Manipulations of consciousness, how to read news and who did not sell Model-X to someone

What is the manipulation of the reader's mind necessary for: in order to create in the reader the necessary attitude towards something or someone. An ideal occasion for this is an event, and if you highlight this event at the right angle (hiding everything else in a deaf shadow), then we get the desired result.

The published article " Elon Musk refused to sell to the Model X client after criticizing himself, " which caused a lot of angry and sad comments - a perfect example of manipulation. Let's try to make out why, and at the same time we will learn how not to fall for such things. Bonus will be the restoration of your faith in justice.

Manipulative technique Number of times: Show only your point of view to the reader

To do this, discourage the reader from searching for the source or other descriptions of the event. You can not give a link to the source at all, but you can make it thinner - slap something unrelated to the business at the same time. For example, about Putin ("was late for a meeting with the Pope for a whole hour ").
')
Counteraction: Read original sources

Follow the link, read what exactly happened.

Manipulative reception number 2: distort what was said and lie a little

Since the reader does not follow the links, you can write that

In the comments on Alsop's blog post, those sympathizing with Stuart are wondering if Alsop can, say, buy a used Model S "from the hands", or will Musk go so far as to deactivate it remotely?

A commentator on a blog has never been sympathetic. If you still follow the link, it turns out that it was almost a wish, and even that it happened right on the highway.

Counteraction: Read original sources

Handling device number 3: More Hell!

First, you need to add about falling stocks (shares of any company float back and forth). Secondly, to add a link (according to which no one will go anyway) to a similar case. Again, based on the fact that the reader will see only what is written in the article itself.

Counteraction: Read (well, please) primary sources

Okay, and what is there in the primary sources?

0. About the "sympathetic" comments I already wrote. Yesterday I did not find any there.

1. Well-known venture investor Stuart Alsop - didn't anyone find the article on Wikipedia about this guy strange? And no one clicked on the first link from there?

2. In fact, you can not click, because Alsop, in his post on how his order was canceled, tells everything himself:

It's funny because I wasn’t been a pundit critiquing company and executives. I have done a lot of business over the past 30 years.

Translation: It’s funny because I didn’t act in my usual (yeah, in this context, old = ordinary, customary) roles of a press expert, criticizing the company and their leaders. I have done this many times in the past 30 years and am used to frustrating company executives.

When I wrote the post of my BMW X1 called “My Car Makes Me Feel Stoopid”, the CEO of BMW didn't take the car back.

Translation: When I wrote an article about the BMW X1 “My car makes me feel like a fool”, the BMW director didn’t take the car back.

I have been written criticizing products!

Translation: And in many articles and posts I criticized products, companies and people, but I have never been forbidden to do business with any of the companies!

3. No less delivers the story of the montauto of " this is not the first such case ." Recommended for reading.

So, the story turns a bit different side, right? Not 5000, but 500, and did not win, but lost. An unhappy client, unjustly offended by an arrogant Mask, evaporates somewhere. It remains a guy who for the past 30 years has been engaged in the fact that he poured slop on everything he could reach. And he did it professionally and made a name for himself, image and capital.

My wife, when she read the original post Alsopa, said: "Mask - well done, revenge for all."

Well, your faith in justice has returned?

PS: Artyom Gavrichenkov ximaera , manipulative texts like your article, are often written unconsciously. Just influenced by a minute mood. I really hope that it was. Especially considering that you seem to have carefully read the source code.

UPD.
1. Not as noisy in the comments as expected.
2. Still, get to the primary sources ( or is it after such an article only? )
3. Particulars, unfortunately, do not always change the overall picture. And here the picture remains the same: the guy was denied service, who used any excuse to write something bad about everyone he came across.