digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at youtube.com

Who's That Hiding In My Fox 5 News Logo? (Video)

youtube.com — It's undetectable at normal speed, but I was editing this footage in Final Cut Pro and going through it frame-by-frame when I saw this.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bigsimpsin, on 05/11/2008, -38/+622Fox News? John McCain? Seems like an unlikely duo.
    • domomike, on 05/11/2008, -26/+32Considering that the clip of John McCain was perfectly underneath the title screen it sure seems that they played the wrong clip at first.

      If the graphics tecnicians can't use transparencies on live video then they could have just put a random scene behind it that roughly resembles the scene that will follow.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -22/+11That's a pile of *****. Why do they need a scene at all, the graphic has a dark background suited to the animated foreground colors.
        • thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5"Why do they need a scene at all"

          Seems clear enough.

          - Subliminal Message that a story about John McCain and his wife is coming up next.
          - Story is about a "message of hate"
          - Attempt to tie John McCain to a message of hate like that of his "spiritual advisor"

          Welcome to modern politics.

          (substitute John McCain for Barak Obama and you'll see the ludicrousness of my comment AND of this Digg post)
      • DyceFreak, on 05/11/2008, -23/+145obviously you have never worked in broadcast because every single little frame of that is manufactured on a computer... It aint some random scene... its one frame... of john mccain and his wife. When an intro video like that gets produced, every little bit of it is checked and rechecked. Don't act like it was just there because of layers. It wasn't a clip in the first place, it was one frame, of john mccain...

        It was put there, and left there on purpose.
        • athrasher, on 05/11/2008, -10/+35Note necessarily man. It looked to me like they try to put a relevant still or footage behind the opening graphics for visual purposes. It could also be a mistake by the director where there is supposed to be an active background behind the intro(to see through transparent areas), and he had the wrong source punched up. The only way to know for sure would be to get a sample from other broadcasts of theirs.

          Perhaps the guy who originally posted it(or someone else in NYC) could oblige.
          • SilentSpyder, on 05/11/2008, -3/+19I'm a liberal and I would love to believe this but I think it's a mistake or they just did it for one day. We would have to check it for a week to be sure but here's another video I found at you tube. Nobody here.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGVIXfKaEzU
          • Tomchei, on 05/11/2008, -9/+4SilentSpyder -
            It's the Israeli Jews putting their money to subliminally force people to see McCain so that there's a subconscious connection to like him.
          • ChuyMatt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I love that people are digging down Tomchei. Even IF he is being serious, the absurdity of it and the many tests run on subliminal imagery such as that makes this comment even better; those Jews were wasting their money.
        • wolferz, on 05/11/2008, -4/+16Not everyone does good work. Some times people are just lazy. Some times mistakes are made. Some times people miscommunicate. There are literally hundreds of plausible reasons that don't involve conspiracies that I can think up and I'm not even in the business. All of them are far more plausible than any such conspiracy.
        • ozid, on 05/11/2008, -7/+9obviously it was more than one frame. the logo spins away and "reveals" john mccain, and you cant animate one frame.

          its not like they threw it in there like tyler durden in fight club.
          • TheGuruStud, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5but they did tor the same effect
          • therightclique, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2no. what he was saying is the shot of john mccain itself is a single frame. like a still shot.
        • sassip, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Dyce, you are absolutely correct. I have worked in broadcast for years. I once slowed down the Madonna "Poppa don't preach," video. There was one frame of a "wardrobe malfunction" at the end - a nipple slip. It did not get there by accident! Neither did JMC... somebody, not saying it was management, put it there...
          • quesi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2link to the nipple shot
          • sassip, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It was BL - before links. Don't have it anymore, but I would bet it's there on copies people have.
    • thear, on 05/11/2008, -53/+13Know-it-all liberal,

      This is not the same "Fox News".
      • bigsimpsin, on 05/11/2008, -12/+38I am not liberal. I am just smart enough to see how biased almost any media can be, with any branch of Fox news being high on the list.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1How does that compare to, say, internet news?
    • MikeXpop, on 05/11/2008, -20/+112FOX News != Local FOX affiliate
      • Spinfusor, on 05/11/2008, -3/+25True, but WNYW is owned by News Corp.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/11/2008, -8/+38Actually, all you have to do is a tiny bit of research to find out you're full of *****. News Corp own Fox Entertainment Group. Fox Entertainment Group owns Fox Televisision Stations Group. WNYW (Fox 5) is one of the television stations in that group. So, it is the same.
        • heliox, on 05/11/2008, -12/+8OMG its a ***** conspiracy !!!!! Does Fox own Dibold and Halliburton too ????
        • patthew, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9That was a bit abrasive.
        • Pillage, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10And the government owns the money that NewsCorp makes...oh my god, someone call Jeff Goldblum!
          • alecks, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Actually, the Federal Reserve owns the money... which despite its name, is a PRIVATE entity. The government just borrows money from it.

            Didn't you watch Zeitgeist?
        • masterm1nd, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4That still does not make FOX News Chanel = Local FOX Affiliate. If you think some conspiracy goes all the way down to the local fox stations you have already lost it.
          • SpudgeBoy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Sorry if you can't see what is right in front of your face. A lot of Germans were ignorant to what was going on around them. It is your problem, not mine.
      • goudreauj, on 05/11/2008, -2/+18Fox Force 5
      • Papajohn56, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8MikeXpop got it right. It may be owned by News Corp, but it's independently operated. I love how you digg conspiracy theorists jump out whenever fox news is mentioned
        • SpudgeBoy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Marching orders come from News Corp. That is why you own a media conglomorate, not so they can all be independant.
    • ufia, on 05/11/2008, -30/+14It's a conspiracy! The jew's controlled media is controlling our mind. Alex Jones has been warning us for years, you wouldn't listen.
      • Ne007, on 05/11/2008, -4/+7You know what? ***** YOU!
      • therightclique, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure they don't allow jews to exist at Fox News.
    • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -14/+6Fox News ≠ Fox 5 News (hey, you live in washington too huh?) but
      I tend to stay away from all the foxy stations, just for sanity. :)
      • sevenslashfour, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Same channel in New York, too :P
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/11/2008, -4/+11Fail.

        News Corp own Fox Entertainment Group. Fox Entertainment Group owns Fox Televisision Stations Group. WNYW (Fox 5) is one of the television stations in that group.
        • shampoozleberry, on 05/11/2008, -5/+3you like to make people feel bad about themselves, dont you? why? is it really necessary to be rude over such a innocuous comment? are you compensating for an extremely small penis? keep diggin buddy. maybe you can bury/report/block your way to happiness.
          • shampoozleberry, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1yes, just bury me too. itll make daddy love you, i promise.
          • SpudgeBoy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Guess what else? I don't care what you think or how you feel or what you care about.
        • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2no man, I didn't take that personally, it was a welcome bit of information. Okay, so now I know my instincts were good, I should avoid the other white meat :)
      • gwolf, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Corporate media is corporate media, I don't care who has the pink slip.
        • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1pink? Have you seen television recently? What, outside of the Style channel, has a chance in hell of wearing pink?
    • canUdi9it, on 05/11/2008, -9/+48Subliminal ads vote mccain don't really work. When are people going to realize vote mccain that they are just an urban legend?
      • therightclique, on 05/11/2008, -8/+7wow. whatever you were trying to do didn't work at all.
    • bunit03057, on 05/11/2008, -6/+14To clear up the confusion about Fox Entertainment, since these comments about local affiliates are common and make little sense. Fox News Channel is the one with the obvious conservative bias. Local news stations usually vary in their bias, if they have any, since they are simply operated by Fox TV Stations. FNC and FTS are two separate subsidiaries of News Corporation.
      • bigsimpsin, on 05/11/2008, -10/+6I don't understand what everybody is saying? The logo says Fox News. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I took that as meaning it is fox news.
        • therightclique, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3it does. these people are just idiots.
      • bunit03057, on 05/11/2008, -5/+11They call the station Fox 5 because they are not FOX News. They are a NY based news station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYW
        This is the Fox News you hate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel as you can see in the entry they are criticized for being conservative biased.

