"You will never be the best version of yourself if you allow other people to convince you, you can't be better because of your skin color, because of your sexual identity, because of the community you came from... you must resist those narratives at all costs if you truly want to be successful in America." - Charley Kirk
Friday, June 09, 2017
Reducing reliance on news... media comparison with Establishment RINOs.
The media lives in a bubble of course, and it's one of their own quite deliberate construction. They're a great deal like the political RINO Establishment types.
In fact, as I think of it, they are EXACTLY the same.
Both are Commodus-style arrogant. Both feel compelled to interject themselves everywhere an opinion is expressed that seems to challenge their conclusions. Both talk a great deal but accomplish surprisingly little. Both believe they know everything and are smartest guys in the room. Both will lie whenever it suits them in pursuit of their ultimate aims.
Both were SOOOOO smart during the last election cycle that they repeatedly, soberly informed us that then-candidate Trump and then nominee Trump had ZERO CHANCE OF WINNING... either the nomination... or the Presidency.
Startling, isn't it? The leftist media and our RINO contingent... at all levels, from locally on up... have so much in common.
Including, typically, being wrong.
Back in the day, I used to be the ultimate news junkie. But in the run up to the last election, it became obvious that any pretense of fairness had long since departed and that which had infected the local daily newspaper was but a symptom of the greater malaise: news organizations were less concerned about presenting the news as they were about making it... and doing so in such a way so's not to report events but to shape them.
Five+ years ago, the Columbian lost all of their remaining credibility with me when they deliberately chose to fail to print this story:
The $2.5 Billion Bribe
Oregon's Supreme Court says light-rail politics drove plans for a new I-5 bridge.
The Oregon Supreme Court has succeeded in doing what scores of public meetings, thousands of pages of reports, and endless public relations spin could not: Give us the original rationale behind the proposed $3.5 billion Columbia River Crossing.
The answer, according to the court: The massive Interstate 5 bridge and freeway project is a "political necessity" to persuade Clark County residents to accept something they previously didn't want—a MAX light-rail line from Portland to Vancouver. (To read the Feb. 16, 2012 Oregon Supreme Court decision regarding the Columbia River Crossing Project, click here(PDF, 18 pages))
Project opponents filed a legal challenge to the way Metro, the regional planning agency, granted sweeping land-use approval to the project. The Oregon Supreme Court sided mostly with Metro.
But Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, writing for the majority, highlighted an inconvenient set of facts for CRC backers.
He wrote in the Feb. 16 opinion that most of the project—namely the 10-lane freeway bridge and new interchanges—was put forward to get Clark County to agree to the light-rail line.
This is the kind of thing that makes the local democrat daily so dangerous.
The Columbian made zero mention of this state supreme court decision.
And they refused to make that mention because these facts and outcomes, certainly by a government body that had zero dogs in this fight... would have been... and remains... horrifically damaging to their ultimate goal of stuffing loot rail down our throats even if bankrupting the local economy is a requirement to make that happen.
That is something of a microcosm of what's happening at the national level when it comes to information: any pretense of full disclosure... any sheen of the simple reportage of facts without the processing that typically goes on which results in a Columbian or any other publication... or news network like CNN and ABC... all of whom rely heavily on their "anonymous" and thus, unverifiable... unaccountable... sources as an excuse to attack those they oppose politically.... are the end result.
I get that CNN had a talking head (Mika Brezinski) admitted in so many words that media's job, they believe, is to control what we think:
BRZEZINSKI: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”
It's just as clear that their position on the issue of fact manipulation flies in the face of what the people want... and that is the primary reason the people are sick of them.
And that includes me.
Combine all this with a documented history of the media (and, well, our RINOs) being typically wrong, of using flawed analysis and strategies... and it all begs the issue: why watch the news at all?
Don't get me wrong: "Hard news;" for example, "A bridge in London is being attacked", has its place.
What blows it for the media at all levels is "soft news." "A bridge in London is under attack by misunderstood, unemployed (or underemployed) men of Middle Eastern descent and we have no idea what their motivation might be" does not.
Because media finds itself incapable of merely reporting the facts and allowing US to decide, I find myself incapable of watching these people.
Most any time you turn the news on today, conservatives and/or President Trump are getting trashed. It's the same thing, day after day, week after week. It's the local democrat daily alienating half the county population... its subscriber base... as it continues to circle the drain.
Facts have no place in the media world when those facts interfere with the meme. At the local level, the exclusion of the Willamette Week story indicting the lies and exaggerations of CRC/Loot Rail supporters then... and now... is a prime example of the decision by those controlling media to censor it so that we're kept in the dark.
I, typically, run FOX Business news with the sound off in my office. I can watch the ticker and see how the market is doing... like I am as I write this. But I remind myself on occasion that like almost every other talking head... these experts were dead wrong about the outcomes of the November election... and the subsequent market explosion... so what makes them so "right" now?
And as such... why bother? Why do I have to filter everything these clowns say... separate the wheat from the chaff, to ascertain the truth?
So, I don't. I don't have the time. I don't have the patience. I default to the fact that media is untrustworthy and not worth my time.
And that is a damned shame, considering what they COULD be if only they would try.
At least 15 years ago, I started dropping my subscriptions to "main stream media" when I realized that I was supporting those where were lying to me or, at least subjecting me to endless propaganda. What triggered my realization was my then local newspaper was selecting daily "anti-Bush" letters to the editor, reflecting "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Then I notice that the NEWS (not opinion) pages often reflected a negativity toward Bush that was out of proportion to the topics discussed.
I then began to notice creeping conservative insults appearing in various magazines. For example, an issue of Smithsonian Magazine -- in an article on natural science (not at all a political article) as it wrapped up, there was a paragraph "ranting" against George Bush. It was so out of place that you had to read it twice just to be sure you actually understood what you read --- it was totally out of context and had nothing to do with the subject. Fair enough if there was a government policy related to the topic to criticize -- but that was not the case.
I then began dropping almost all the publications I used to subscribe to. No more Reader's Digest (The original publishers are, no doubt, spinning in their graves), no more Smithsonian, no more TIME (another one where the original publishers would be annoyed), and certainly no more of the local papers that were daily doses of leftist propaganda. My blood pressure has been much better ever since....
/static.wweek.com/image-archive/8063/news1_crcbridge.jpg)
1 comment:
At least 15 years ago, I started dropping my subscriptions to "main stream media" when I realized that I was supporting those where were lying to me or, at least subjecting me to endless propaganda. What triggered my realization was my then local newspaper was selecting daily "anti-Bush" letters to the editor, reflecting "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Then I notice that the NEWS (not opinion) pages often reflected a negativity toward Bush that was out of proportion to the topics discussed.
I then began to notice creeping conservative insults appearing in various magazines. For example, an issue of Smithsonian Magazine -- in an article on natural science (not at all a political article) as it wrapped up, there was a paragraph "ranting" against George Bush. It was so out of place that you had to read it twice just to be sure you actually understood what you read --- it was totally out of context and had nothing to do with the subject. Fair enough if there was a government policy related to the topic to criticize -- but that was not the case.
I then began dropping almost all the publications I used to subscribe to. No more Reader's Digest (The original publishers are, no doubt, spinning in their graves), no more Smithsonian, no more TIME (another one where the original publishers would be annoyed), and certainly no more of the local papers that were daily doses of leftist propaganda. My blood pressure has been much better ever since....
Post a Comment