick two or three examples that are especially clear to you and explain them focusing on journalism's traditional five double ewes. Try to pick examples on the significance of which we can all agree. Another of your problems is that many often see your examples as trivial or as so near the edge of what the average person knows or cares about, that they can't believe any considerable resources would be expended in engineering them. Was there KWH of the term Pentagon Papers months before their release? Was the term Ground Zero re-engineered in late 90s? At least that level of significance for a meaningful discussion.
For once, take it for granted that all your readers agree with you on a theoretical baseline that KWH is a reality, that it is a significant tool of the spookaucracy, and that all we need to do is fill in the details. Who is responsible for this particular instance? Why? How was it accomplished? etc. Then I think we can start having a meaningful discussion. And perhaps you can try to move beyond very general examples such as the well documented Pentagon influence on Hollywood screenwriting. That really belongs to the general theoretical background rather than to the specific documentation of a particular instance of word hijack for a clear and compelling ulterior motive.
I for one would be very happy to see such a discussion and to participate.