        FTA: "This sign off would later be shortened to Fox News, then later it became Fox 5 News, as to avoid confusion with the Fox News Channel. Ironically, recent changes made to WNYW's logo and newscasts (effective April 2006) bear a close stylistic resemblance to the Fox News Channel."
        • damndj, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11I hope that was sarcasm.

          From the Wiki you posted yourself:
          "WNYW, channel 5, is the flagship television station of the News Corporation-owned Fox Broadcasting Company,"

          To me, anything under the News Corp name has Rupert Murdoch's tainted fingers on it. WNYW = Fox News.
      • Carmilla07, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6Seriously anyone who thinks that FOX news affiliates all have a conservative bias need to watch the LA FOX news affliiate which is extremely liberal.
    • JerMe, on 05/11/2008, -11/+7C'mon, people. Do you think that McCain and Co. would allow shows such as The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad? Your local Fox stations are NOT the same as Fox News (foxnews.com). I'm all for Obama but this is ridiculous. This is along the same lines as the other story where McCain held the mic upside down for 2 seconds.

      As for the video, McCain's image could have been inserted because the creator was simultaneously working on a McCain clip that day, i.e., if my boss put me in charge of making a Fox 5 News animation logo at the same time I was assigned to make a McCain clip for that night's evening news, then I'd just throw in an image for the ***** of it. Maybe the creator liked McCain, maybe the creator thought McCain looked like an ass in that shot. Who knows, and who cares? It doesn't mean anything, much less subliminal ***** or trying to assert that Fox 5 News backs McCain.
      • bigsimpsin, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1I know that this isn't faux news, but it is Fox News, not the big republican one.
      • Intercon, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Sorry friend. Can't vouch for the veracity of this footage, but if it's real, it looks like exactly what it is: the use of media to program a response in the viewing audience. This type of mind control has been in use since the soap oera was invented, and this subliminal technique is not an uncommon one. Do a little research and you'll discover that this type of image-response technique was not outlawed when once there was a public outcry against it in Congress.

        At face value, another dump on an exceedingly large and stinky pile of evidence that Fox News is the official ministry of propaganda for the new mode of government by renegade criminal businessmen.
        • sassip, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2After watching that clip, I feel the need for Popcorn, no... to go hunting or something...
    • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -2/+41I don't *john* see *mccain* the problem. Perhaps you are imagining *vote republican* things or *hillary evil woman* you may have had *obama eats children* too much coffee or something.
    • ifruit, on 05/11/2008, -14/+12I saw a picture of Obama's ***** in the digg logo.
    • Shuukyoku, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Is anyone shocked though? I mean, take a second sometime while you're watching FOX news and see how many American flag logos they flash you in a ten minute window. Especially during the O'Reilly Factor. I mean, its FOX, an animal who's name is literally part of a verb that means to deceive "outfoxed". Also its run by the evil Bizzaro world version of Hugh Hefner, which just makes it all the more evil.
      • bigsimpsin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If it is the opposite of Hugh (Awesome) then it is ***** (*****)
    • Cige, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Has anyone even checked if this is a consistent thing they do? Some news shows vary the clips in their introductions from day to day, it could be that this one just happened to be Mc Cain. I don't like FOX much, but I can't imagine them trying subliminal messaging.
    • Gabberwok, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I think this was just to make up for the Simpsons episode on Fox during the 2000 election... Bart's message on the wall was "I will not send subliminAl messaGOREs" (if only it had worked...)
  • wtfersk8s, on 05/11/2008, -66/+1026those mother *****
    • wm2010russ, on 05/11/2008, -23/+161yeah, thank god someone caught this, after i watched that intro i had this sudden urge to vote for john mccain. wow, i sure am glad that we've exposed their devious plot of subliminally getting me to vote for him!
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -12/+67OK. So, according to you, this is acceptable, then? I mean, whatever the reasons for this image being in that graphic, you think it is fine, yeah? Just want to get clarity on that.
        • wolferz, on 05/11/2008, -17/+13Fine? More like trivial. Perhaps even irrelevant.
        • MasterGrief, on 05/11/2008, -7/+12Don't get me wrong, I hate Fox just as much as the next digger, but is it really necessary to freak out over THIS? It seems pretty obvious to me that it's just an error. Just because Fox is full of non-news and is always pushing an agenda does not mean that they're trying to brainwash you to vote for McCain with three-frame-long instances of his photo.
          • crossmr, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3you give them far too much credit...
          • fuhlavaflave, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You're giving them too much credit by suggesting they're subversive subliminal masterminds.
        • wm2010russ, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5yeah, i think its acceptable, im accepting it right now. oh wait, maybe ive just been brainwashed by a 0.3 second clip of john mccains ugly face. no, it doesnt bother me. when the govt starts handing out pills and 3d glasses to watch john mccains head spin around on the tv screen for hours on end, then, maybe, ill be concerned. but if you actually think that this was noticeable, then you are far more attentive than i am, because i had no idea what to look for the first go round.
        • abandonow, on 05/11/2008, -8/+13You do know they advertised coke, popcorn, etc. at cinemaes this way? It's illegal now.
        • Joeyrev, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Is anyone really shocked by this? It's well known that fox news is not an objective source of information. They've spent the last 8 years pushing a republican agenda. Why did you think that suddenly they were going to go neutral for the elections?
        • sonofblacula, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11Tons of psychological studies have shown that subliminal messages don't work. They can sometimes elicit a vague emotion like unease or relaxation, but only with lots of exposure, and they can't make you feel things like "I love McCain" or "Coke tastes good". It's a Hollywood device, not the way the world really works. Psych101 FTW.
          • lintmonkey, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5You're totally right. After watching that intro, I had the sudden urge to vomit.
        • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3I believe it is acceptable. Anyone that believes anything in the news or watches it in the first place gets what they deserve. ;-)
        • sherbertbones, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4Wow a news channel showing a presidential candidate? Call in the national guard! It's a conspiracy!

          If it was Obama, you poons wouldn't be saying anything.
      • iiDLii, on 05/11/2008, -2/+23for those not worried about subliminal advertising: Derren Brown - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
        • therightclique, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4It's really too bad that they don't spend much time explaining how they did it. It makes it seem 100% like a shame. I don't buy it for a second.
          • nosecohn, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6What are you talking about? The whole last 30 seconds shows how they planted all the imagery in the subjects' heads. I was laughing my ass off. Great video.
        • MH94, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Kudos on the vid! Very informative and thought worthy. Makes you wonder how many times you've been manipulated like that without knowing.
        • rlbond86, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Except Derren Brown has admitted that some of his shows are fake, and are just to get people thinking.

