dihydrogen monoxide, “the invisible killer”

I am constantly appalled — yes appalled — by the general lack of awareness of important political, social, environmental, and economic issues. Thank goodness for the Internet to bring these concerns to the attention of citizens. For example, through this powerful medium, we have learned the REAL TRUTH about John Kerry, George Bush, Bill Gates and the Taliban!

Now, we learn about a new threat:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

The dihydrogen monoxide controversy has generated very little attention in the mainstream press. Fortunately, you can learn everything you need to know right here on the Internet.

See: www.dhmo.org for the facts!

Once you have read www.dhmo.org and become sufficiently outraged, use your mouse to highlight the hidden text below:

HIGHLIGHT STARTING HERE

In case you did not get it, “dihydrogen monoxide” is another name for “water”.

The DHMO website is entirely factual and accurate, and it illustrates how any group with a “point of view” can create and broadcast information that is nonetheless misleading (intentionally or not).

In the public relations profession, we call this “spinning”. Keep in mind that each of us spins communications based on our point of view every day. So does the news media.

For example, in Houston this week an elderly man drove his car onto a railroad track, but could not go any farther because there were cars stopped ahead of him. A train is coming. He honks his horn, but the cars ahead of him do not move. He jumps out of his car just before the train hits, destroying his car.

The TV reporter spins the story that the collision was caused by the stubborn driver of the car in front that did not move out of the way when the “victim” blew his horn.

An alternative take on the incident would be that the elderly man was responsible for his own outcome because he chose to drive onto the tracks even though there was no clearance to safely cross. The TV reporter did not choose to present this alternative point of view.

I wonder why.

HIGHLIGHT ENDING HERE