Monday, February 20, 2017

Are the media the "Enemy of the American people?"

And if they are, what makes people believe that?

Of course, they are our enemy.

Both locally and nationally, most media believe the people to be stupid.

Far too often Media believes that our judgment and mentality are FAR inferior to theirs.

There's no proof that such a conclusion is true, naturally.  In fact, there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

I get it, however.  The times have changed a great deal faster than the mindset of those producing the media product: those old school news types like the clown recently departed from running the local carbuncle on Clark County was brought up in a time when Walter Cronkite and his ilk along with William Randolph Hearst and HIS ilk were the ONLY sources of "real news."  They were privileged icons on American media and, well, their veracity was rarely questioned at the time and neither was the content of what they reported.

But now we're in a position to get an almost continuous flow of information from a huge number of sources.  In everything from other networks to the blogosphere, there are a thousand different ways to check these people and how they've allowed their agenda to obliterate their responsibility: the reporting of facts unsullied by the pollution of their opinion.

For example, the clown who was recently running the local cancer on our community believes himself, wrongly, to be the smartest guy in the room.  He knows absolutely everything about everything, and the possibility he could be wrong about anything is simply beyond his comprehension.

If he spews it from his word processor, it must be true, accurate and correct.

That he is so very wrong on so many things, that he used that wart on a pig's butt he ran as a cudgel to attack his multiple political enemies... long demolishing the tattered remnants of what little integrity he may have had... to mobilize his fellow leftist sheep into a froth of hatred while he incessantly attacked those who politically opposed him... at least those he didn't beat into shape like Wilson, Boger and can we ever forget his multiple attacks on Peter VanNortwick?

Well, as they turned hard left, the attacks stopped.  They even became drinking buddies.  Right, Brent?  Can't beat 'em, join 'em and all that?

The institutional double standard this moron breathed in and out every day he was at the rag was an infected lesion on our county.  He lied about people, manipulated people, exaggerated about people and, as a matter of policy, demanded that his winged monkeys do the same so HE could shape the agenda of this county.

He has left the role of editor.  He will be missed precisely as much as the clueless idiot he replaced, even if he was a bigger-drinking clone of Tom Koenninger who absolutely NOBODY talks about today.

Even in what is likely to be his last falsity fest known as his column as editor, he had to lie on the way out.  
Sharon Wylie. I have a number of both liberal and conservative friends who are elected officials. But many of them get a little antsy if it gets around that I’m talking to or hanging out with them.
A part of the local RINO cabal drinking it up at Lou's 

This lie is obvious.  Lefty Lou despises any conservative. Further, if they are "friends," why would they lie about their relationship with you, Lefty?  "Antsy?"  Now, why on earth would ANYONE get "antsy" hanging out with someone who molested the science of journalism as much as Lou did?

Thus, Lefty has zero "conservative friends who are elected officials."  But he kept up that fa├žade all the way to the end of his tenure.  And that lie is as much a lie as his years-long lie that he isn't a fringe-left cracker.
My critics. I wanted to give a special shout-out to my critics. I’ve got plenty of them. I don’t always agree with them, but it’s important to me to listen to them and respect them. So thank you for being concerned enough to engage with me..
As arguably this moron's biggest critic over the years, I watched as he would full-on attack those who didn't see it his way... on anything. He abused his position on a regular basis, routinely calling out a particular class of people who directly gave back to him as good as we got (bloggers) and then watched as some critics... or some he THOUGHT were critics, stood up to smack him in the face in ways he typically deserved.

Not only does he NOT respect his critics, he literally hates us with a passion.

In fact, many times, he would use his position to attempt to destroy us.  When he came after me and I refused to play his game, he insisted on emailing me every day in an attempt to goad me into responding.  I ignored him.

Now, does his efforts towards myself and others speak to any "respect" he had towards us?

That the man is a liar is obvious: his claim here that he "listened" to us is a flat out joke.  He never listened to ANYONE... in fact, he hung on to the CRC/Loot Rail scam, even after he KNEW that the people were excluded from consideration in any meaningful way BY POLICY as if it were the last available lifeboat on the Titanic.