          In his book Tricks of the Mind, Brown writes, "I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_brown#Criticis ...
        • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@rlbond86 - That is not an admission that his shows are "fake" (whatever that means). He admits at the beginning of every episode that it isn't actual magic, as it says in your paste, but it also says that he doesn't use any 'stooges'. Every reaction and interaction with his "victims" on the show is supposedly an unscripted/unrehearsed reaction.

          Being dishonest could apply to many of his tricks, such as making people think paper is real money or convincing people he meets on the sidewalk to give him their wallet, etc. Nothing is "fake" (at least not that is proven)
      • slaizer, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4for those still not worried about subliminal advertising: more Derren Brown - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJR_G9p93I
        • pr0nstarr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3That really scares me...holy *****, how much crap has been implanted in my brain? If a short subliminal film can do this to people, how much has my head been f*cked with in the past?? This is the kind of thing that turns me into a paranoid wreck.
      • pr0nstarr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2yeah, but you're (probably) more intelligent than most of the people watching Fox news, who could be influenced by something like this. There are probably a lot of people who previously (until this coming election) didn't give a ***** about politics and are undecided about who they are gonna vote for. If they watch Fox news every day, they might be influenced.
        • fuhlavaflave, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1From my experience, the people who watch Fox News are older than 60 and go to the voting booths in droves. You're pulling this statement out of your ass.
          The people who are going to come out of the woodwork and vote in this election are going to be voting for Obama. Youth and minorities who previously felt they saw no redeeming qualities in either candidate will be getting their asses to the voting booths to vote for "change" and "hope." God help us.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -11/+2-error-
    • carabou, on 05/11/2008, -17/+5I think wm2010russ should take a pill to relax your blind hate for an opposing opinion! Funny how FOX STILL, even with all this venom digg digs up, has the highest cable news ratings! I think people like you and the person that submitted this video should go seek help for spending WAY to much time thinking about a TV station you guys don't even watch!
      • ClemsonPoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Well, there are more old people than Digg users. I love how nobody mentions that no media outlet should endorse, explicitly or implicitly, a presidential candidate from either side.
        • Joeyrev, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1While it is true that news outlets should remain neutral (give facts, let the viewer come up with their own opinion) carabou is right about their high ratings. This is what the people want, and we can bitch about how ***** cable news is, but ultimately they're a business, and enough people support their actions. This is the reason I switched out of a major in journalism.
      • wm2010russ, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1dude... sarcasm. the funny thing about it is you shouldnt HAVE to point it out.
    • RedHerringHack, on 05/11/2008, -16/+6It's been obama and clinton for more than a year, it's about time we saw Mccain.
    • ryan926, on 05/11/2008, -5/+68when you see it you'll ***** bricks.
      • wrongonce, on 05/11/2008, -0/+25I pee-peed lumber. Is that still OK?
      • sonofblacula, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12I did, but only because I eat concrete on my cereal.
    • DayTripper47, on 05/11/2008, -4/+7Nothing unexpected from Fox News.
      • meooow, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Join the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!! ***** the federal reserve!!!!! I cant wait to smoke some pot!
    • pitlord, on 05/11/2008, -14/+8You idiots seriously can't tell that the guy who "found" this obviously added in those pictures himself?
      O.O
      Just slow it down yourself and you can see that the frame with the McCain picture doesn't fit with the rest of the video.
      -_-
      I call Shenanigans. I'm sure there is plenty of REAL dirt that could be dug up against McCain. Is this REALLY the worst you could find?
      • austiiinnnn, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1You're a ***** idiot.
        Go suck McCain's old shrively penis.
    • chillmandan, on 05/11/2008, -4/+12Yes, because the American people won't be inundated with images of Obama and McCain for the next 5 months or anything. I'm sure this one image will turn the tide of the election.
      • Troy64, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1And now that it has been on Digg all of you have been exposed! Ha Ha Ha (evil laugh). Now McCain and Fox News can rule the world.
    • Skitals, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12People need to chill the ***** out. I hate fox news just as much as anyone, but I hate the conspiracy theories even more. This is clearly a case or poor live studio switching. The intro graphic got cut short. It's not meant to be some subliminal message. If you watched the whole intro, what's not to say there weren't also pics of other candidates? Just like commercials, the beginnings and ends of these things get cut off ALL THE TIME. NO CONSPIRACY!
    • oinker262, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6and on mother's day too.

      Damn them.
  • jaychuck, on 05/11/2008, -135/+22I'd say "nice find" or something, but it's the number one link at Reddit right now, sooooooooo..............yeah.
    • oneoverzero, on 05/11/2008, -2/+32It's still a nice find for the person who made the video.
    • defectDS, on 05/11/2008, -2/+42"This is my way of trying to persuade Digg that Reddit is better and yet I have no idea why I am on Digg in the first place, soooooooo.... yeah."

      Good god people. There is no contest. News is news.
    • itsthebrod, on 05/11/2008, -1/+30Sooooooooooooo I've never visited Reddit and I don't intend to so what the ***** does that have to do with this story on this site?
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8You should write a letter to digg, tell them to take down the story at once.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 05/11/2008, -42/+709Obviously you are forgetting that Fox News is fair and balanced. There were an equal number of introductions which DIDN'T use brainwashing techniques to promote John McCain.

    See? Fair and balanced.
    • triscuitbiscuit, on 05/11/2008, -36/+11This is NOT Fox News...
      How many times are people going to have to state this? They are two different entities!
      • Tyrghast, on 05/11/2008, -6/+27They are a subsidiary of the fox news corporation. They pay to use the name and present Fox-approved stories. On paper they may not be the same company, but in practice they are identical.
    • Stuart750, on 05/11/2008, -1/+20Weazel News!
    • kosser, on 05/11/2008, -3/+16subliminal messaging does not work.
      • Psi57, on 05/11/2008, -0/+17Maybe not, but subliminal priming works great. Ask any psyc researcher, its a great method for manipulating peoples' responses.
        • LBobRife, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Yeah I suggest watching Mind Control with Darren Brown. There's an episode where he does it to a couple of advertisers, to see if he can beat them at their own game. It's amazing the results he gets.
          • slowmotiony, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Derren uses lots of techniques from NLP, advertising, hypnosis, showmanship and other psychology stuff at the same time, none of his tricks depend on one manipulation technique.
      • djlosch, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5someone had to say it. if i could digg you up again, i would.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

        there are tons of experiments that have overwhelmingly found it doesn't work. the worst part is english teachers and psychologists (read: not real doctors) who claim there is some hidden imagery and lead people to guess and wonder wtf is going on in some picture. my roommate in undergrad was a psych major and he always talked about how it was hogwash and they used some phrase like "no reception without perception."

        face it. alladin didn't make me want to go get naked.
        • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5I have made it work numerous times. Some of my coworkers and I made a powerpoint slideshow that had hidden screens that displayed for milliseconds and we made people do the things in the slides. Just because the PR machine makes documents that say their tactics don't work doesn't mean that it is true. Also, if it didn't work, then marketing companies would not embed it in millions of ads. Almost every ad on tv sells more than one thing. If you don't believe me, make a game of it and you will see when you start looking for it.
        • Syroch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Maybe Alladin didn't make *you* want to get naked, but don't speak for the rest of us.

