thrasherAs the Florida State University shooting story continues to unfold, more questions emerge on several fronts. The following video examines whether the November 20 shooting was a staged event, complete with repeated “Tweets” from the account of one Blair Stokes, an intern at Tallahassee-based “behavioral change” and “crisis communications” public relations firm SalterMitchell.

The video also makes note of recently-installed FSU President John Thrasher who, as a longtime aggressive Republican Party politico, has close ties to both Florida state politics and major news media. The FSU Board of Trustees appointed Thrasher as FSU President earlier this year despite strong objection of the university’s faculty and students.

Finally, apart from a detailed profile of alleged shooter Myron Mays, forensic evidence of the shooting itself has yet to be satisfactorily revealed, as the video suggests.

Leave a Reply

18 thought on “Video: FSU Shooting a PR-Media Con Job”
    1. “We have to be repetitive about this,” he said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”–US Attorney General Eric Holder

  1. The media obfuscation is to justify the shooting of Myron May and to draw public attention away from what he wanted us to know. If you read the cover letter of his package, he took it upon himself to initiate the shooting event and knew that he would be killed in the process. This was specifically to garner media attention on the plight if the TI community. I have doubts that any “victims” were actually injured.

    Unfortunately, all the evidence contained within the packages that he sent are now in the hands of the authorities including the USB drives. The real story is dead. Corporate media is free to fabricate and spin whatever they want now. They win. We lose.

    Condolences can be sent to Graceville.

  2. What are the odds that the alleged “real thing” would so frequently coincide with “active shooter” drills? For those who missed an obscure aspect of this latest event, Associated Press reports:

    “University police participated in active shooter training less than two weeks before the attack, including a scenario with a shooter at the library. “It’s good to know we look at those opportunities where someone may try to harm our students,” university Police Chief David Perry.”

    Officials seeking clues about life of FSU gunman

  3. The writer of this blog flagged both “behavioral change” and “crisis communications” as being subjects of interest. While the first item, that of “behavioral change” makes me somewhat uncomfortable the second item is a standard tool of public relations; here I am referring to “crisis communications.” Properly stated, crisis management is a major component of public relations services. The goal of crisis management is to defuse any bad publicity or liabilities that a corporation may engender in the course of the regular business cycle.

    1. The commenter does not take into consideration whether or how “behavioral change” and “crisis communications” may be used in unison to shape public perceptions of an unconventional and perhaps partially managed event. This very dynamic is suggested by the video’s argument.

  4. just watched the videos – am reading everything I can about this story – it does make no sense whatsoever as described – I read that the dead shooter’s body was left on the ground for a long time. Is that typical? For what reason? Effect???

    On a similar note, when the Ferguson FF went down in August, there was a story out there about the real Gentle Giant out in California who was a nice guy and was headed to college, but he died suddenly. I was trying to find that story again, and it’s gone. I can’t remember who debunked the dead thug in Missouri narrative. Does anyone here recall that this could have been a case of “stolen identity” to promote the Agenda in Ferguson?

      1. Anne, remember what we said about “seeing is not believing”? When we’re presented with a story, first we analyze it and try to determine if any or all of it is true. Later, often, that changes.

        In a sense, we are captives when we only see the images and hear the narrative that they deliver. It seems obvious that when they do that there is an intent to have us “believe” something. Asking us to believe is not the same as “reporting news”.

        These stories are “faith based”. “Conspiracy theorists are modern heretics. We are often left wondering “what was Michael Brown like? Was he real?”. Whether he was real or not he has become a “character”. That is by design.

Leave a Reply