Some of the local RINO crew benefited from kissing Lefty Lou's ass.  Lynda Wilson benefited from those huge checks Tracy wrote that bought both Lefty Lou's endorsement AND those full page ads for her recent Senate race.  Her signing on to the "Resurrection of the CRC/Loot Rail Scam" bill is a sign that she's got the same level of care and conservatism for her district as say, Marc "Tax Increase" Boldt does for this county.

(Both of the Wilsons, for example, absolutely HAD to make it to the "Nobody but a RINO/Leftist gives a crap, get lost Brancaccio party" what... Friday?  Boldt and his keeper, Jimmy Mains were there as well... because, gee, Lefty has just done so MUCH for them!)

As I've pointed out before, the democratian completely protects those they view as political allies: Boldt made sure to end Brancaccio's humiliation at losing the official county newspaper designation as he helped Lying Lefty rape the taxpayers by charging us twice as much or more to print official notices... a job the Reflector had been doing equally well for half the money.

Has anyone read anything in the rag about the PDC determining that Boldt was incompetent to administer his own political campaigns... his next, presuming he runs again, being his NINTH.... only to have the Columbian print NOTHING about this political humiliation?
(3) In any future campaign in which Mr. Boldt is a candidate, neither he nor one of his family members may serve as his campaign treasurer; he will use an experienced and trained treasurer in any future campaigns;
How can someone so clueless run a county?  And I'd ask why the rag isn't writing this story, but we already know why, don't we?

Now, I've spent time here in this post, with the most obvious LOCAL enemy of the people, Lyin' Lefty Lou Brancaccio.  But that's just here at the local level.

NATIONALLY, the corrupt nature of the national media was exposed REPEATEDLY when CNN made sure, for example, that Hillary was provided with debate questions in advance or the New York Times or Politico reporters who sent the Hillary Campaign stories for their approval.

Univision, CNBC, TV-One, CNN, The Boston Globe and others outed by the WikiLeaks effort, show how corrupt the media is.  Added to the huge number of media types who donated to Hillary's campaign... and, yeah, the bias is obvious and their damage caused by lies and misrepresentation?

Of course these people are enemies.  Enemies of the truth.  Enemies of the people.

As a conclusion of all the information available, it is easy to see where the media failed us.  It's equally astounding that the people managed to cast off their blinders and ignore the efforts to program them into little leftist robots.

Locally, we weren't that lucky.  Locally, the leftists banded together with the RINOs and tore our government to pieces, lying every step of the way, from the false claim that the charter was "more democratic" (Yeah, like voting for all 3 commissioners is somehow less democratic than voting for 2 out of 5 councilors) to the despicable claim of Greg Kimsey that once the people voted for this governmental HIV, we could cure it by voting to get rid of it... which is absolutely untrue.

I am, oddly enough, a complete believer in the First Amendment.  I prepaid my right to use it by devoting 14+ years of service to my country by wearing her uniform.  I surf it every day on this blog.

I ALSO believe in freedom of the press.  But those freaking out because the President won't allow them to walk all over him while he bends over and screams, "thank you, Sir, may I have another?" confuse the decisions he's made to exclude the lying scum who don't report "news" as much as they report "agenda," from getting access to him as "suppression of the press."

I subscribe to the thought that these are freedoms listed in our Constitution that do NOT take place without responsibility.

I am responsible for every word I write.  When I discover I'm wrong, I correct that wrong.

For the most part, media at all levels report their errors with the frequency of a Haley's comet fly-by.  Shoddy journalism is the rule with the local rag, and it is ALWAYS to benefit those FOL's...(Friends of Lou) who do not want the entire truth out there.

So, when the leftist/RINO cabal claim that Trump is "suppressing the press" they're lying through their tooth.

Those making such a complaint have zero clue as to what "suppression of the press" even begins to mean.

Who, for example, has been executed?  Who has been arrested?   What newspapers or other media has been shut down?

Obama attacked FOXNews on a routine basis.  Where was the leftist outrage from that?

Obama even put a FoxNEWS contributor Steven Hayes on the terrorist watch list.  Where was John McCain's outrage then?  Where was the left's faux concern?