          I mean...er...keep watching Fox 5 News... >_>
        • Issius, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1microchp: You can see anything once you start looking for it. Please, go put your tinfoil hat on and go sit down somewhere away from people so that you don't accidentally lower their IQ or something with one of your rants.
      • zazzalicious, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I keep seeing that and now, strangely, I believe it to be true...
      • Errdoth, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2subliminal messaging does not work.
      • Razormane11, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't say it doesn't work at all. Check out youtube for a guy named Derren Brown. Hes a mind illusionist and he is damn good. Watch a few of his videos then tell me its all *****.
    • anliath, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1I think the majority of fox news aficionados have all ready made their minds up about who gets their vote...
    • Alegoo92, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1They use a republican presidential candidate in one of their many montages?
      I'm just as shocked
    • adamchristopher, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4in all fairness, not every "fox" station is owned or even affiliated with THE fox news. i used to work at Fox 12 KPTV in portland and its owned by the meredith corporation who publishes better homes and garden. this looks like a sloppy job of using a transition off an old piece of video the just happens to be mccain.

      . . . aaaaand on that note, ***** fox news.
  • anarchitecton, on 05/11/2008, -44/+272*****.
    • thedragon4453, on 05/11/2008, -1/+22is it really? This doesn't seem beyond the MInistry of Truth to me.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7I have the strongest desire to vote for McCain now...I don't know why...
    • poopdigger, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I for one, am not surprised.
    • greystill, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10I can believable.
      • tyywebb, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1For a pair of speaker.
      • FatLoser, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1i can haz believubal
      • FatLoser, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2ugg, that's the first time i ever gave into the lolcatz temptation... i feel so dirty... and alive
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5It's not like republicans have ever pulled anything like this before.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Haha, you just referred to a news station as "the republicans".
    • shawntempesta, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11Actually, it is ***** because it was edited.

      a) "Right Now on Fox 5 News" is actually "Right Now on Fox 5 News at Ten"...but it happens to stop RIGHT when they cut to the anchors.
      b) That "Right Now" graphic shows the Legal ID (the call letters of the station on the bottom of the screen) which means it was shown at the top of the hour.
      c) it IMMEDIATELY cuts...the audio died IMMEDIATELY...and magically the bug at the bottom (the logo) shows 10:14pm...right around the time they would be coming back from their first commercial break.

      It's an edit. I know I'm an over-attention paying digg douche that'll get dugg down for taking ***** like this seriously, but I work in TV. This had ***** written all over it. Fox News Channel sucks, but the local affiliates do have their own delivery and aren't Republican mouthpieces.
      • delfin1, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1good work.

        and even if it was true, it is still lame.
    • estate, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I disagree. It's entirely believable. More's the pity.
    • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/FOX_tries_sublim ...
  • rivalius13, on 05/11/2008, -19/+190SMOKE!
  • MercyPolitics, on 05/11/2008, -41/+59Not surprising at all....McCain is the guy of big corporate America and the heir of W.
    • Ne007, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4Why all the negative diggs on that comment? SPOT ON!
    • ogbar, on 05/11/2008, -8/+4you Are joking right? or are you assuming that because Mccain is a republican that he is pro business? and Heir of G.W.? are you kidding me? he has been against G.W. on Tons of issues. this kind of generalization astounds me.
      • phike, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7You must've been hiding under a rock for the last 12 months.....but to catch you up, McCain now supports keeping the Bush tax cuts, and of course supports the worst mistake in the history of the United States (the Iraq War, if it wasn't obvious to you).
  • Jekkonidae, on 05/11/2008, -92/+49Do you people ever stop and listen to your whining sometimes? Who the ***** cares, I mean really?
    • JanYpe, on 05/11/2008, -18/+17Seriously. As if the vast majority of Fox News viewers didn't already have McCain as their preferred candidate. Oh god they're exposing us to .5th of a second of McCain! Those Fox bastards are Goebbels reincarnate!

      Thank goodness their dastardly manipulations were uncovered.
      • gutistg, on 05/11/2008, -4/+14This isn't Fox News it's local news.

        The problem isn't who sees it, or it's effect on the viewer.

        The problem is that it undermines this local station's journalistic integrity. Sure that may not be important to you, but to us journalists it's a big deal.

        Edit: I just realized that, as a local news station, it's more likely that they just ***** up than that they did this intentionally.
        • ronaldst, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Journalistic integrity? Are you for real?
          • gutistg, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Assuming this is a mistake:

            Now that this video has been dugg someone might phone in a complaint to the station. Whoever made this mistake would most likely be fired and unable to work in the field of journalism ever again.
          • ronaldst, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2@qutistq

            Journalists have "integrity" in your country?
    • Thefatheroftime, on 05/11/2008, -4/+6Sleep Jekkonidae...sleeeeeeeeep.
    • exronin, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4sheep
    • Kronk42583, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3i'm with you man. the bitching is endless. this isnt a surprise to anyone... so why does this ***** keep clogging up the top 10?? some peple just have to get a grip and prioritize.
  • Ducksa, on 05/11/2008, -27/+10You've got to be ***** with me
  • patricktu, on 05/11/2008, -98/+578The intro sequence just shows whatever footage is being played underneath the logo. They must have played the wrong clip then switched back to the anchors at the last second.

    Not some secretive brain washing tactics to promote McCain.
    • Clodhopper, on 05/11/2008, -36/+8That's what they want you to think (if you figure it out!)
    • br0ken1128, on 05/11/2008, -49/+14Right... that's why he ends up so nicely positioned next to the logo, and that's why there just happens to also be his wife in another clip to to the right..

      get a clue
      • UnWeave, on 05/11/2008, -6/+16Yeah, because showing me a picture of him and his wife is going to make me want to vote for him. OH WAIT, SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. It looks a hell of a lot more like they just played the wrong clip underneath it, particularly as the image sort of "sweeps" in, doesn't just flash up for a fraction of a second.

        You get a clue.
      • dexter411, on 05/11/2008, -1/+24Uh... the picture of his wife is because it's the same picture. Husbands and wives do sometimes appear together...
    • rivalius13, on 05/11/2008, -7/+51Well that's no fun!
    • Skootles, on 05/11/2008, -14/+23Using a DVE to make a live intro is not standard practice, and from experience, it would take a team that definately know what they're doing to make it work. Intros are almost always played off of VTRs not in segments and then pieced together, but as a final, whole product.
      • bonk2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Sooo... are you agreeing or disagreeing?
      • mockupscaledown, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Most live broadcast systems are hard disk based and do real-time compositing these days, especially in a large market like NYC.
      • KazamaSmokers, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10VTRs? Newsrooms haven't used VTRs in at least 5 years. Everything is server-based playback now.
        • Skootles, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Plenty of newsrooms use a combination of both servers and VTRs..
      • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8I work in local TV news. The clip store device sends an alpha channel to the switcher. It's clear that the technical director had the wrong source punched up. I'm sure if you would have seen that video again within four stories. The sad thing is that the person who submitted the clip knows damn well what they are really seeing.
    • Regbooker, on 05/11/2008, -22/+176This is Digg, get your logic out of here and blindly support Obama, or attain to the consequences!.
      • nakani, on 05/11/2008, -4/+12Ron Paul is dead; long live Ron Paul
      • ligyron, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10I haven't been on that much lately. Do we still chant Ron Paul, or is it Obama now?
        • twertyto, on 05/11/2008, -0/+15No, we chant OM NOM NOM NOM for president now.
        • Dazer, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5And Obama for Vice-President.
    • aenima987, on 05/11/2008, -11/+10so how much did they pay you eh?
    • mockupscaledown, on 05/11/2008, -2/+36Thank you for using some logic. Now if the video showed that McCain was consistently showing up in the logo, and not just this once, it might be due for a small discussion. But a logo with an alpha channel getting comped over a clip they were probably cuing up for that broadcast? Buried.
      • khyberkitsune, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3So I just watched FOX here in Redlands - McCain is hiding in the logo as well. It's no surprise since FOX is Republican-owned.
    • malex, on 05/11/2008, -10/+15My guess is that this isn't someone using the "wrong" clip, but a Final Cut Pro editor recycling a previously rendered "flying logo" composition that was covering a McCain story. Note that the sudden cut at the end.

