Also
@FAST6191 the video you were posting is about the worst agitation propaganda BS, that I've seen in a while.
The guy narrating it is actually agitated (thats contageous), he tells all of what apparently happened from memory and doesnt show it, while he has a slow mo montage of his 'hero' in the background on silent. He uses 'neurolinguistig programming' as if it were a thing (its pseudo science), and would fit in this case - which it doesnt.... That guy is a moron. Why are you posting that stuff?
On the factual level I might even agree with what is said. Medias job is to 'conjure up' a 'collective moral stance' on issues (Its called taking a stance), that first and foremost they only have to assert. Thats agenda setting. Repeating accusations has an effect (even a subliminal one), but thats a 3000 year old principal, not necessarily NLP.
Whats happening here is, that people that likely have an agenda are forming the public image of that situation and thereby the guy.
But media doing that is in no way a picture book example for PR. F.e. PR usually insnt directed at one guy. Just the same as most PR usually isnt negative PR (attacking the reputation of one guy).
Barely valid contribution to this thread, imho.
But yes - what the media does in the Cummings case, probably follows an agenda, and is intended to produce a certain outcome. But that could as well come from 'we dont like this guy', we dont know the motivation.
edit: "In fact this was westminster elite trying to manipulate the public against the silent majority..." what kind of BS are you listening to here?
Again, while the first part might turn out to be factually true - what the heck is this good vs evil, elites against the 'silent majority' bullcrap? People stand with the guy that said out loud, that he didnt care about those rules all the way? Why? There is a reason why we don hear 'I speak for the silent majority on this' in daily life, because its a statement you cant in any way prove or disprove. Because as soon as people vote, they arent silent, and as soon as they speak out on an issue, because you ask them, they arent silent. This is the most BS phrasing I've heard in a long while.
From now on I'm speaking for the silent majority of people in this forum, in everything I say. Because I said (claimed) it?
The next sentence is what the media did here, would have made Hilter (change two letters) blush. No actually, thats what the guy in the video said. What crap are you posting here?
Then he pronounces a yes/no question a leading question. The question being, do you think that your behavior has caused the public to loose trust in the corona measures. Thats not a leading question.
Then he calls public commentators 'vile left wingers' that were invited to 'stack the deck'. Presenting a book one of them wrote on how migrants became scapegoats. (Which is factual. Cummings is on record saying that without that narrative he couldnt have pulled off brexit.)
What the heck are you posting here?
Next sentence - "then we had smurking leftist brat..." - ok, at this point I'm stoping to watch the video of a moronic angry white guy spewing hate on youtube, because one of his personal heroes got attacked, because the establishment doesnt like him. (And that includes the establishment in his own party.). And you are bringing that angry vitrial second hand? Why?
That said - I'm looking for that press conference/debate with Cummings tomorrow, because now I'm actually interested in what happened there..
edit: Dang it, I watched 30 seconds more of it. "Do you regret what you have done." According to hatefull white guy on youtube is a 'Kafka Trap'. What? A what? That question you hear every week on every press conference where someone is accused of not behaving valiantly. The way to get out of it rhetorically, is to f.e. say, I'm regretting this small small side part of it (by not saying the word regret if you want bonus points), but this is why you got the main aspect wrong, because of obviously this, that and the other thing.
Wow. what a difficult trap of a question to answer... The entire notion, that you cant get out of that rhetorical trap is utter BS. Politicians do it every day. That sort of question gets asked of politicians every day. Its a standard.
While Kafka Trap isnt even a thing, as far as I know. (edit: Googling indicates its an internet meme from 2010. Oh, that scientific?) What the heck?