So, yeah... the media generally has forgotten their responsibility to the American people... their responsibility to be completely truthful; to leave their opinion, which is no better than anyone else's, out of it; and to take no advocacy position either for or against a person, an issue, a project or anything else the people are fully capable of determining on our own without their biases and corruption.

Freedom does not come without responsibility.  And those who insist on lying about the president in the guise of news are not beyond being held accountable for their actions.

After all, what's the point of allowing access to swindle sheets like the Washington Post, the NYT, or, for that matter, our local democratian when you know the story they print is something more likely to have been pulled out of the reporter's ass than instead, bearing even a passing resemblance to the truth?

There's a reason polling indicates the people trust the Trump Administration more than the media.  And all of that.... ALL of that... is on those most responsible: those in charge of the words they print or broadcast.

Twenty years ago, there was an article written by, surprisingly enough, a reporter at the Columbian who had figured it out.  I'll leave you with it... (Sadly, this is the only snippet I could find...)
From: The Columbian Date: July 28, 1997 Author: MIKE FEINSILBER

The Columbian 07-28-1997

WASHINGTON -- Would you believe this?

A lot of editors worry that you wouldn't -- that people are less willing these days to believe what they read in the newspapers.

They fear that, for a variety of reasons, newspapers are suffering a crisis in credibility, losing the irreplaceable asset of believability. The press has a lot to worry about these days: stagnant circulation, too few young readers, the Internet's threat to the lucrative classified advertising business. Still, many industry executives put the decline in newspaper credibility they see at the top of their list of woes. "When you have national poll numbers that say half the public believes your reports are unfactual, then I view it as a serious problem," said Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of The Oregonian in Portland and president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. …
Twenty years on... and neither the rag nor the national media have yet to get there. 

1 comment:

Pete Masterson said...

When I was young (in the 1950s-1960s) most newspapers were owned by families. Even the huge Hearst company's multiple papers were owned by one family. The papers usually had a point of view reflecting that of the owners. There were "Democratic" and "Republican" newspapers. Many even used names that indicated their political viewpoint: e.g. The Marysville (CA) Appeal Democrat.

In the SF Bay Area (where I grew up), there were numerous newspapers -- the big San Francisco duo, liberal SF Chronicle, and the more conservative Hearst Examiner. Richmond and Berkeley had individual papers, but owned by a single company, that were rather liberal -- while the Oakland Tribune was owned by a Republican who even ran for the Senate (but lost).

However, by the 1980s, the newspaper families generally reached a point where a "new generation" was needed to take over the paper -- but between massive estate taxes and lack interest on the part of the family's younger generation -- most "family owned" newspapers were sold off to corporate owners -- and these new owners, tended to hire "educated" staff -- that is graduates of the journalism schools at various universities ... which are actually academies of leftist indoctrination. (The old-time reporter, hired off the street as an apprentice, trained by his editor, was no longer common.) So we have absentee corporate owners, interested in the "return on investment" coupled with "professional" management and "professional" reporters -- and now most newspapers are worthless wastelands of leftist nonsense.

For myself, I dropped subscriptions to all leftist magazines and newspapers that were exhibiting "Bush Derangement Syndrome" back in the early 1980s. I realized that my subscription was paying for drivel that I didn't appreciate or wish to read. After a period of adjustment, I found that I did not miss any of them -- and, indeed, I could find better news sources online.

Stupid media - I recall one article in Smithsonian magazine -- it had NOTHING to do with politics -- but suddenly it had an out of the blue criticism of George Bush in two or three sentences near the end of the article. I dropped Smithsonian after that. (Now, I did not think G. Bush was that great a President -- and I had no problem with well thought out criticism that discussed specific policies -- but, like the current noise from the left (consisting of pointless name-calling) about D. Trump, I am not interested in non-communication that simply involves ad hominem attacks.

My suggestion? Don't subscribe (or view) media that provides a steady diet of biased "news" coverage. You'll probably find you won't miss it ... and if enough people vote with their dollars (or ratings points) then the biased media will go out of business (as they're far too stupid to modify their practices).