      This isn't psych-ops, but it is embarrassingly amateurish.
      • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5In our news opens we don't render a fresh one each night. It's clear that the clip has an alpha channel and was punched up over the wrong video. The TD then saw the mistake and corrected it by quickly punching the correct source up full cutting off the open animation.
    • ciaran036, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6That's an over-rated digg... None of us know if it was a mistake or not so let's not make assumptions unless we know!
      • mockupscaledown, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1This is the internet, not academia. Assumptions are what we do.
      • mockupscaledown, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1This isn't academia, this is the internet. Assumptions are what we do.
    • Princeamor, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2How gullible can you be?
    • ligyron, on 05/11/2008, -2/+9The only thing hiding in Fox 5 New's logo is the YouTuber's virginity
    • videographer, on 05/11/2008, -9/+4Wrong-O, sport. The open you see is a pre-packaged open, which is played off a server (or, in smaller markets, a videotape machine) to save the video switcher the pain of having to set up and execute multiple effects every time they want to do a "Fox-ified" transition. (Yeah, "Fox-ified" is a common term in TV production for all the flyin' baloney Fox brought on board.) From the open to the anchors on set is just a common dissolve.
      The background of that open was *undoubtably* intentionally chosen. Whether the producer was working on orders from Rupert is another question entirely.
      • lukas88, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2If you watch the video, you can clearly see other artifacts of the footage underneath, like curtains, whatever is down below, and whatever is to the left. If they were going to subliminally suggest things, you'd think it would be a bit more tidy. It could have been what patricktu said or it could have been just some recycled intro with a few bits left over from the first time they used it. On top of that, this is a local fox station, not some nationwide conspiracy to brainwash fox news viewers (if that is even possible, the ownership of a brain implied).
    • shawntempesta, on 05/11/2008, -2/+50I work in TV. THE VIDEO IS A FAKE AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

      a) "Right Now on Fox 5 News" is actually "Right Now on Fox 5 News at Ten"...but it happens to stop RIGHT when they cut to the anchors.
      b) That "Right Now" graphic shows the Legal ID (the call letters of the station on the bottom of the screen) which means it was shown at the top of the hour.
      c) it IMMEDIATELY cuts...the audio died IMMEDIATELY...and magically the bug at the bottom (the logo) shows 10:14pm...right around the time they would be coming back from their first commercial break.

      It's an edit. I know I'm an over-attention paying digg douche that'll get dugg down for taking ***** like this seriously, but I work in TV. This had ***** written all over it.
      • Kronk42583, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12that you bud. and no i don't think you're a douche. all the fake ***** should be exposed and removed. its getting ridiculous.
      • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1I don't quite understand you're argument and would like to point out the description of this submission: "It's undetectable at normal speed, but I was editing this footage in Final Cut Pro and going through it frame-by-frame when I saw this."

        He admits to having edited the footage and it is clear if you watch the video all of the way through that it has been edited... did you account for both of these factors before determining it has to be fake? (ie maybe the indications you are referring to could be from simply cutting some of the recordings or transition from program to commercial?) Also, in one of the replays in this particular video/edit submitted, it seems they have zoomed in (which accounts for the station ID not being visible).

        This footage is obviously and admittedly edited but how certain are you that the images of McCain were inserted post-broadcast?
      • Coolone84, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Dugg for Digg Douche.
      • theright, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You couldn't be more right. If anyone is unfamiliar with the normal intro sequence, watch this (extremely low quality, but you get the idea) clip of a normal WNYW FOX 5 News intro at the top of the hour: http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9akF4mHsD8

        As you can see, a clip of the cover story (or whatever the industry slang is for that) emerges from the top right behind the intro graphic. McCain was obviously the cover story in this instance. The image will have panned out from behind the graphic to full screen, but the uploader of this video has clearly edited that (evidenced by the sound cutting out) out, instead inserting a random studio shot from what appears to be the second part of the show after a split-second of the McCain video, suggesting that the image of McCain was only visible for that split-second.

        Total bunk.
    • tito184, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8***** you and your level headed comment! This is digg!
      *puts tinfoil hat back on focusing all positive thoughts toward Obama*
    • GreenAlien, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Wow. I had to scroll down this far for some common sense.
    • TheChunt, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I see they have already gotten to you.
    • node3, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Apparently you are unaware of just how manipulative Fox News is. For example, their hosts receive daily memos highlighting which words to use for which people or topics.

      They are very, *very* Orwellian in their use of language, and even if this is fake (and I'm not convinced it is), it's fully in line with the sort of evil and manipulative tactics they employ on a daily basis.
    • Coltb, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1exactly what I was thinking its just some random clip and who was so freaked out by that they took the time to put it on youtube
  • RidgeWalker76, on 05/11/2008, -56/+112Fox should be forced to remove "News" from Fox News, to make things more accurate. Or, they could change their name to Republican News, that would be accurate as well. RNC News, Fox Propaganda, Facist Times, Neoconservatism Today.

    Republicans demand standards be set for all sorts of behavior, how about some standards for calling yourself a news organization, the media plays an important role in sustaining a functional Democracy and Fox News actively works to subvert that.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 05/11/2008, -11/+8Wiesel News
    • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2lol Republican News. I want one! We'd have a field day with that.
    • klpowell, on 05/11/2008, -3/+15Are you going to hold CNN and MSNBC to the same standard?
      • burrgrinder, on 05/11/2008, -7/+0Fail troll. If it's a standard, then by definition, they would have to meet the requirements in order to call themselves a news organization.

        Either way, it's impossible to remove bias from reporters. In the end, everyone is still human and will tend to be loyal to where their paychecks come from.
      • RidgeWalker76, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5No, I'm not, because they don't have a liberal bias. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and just about every other major news outlet go right along with what Republicans are saying. Conservative News Network, in particular, has not given Bush a tenth of the negative coverage it gave Clinton during his terms as President.

        The Liberal Media is a myth.
        • IMJGalt, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3If you are not walking on a ridge in the Himalayas what are you high on?
        • TonyLocNE, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3There is some truth to what he was saying, but he just said it wrong.....
          There is a bias in the news, but it is a liberal/neoconservative bias.
          They're all vultures that pray on the weak and uneducated.
    • diamondbigdog, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4And what would we call CBS, you know the ones with the forged documents and all...
      Maybe See BS
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5I think you are mixing up fox news channel with a local fox affiliate.
    • ultar6, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1They used to have such standards and called it the 'Fairness Doctrine'. Republicans hated it, did away with it, then blocked attempts to revive it - paving the way for Rush.
    • fuhlavaflave, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3RIght, cuz' Olbermann is a bastion of journalistic integrity.

      /gets all his news from the Huffington Post, just like all of you guys!
  • davidlyness, on 05/11/2008, -29/+19Who ***** cares? The majority of news stations put pictures behind their logos / title screens which can be obscured by the foreground stuff. John McCain is big in the news at the moment. I'm sure Obama is lurking behind the '5'.
    • nylrym, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0Because it might violate 'equal time' constraints?
    • ultar6, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0There are no equal time constraints. If there is a problem, it's with how quickly they flash the images - too quick to register consciously with viewers. There's been all sorts of research about the use of this tactic to plant subliminal suggestions - you know, movie theaters including a single frame of snacks to subliminally plant the urge to go to the snack bar.
  • spamcrusher, on 05/11/2008, -38/+19This is a Fox affiliate not so much Fox News, they tend to not be as crazy as the national Fox station. My local Fox affiliate is rather liberal actually, they always seem to support the Obama douche. (Digg me down for calling the messiah of Digg a douche). Good catch though, hopefully somebody explains. PS..McCain is a douche too.
    • mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -3/+13I didn't see you mention Ron Paul (the true messiah of Digg)
      • spamcrusher, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Not really, the peak of the Ron Paul spam on Digg is nothing compared to the Obama spam.
    • dizzythegreat, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Digg you down?
      Sure thing.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Ooh, aren't you cool and cynical.
  • CrazyArcher, on 05/11/2008, -20/+62*****.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/11/2008, -38/+26My guess was satan, but a neocon is pretty close.

    It's a shame people that even people on Digg don't understand who the real enemy is.
    Brainwashing is used to keep the American people enslaved.
    Brainwashing is used to keep the American people from realizing their freedom has been taken away.
    Brainwashing is used to keep the American people from realizing that the elections are rigged in so many ways.
    The media and the United States Government hate your freedom, and they are doing something about it.
    • Ne007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6That seems to be about right....
    • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The problem is... that there are just as many of the propaganda specialists on digg. How would one discern from the true diggers, trollers and "public relations specialists"?
    • yelofnivek, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2lol yes because i saw a clip of john mccain for a half second on fox local news i have been brainwashed and enslaved. *****.
  • e68895f, on 05/11/2008, -13/+34Trust the psy corps. Psy corps is your friend.
    • gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4dugg for babylon 5 reference
      • e68895f, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1only true babylon 5 fans understand why this is relevant.. :)
    • c0un7, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Psy Corps is the mother.
      Psy Corps is the father.
    • Oea420, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The corps is mother.
      The corps is father.

  • lanzemurdok, on 05/11/2008, -10/+60i feel a strange urge to vote for mccain. OH NO IT'S WORKING.
  • radiantstorm, on 05/11/2008, -17/+33The Brave New World is NOW.
    • Jekkonidae, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6You're thinking of 1984
      • Tyrghast, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Nope, this is more an Aldous Huxley-inspired method of propaganda, rather than Orwellian.
    • gnimsh, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2The NWO is NOW
    • miculito, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Bring on the legal drugs and promiscuous sex!
      • gutistg, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I don't think that most people understand the statement being made in Huxley's Brave New World. The Brave New World is a utopia, and it is very clearly defined as such. The phrase is not meant to be used sarcastically.
  • d1a1s1, on 05/11/2008, -20/+10*****
  • wuxia, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5For a second I thought it might be that ass clown Hyun Jin O at Web.com.
  • RBrenner14, on 05/11/2008, -12/+113MUST. VOTE. JOHN MCCAIN. MUST. VOTE. JOHN MCCAIN.
    • JanYpe, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11"So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who will be Miss Universe 2009?"

      McCain! McCain! McCain!
    • MasterGrief, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8ONE OF US
      ONE OF US
      ONE OF US
  • Zandarrr, on 05/11/2008, -9/+25I didn't know subliminal messaging was still in existence.

    Actually it's possible, not likely but possible, that the intro was meant to run longer and there was going to be more visual content but it was cut early for the sake of time.
    • Juano11, on 05/11/2008, -4/+12"Possible, not likely but possible"

      So you'd say that it is MORE likely that this was a conspiratorial subliminal message than a live show's intro being cut short for the sake of time.

      I'd say that it's possible, not likely but possible, that it was an intentional attempt to insert a subliminal message, but that it is MUCH more likely that the inro was simply cut short.
      • GreenAlien, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yes. If it happened on more than one intro, which would indicate it was manually edited in, then they'd have my attention.
    • Princeamor, on 05/11/2008, -6/+2Not Likely? Are you nucking futs? Wake up and look around you, you've been missing out on a lot... check out www.prisonplanet.com
      • akamurph, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I love you conspiracy theory diggtards!! Keep it going!!
    • sherbertbones, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Everyone is trying to get YOU! OOGA BOOGA BOOGAAA!

      Get a life
      • darlingt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Here! Hurry! I've got an extra tinfoil hat... put it on, quick!
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The clip has an alpha channel and was punched up over the wrong video. The TD then saw the mistake and corrected it by quickly punching the correct source up full cutting off the open animation.
    • sagat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It's Fox 5 News NYC and environs probably the bluest part of the nation when it comes to presidential elections. It would take a lot more than flashing Mc Cain's ancient mug to change that.
  • smacksaw, on 05/11/2008, -18/+250That's what happens when you hire Jon Lovitz to do your video editing.

    As someone who used to do TV production, I can say that when we couldn't find a master tape or were just lazy we'd re-use things like that. Chance of it being subliminal? 5%. Chance of it being total laziness? 9500000%

    Sorry to bust anyone's bubble, but I'm sure there are people who will make an entire conspiracy theory about this whole thing because...well, some people just like to "find fault" in that way. Hyper-critical people are just going to do that. Truthers, away!
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -10/+4Wrong tape? Graphics like these are in the digital domain these days. *****, even when I worked at the BBC in the 90s, the logo was generated in real time by a dedicated little computer. Re-using a tape in this day and age.. you mean disks, or files, yeah? They're re-using some other graphic that's gonna be used on a different broadcast or something. Seems pretty weird to me. It's obviously a ***** up of some kind.. unless there's some self-styled éminence grise up there in the control room who *believes* subliminal messaging works. There are crazies everywhere, you know, people who believe a lot of nonsense, I mean look at that guy in the White House.
      • Skootles, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Amazingly enough, MANY stations worldwide still use tapes, and for good reason, too.
    • zymosis, on 05/11/2008, -24/+9Buried for using 9500000% like a 5 year old. Up next: "Infinity plus one better".
    • nthpro, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8I worked as a chyron/tape op for a year at the end of 2005. This isn't a subliminal message. Either the designer of the graphic was lazy (most likely) or the way that graphic was set up it was suppposed to blend with whatever was on the other channel. They probably had a b-roll tape qued from the past or next story and the person running the board forgot to turn that channel off. FYI the BBC has considerably MORE money than a local station as they are government supported. PBS in the US often times have the nicest equipment and studios as well.
      • Lazydriver, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Not in Vegas. We get the stereotypical "public broadcast" news shows ala the 90s, which is a shame, cause PBS does great reporting.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/11/2008, -12/+3Well let me tell you something smacksaw.
      Do you like giving handjobs? No?
      Do you like getting handjobs? Yes?

      Well that makes you a ***** hypocrizer too, so shut the ***** up and smoke my weed.
    • GhostyBoy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Truthers can be extremely skeptical. This skepticism is why I don't make assumptions about this clip.

      It could be intentional, it could not. There is absolutely no one to determine the intention (if any) of the video editor.
    • Borgcube, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1So, the chances that it was because of the laziness are greater than probability of any other possible outcome of anything in the entire universe?
    • Pillage, on 05/11/2008, -6/+6No! it's a conspiracy, EVERYTHING FOX DOES IS EEEEVIL.

      OBAMA '08!
    • Miamisun, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Think ya mean Kevin Nealon as he was Mr. Subliminal on SNL
      • smacksaw, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Yes...I got my two most hated SNL "Golden Age" players confused there, thank you.
        • Miamisun, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Oh man i can see the hate for Lovitz but ya didnt like Nealon. There hasnt been a better weekend update host since IMO. Not Fallon, Fey, or Norm(although i did like norm a lot)
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2It's clear that the clip has an alpha channel and was punched up over the wrong video. The TD then saw the mistake and corrected it by quickly punching the correct source up full cutting off the open animation.
    • caza332, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9Chance of your percentages being accurate: 9500005%
    • node3, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but you didn't work for Fox News, so your experience at a legitimate news station doesn't carry over. It's like saying Belichick wouldn't cheat because your t-ball coach was honest.
  • oneoverzero, on 05/11/2008, -17/+26Just a question, but has subliminal messaging actually been proven to work?

    I mean, Fox News obviously thinks it has, but I'm honestly curious, this is pretty far out of my range of expertise.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12There's a lot of differing theories and research, but to cut a long story short, this kind of subliminal message (flash-frames, blipverts, whatever you wanna call 'em) don't do *****. A subject has to be prepared or in a controlled environment.
      • xedd, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Links? Evidence to support your statement, please?
      • Malarie, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"A subject has to be prepared or in a controlled environment."
        checked.
    • kixxster, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10its kind of impossible to make it work actually, there's a threshold of consciousness or something [trying to remember AP psych from hs] and you have to be conscious enough of it to notice, and then it isn't subliminal anymore, by definition....
      • NoData, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2completely untrue. go look up implicit priming.
    • fanclerks, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Didn't MythBusters do a show on this or stuff that's close to it? Basically they found that for anything subliminal to work the person has to be willing to do it. I know they did an episode about hypnosis, but I think that's along the same lines.
    • xedd, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9Here's something interesting: "By subliminally priming or preparing the participant with text or an image without being aware of it, gave the partaker familiarity with the product. Half of his participants were subliminally primed with Lipton Ice ("Lipton Ice" was repeatedly flashed on a computer screen for 24 milliseconds), while the other half was primed with a control that did not consist of a brand. In his study he found that subliminally priming a brand name of a drink (Lipton Ice) made those who were thirsty want the Lipton Ice. Those who were not thirsty however, were not influenced by the subliminal message since their goal was not to quench their thirst."

      from: "^ Karremans, J. (2006). Beyond Vicary’s Fantasies: the impact of subliminal priming and brand choice [Electronic Version]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 792-798"
    • ciaran036, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4Yes it is proven to work. Look it up. Derren Brown did an episode illustrating the enormous power of subliminal messages on our subconscious in the way it shapes our opinions and thoughts.
    • macunderdog, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Actually yes. They use to flash the words Coke or Popcorn for like a frame or two during movies in the theaters and people would actually get the craving for them. But they banned the use of subliminal frames for advertising in movies. But filmmakers use subliminal cuts of like 2-3 frames in like psychological thrillers and such. But they are not advertisements. For example, if you are watching a thriller, the filmmaker can insert a skull and bones image to psychologically foreshadow an event that is about to occur. etc...
      • nextyoyoma, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I don't think anecdotal "proof" is what he was looking for.
      • Oea420, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I find that very disorienting..

        I actually just recently watched a movie that did that.. I think it was Sunshine.. when it went all ***** at the end ( first 2/3rds was cool as hell tho) flashing some crazy gory frames that made me really uneasy
    • Archcoder, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, Osama, weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, Osama, weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, Osama, weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, Osama, weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, Osama.

      Children.
      • blackjack75, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't the subliminal version include an Obama somewhere in the middle?
    • tk0680, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The navy has three sorts of recruitment drives. Subliminal, liminal and superliminal. Hey you! Join the navy!
    • SimonJohnson, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Derren Brown is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
    • adonison, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2 The most popular study that confirmed that subliminal messaging works was found to be unscientific, the guy who ran the experiment was a marketer who was trying to sell his idea to the movie theater industry. Until his experiment was debunked it was widely accepted that subliminal messaging works. Now it is unclear as there are conflicting results in experimentation.

      Source: My marketing professor
  • xero040486, on 05/11/2008, -15/+55This hardly qualifies as a jedi mind trick. If you honestly believe that a split second image of McCain will brainwash you into voting for him, you probably need to add an extra layer to your tin foil hat.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6The question is not whether it really would work (it wouldn't) but the motivations of the technicians who made it. What is the reason for this error, is it just the wrong graphic, or does some nutjob up there in a suit really think this kind of ***** might work and he's ordered some poor schmo to make it so? After the crazy ***** we've seen from people who really should know better, can you really rule it out?
    • Psi57, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3These aren't the droids you're looking for.
    • ciaran036, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1That's a very ignorant comment. Nobody thought it was a jedi mind trick. There were some concerns related with subliminal messages and mind control. But that has got nothing to do with tinfoil hats, which are a ridiculous and wrong assumption or stereotype for anyone that says anything that isn't what everyone else says.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2Except they show that logo every 2 minutes during a news broadcast and during commercials. 30 times an hour and every half hour or so during primetime and every few hours on the weekend....
    • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1Layer added. While it will not work on me, it will certainly work on a percentage of people. Look up the studies if you don't believe me (or you work for the PR department). Either way, it is a proven tactic and it works. It worked during and after WWII on Americans, English, Russians and Germans.
    • catwoman2970, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I don't see what the big deal is. It moved so fast that to me it just looked like random film footage. I didn't even recognize McCain or his wife. If it were another presidential candidate, I don't think anyone would be bitching. If FOX 5 has an agenda, then people can simply stop watching.
    • Chaos12, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Do you peope not know what subliminal advertising means?
  • vw2005, on 05/11/2008, -18/+1This is Fox News with the latest liberal outrage! It seems liberals want to give NASA the right to abort space missions whenever they feel like it!
  • hikaruzero, on 05/11/2008, -10/+58This isn't that big, guys. If you look closely at the rest of the blue that covers over the McCains, it's a "pivoting" type of logo. It swings around, eventually revealing the background and reporters. Chances are, McCain just happened to be on the big screen in the studio and they put the logo over top of that studio shot.

    Sometimes I think you guys read too much into it. If the above is the case (which is highly likely), we all know that Fox News covers McCain and them so much that you'll rarely see anything else, 'cept for poor stories about puppies caught in the rain.
    • Gutterpunk, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1Yes because a news report on McCain would have him standing in the far top right corner of the screen. Unless we see the original footage, we'll go with what we know about Fox News.
  • TheAtomicMoose, on 05/11/2008, -11/+13this isn't fox news, this is new york's fox five news... does this still have the same super conservative reputation?
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8It would seem all the stupid people just don't see or don't care that this is a local newscast.
    • Technobull, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0You are correct, but from what I have seen in Kansas City some of the local Fox stations were dramatically converted to the conservative side...please note KC is not a conservative town. They would in fact blend in Fox News Net stories on occasion. So, umm...yeah it could possibly still have the reputation. Granted I am generalizing from one other fox station, but there you have it...my 2 cents.
  • gamename14, on 05/11/2008, -13/+10Let alone watching close enough to catch this, why was anyone watching Fox "News" in the first place?
    • pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -8/+6cause its better
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/11/2008, -7/+3They want to be a good little sheeple, and parrot what the neocons tell them to parrot.
  • Jekkonidae, on 05/11/2008, -19/+15Or... Here's a crazy idea. Stop posting on digg like you know everything in the world and getting off on how terribly witty and enlightening your comment was. Now, go out and do something. Get together a friggin rally or something. March on Washington. You're a bunch of pussies.
    • RidgeWalker76, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Your comment is neither witty, nor enlightening. Besides that, you've accomplished nothing with that post either. So, maybe you should take your own advice?
      • Jekkonidae, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1Yeah... I don't live in America; Jack-ass.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2You first.
    • Tyrghast, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1***** that, Id rather watch TV and eat McDonalds and pay my taxes on time and repeat the mantra "I am free!"
    • SDL486, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Jekkonidae, you sound like friggen idiot
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1What good is it to have a bunch of fascist police, and nobody to taser?
    • Yoda900, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1You're right. DIggers should waste less time whining on digg and more time calling their senators, going to rallies, and VOTING.
  • bernoulliv2, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3very attentive. I'm impressed.

    But does this really matter in the state of New York. Obama is aloof and disarming as mayor Bloomberg, and considering how big a hit Mr. Bloomberg is, and the fact that McCain is a republican (sort of, as of recently i guess), this will at best do what?

    nothing.
  • dOOBiEx213, on 05/11/2008, -19/+14There's no ***** way this was a coincidence. Would this ever happen with an Obama clip? ***** you Fox, ***** you.
    • klpowell, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4For one this this is a My Fox 5 clip not a "Fox News Channel" These are independent stations and in case you haven't noticed by the programing Fox Network no where near as conservative as FNC. They may be the same owners but they are independent business units with different management.
  • Lyph5, on 05/11/2008, -10/+47You guys know that local fox news has nothing to do with Fox News, right? Local affiliate news shows are nowhere near as 'fair and balanced' as Fox News 24/7 channel.
    • willywong, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3That's what they've been brainwashing you to think.
    • cowtown, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Dallas-Fort Worth's Fox 4 is actually owned directly by Newscorp, and if anything, its coverage is a bit left of center.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2It's worth watching Outfoxed to hear from actual anchors and station owners how Fox News has "nothing" to do with local affiliates.
      • Bologner, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Because thats not biased or anything.
    • audioscience, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Exactly. People need to understand that most Fox AFFILIATES are not owned by Newscorp/Fox. Some are yes but those that aren't have no direct ties to "Fox News". It merely means they air the Simpsons and Family Guy on Sundays and the newsroom is run however the news director sees fit.
    • videographer, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1However, Fox5 in New York *is* owned by News Corporation.
  • Lenbot, on 05/11/2008, -18/+15You live in a Free Country!

    ...... That brainwashes you to do what your told
    • xero040486, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12If you're seriously that easy to brainwash, I have a powerpoint presentation I'd like you to watch.
    • anliath, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0A freedom exists not to watch Fox news. Although I agree it still should keep its opinion in the non-subliminal field
    • Goblin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2YOU ARE FREE (to do as we tell you)
      /Bill Hicks
  • mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -5/+15I don't think they have to subliminally convince anyone watching FOX to vote for McCain... just saying
    • ciaran036, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Well we'll just see how many people will vote for McCain when the time comes around...
  • rossisdead, on 05/11/2008, -15/+7So did anyone actually see this live on TV? Because it's clearly some retard on YouTube who took the logo segue for a John McCain piece and did a terrible job of splicing it into a different piece.

    The people who buy into this sorta thing absolutely astound me.
    • anliath, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0some one has had their eye lips taped open...
    • rossisdead, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Uh, so why the hell am I being dugg down for this?
  • mparker7410, on 05/11/2008, -5/+8Must vote McCain...
  • Shade2074, on 05/11/2008, -7/+27I thought subliminal advertisements were illegal in the US??
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/11/2008, -0/+25They are.
      • Lyph5, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14Which is the same thing as outlawing Unicorns. It has never been proven to work.
      • Intercon, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Sorry to burst your bubble, but I could find no source for your assertion. Fair as I can tell, subliminal advertising was never addressed in actual legislation. Unless you can site a source, I say, Bollocks!
        • db0255, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it's protected under Constitutional Law....I took that class I just don't remember how they decided on it.
      • Csense, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Can anybody cite any statute outlawing the use of subliminal messaging? I have been unable to find any.
    • Intercon, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Sorry mate. U.S. sure went on about it in the 70's in Congress, but never did a damn thing, near as I can tell.
    • sherbertbones, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Maybe cuz this is not a subliminal advertisement and just a coincidence?
      • sfacets, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1A coincidence? So some video editor just mistakenly dropped in 4 frames of McCain and wife while he was working on the intro sequence?
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3If it was subliminal you would have not been able to see it.
    • audioscience, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Hmm, last a checked a show open isn't an advertisement...
      • sfacets, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It is - technically it promotes the upcoming show.
  • Wangarang, on 05/11/2008, -14/+13Where is your God now?
    • Syroch, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2In the Skybox, eatin' popcorn.
    • NOFXY, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2dude, you give atheists a bad name. wtf does this have to do with god?
  • walkea1, on 05/11/2008, -4/+7Someone should watch to see whether John McCain is underneath every swinging graphic for fox. If he is, THEN you might have something. Otherwise, its just someone trying to stir up hysteria.
  • adammharvey, on 05/11/2008, -1/+22thats what i call really ***** editing, who ever tried to make that look that way is a complete moron and should go back to film school.
    • jobney76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It's clear that the clip has an alpha channel and was punched up over the wrong video. The TD then saw the mistake and corrected it by quickly punching the correct source up full cutting off the open animation.
  • ButlerMonkey, on 05/11/2008, -8/+52As much as I'd love to rag on Fox News, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is an honest mistake on the designer who created that graphic. It looks like that graphic was suppose to key out, or reveal to live footage. So when the designer was creating this animation, he/she probably was using a photo to see how the reveal would look. It may just have happened that the person forgot to turn of the photo layer when rendering out the animation. It's a bad mistake that should have been caught, but maybe the mistake couldn't have been fixed in time for airing.

    That's what my logic tells me, as I'm a motion graphics designer and I've made similar mistakes (all caught before delivering to the client) but it can happen when working long hours or under a ton of stress of a tight deadline.

    Side note, I'm a Canadian living in Australia, so this comment is isn't based on any bias for any of the Presidential candidates just my experience as a motion graphics designer.
    • StabbyClaus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2great comment, I am a motion graphics artist as well and was about to bring up the same argument. Thanks for beating me to it.
    • AQMessiah, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Dugg for being an honest comment but I still find it to be a bit too unlikely.
    • kescape, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Right at the gap with a complete, perfect face of McCain and Cindy for a split second? you can't do a better job to place two heads in that small gap than what's show on the clip. And the news is not even about McCain!
      • Zap2, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1the point is, its possible this intro was going to open to.......John McCain, which makes sense to use his head!
    • jthx1138, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Well said, ButlerMonkey! I worked in local broadcast news for over 10 years and I remember many, many times when the Technical Director had the wrong video underneath the reveal on the news open graphic. The TD would do EXACTLY what you saw on this open, cut or dissolve to the right video source.

      It is called a Cold Open, when the news starts with video of an event rather than the anchors on the screen. It looks like the TD was set up for a