How To Tell That It's A Slow News Day
From a website I looked at today:
Whatever...
It's Okay, Never Mind
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Comments
The implications of the leaks from Mossack Fonseca are enormous.
"12 current or former heads of state and at least 60 people linked to current or former world leaders in the data..."
But just a cursory look at US newspapers online has me thinking they've kind of buried it. Hope I'm wrong. Maybe the news cycle is still catching up or maybe they don't really want to talk about it?
Believe me, this Mossack Fonseca story is much too complicated and nowhere near "sexy" enough for most of the "journalists" I've reluctantly had to call "colleagues."
As for the reporters not understanding the issues, I have heard such explanations many times before, and while it may be true that many reporters may be stupid and gullible, what these explanations never explain is why this phenomenon has a decades-long unbroken record of always favoring Republicans. I think there is a reason why this sort of person is hired; it suits the purpose of their bosses. No one tells reporters or bought politicians what to do any more; that is too messy. So much more economical to see to it that people who get into those positions know perfectly well what their real job is, and are paid handsomely to do a good job of it.
But there is a trend I've noticed locally and then nationwide. Media is trending toward hiring younger, inexperienced people to report. It's harder and harder for an established news veteran to stay employed. I've seen the local major newspaper buy out their older staff and replace them with people just out of college with no experience, younger people who haven't established themselves yet, are more pliable and less likely to stand up for themselves or ask embarrassing questions. And I saw the paper across the river do the exact same thing. I've been personally affected by this.
One thing I've experienced is the youngster at a press event ask the politician questions of equivalent gravity as "Our viewers would like to know, just why you are so incredibly awesome?" Or almost literally, "If you could be a tree, what kind of tree would you be and why?" And I am not exaggerating by very much.
I could go on about problems, but I won't for now. I will just say, more in keeping with your original post, the widespread movement toward requiring that the news must be "entertaining" is a factor--"infotainment." And the news must be profitable.
It's watered down every area of our national discourse, and has greatly enabled Donald Trump, among other things. We are paying for dumbing down the news in all kinds of ways and cheapening the level of discourse.
Could you have imagined even the GOP Klown Kar KavalKade of 2012 presidential candidates getting into a dick measuring contest--in a DEBATE?
Enough for now.
So, I totally agree with your observations. However, as I have said, this still does not explain the decades-long record of journalistic malfeasance always working in favor of the Republicans. Yes, there is a lot of stupidity involved, but there is a lot of corruption and dirty dealing too. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you, which might or might not be justified, but when it comes to the right in this country, it's hard to be more cynical than they deserve.
I'm enjoying discussing this with you, by the way- you haven't even called me a butt fucking faggot yet- and would be happy to hear if you have any more to say.
As for the right wing dominance of the media, I do not need to tell one as informed as yourself that that was planned, orchestrated, achieved and maintained decades ago. You can go to sources like the Powell Memo, drafted by right winger Lewis Powell, who went on to become a Supreme Court Justice
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
You are also fully aware of the demise of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan, which enabled the rise of right wing hate radio.
And I know I don't have to point out that the vast majority of the mainstream media is owned by right wingers with an agenda. It's not news that their number one goal has been to play their part in establishing the "right wing permanent majority" in this country. The right has always well understood the importance of and use of media to propagandize.
There are people in this country who are of voting age and have started families who have never experienced real media in its best form, the way the Founders intended. They intended for the press to have teeth, to be the watchdog on behalf of the public, and to keep the public informed. I think, IIRC, Jefferson advocated a strong and independent press, because democracy works best with an informed citizenry. The press is just about the only profession named by name in the Constitution, and its mention is accompanied by the idea that it is to remain free of government interference.
I have made the mistake of mentioning this in job interviews. I have a very good track record in journalism--I have won several awards, two for investigative journalism. But the folks running mainstream media do NOT want to hear about the Constitution, and they don't want to sponsor investigative work. Look , for example, how far the venerated 60 Minutes has fallen.
There was a time when someone would see Mike Wallace on the doorstep and run and jump out a window in the back. Now, I can't watch it, for celebrity interviews and soft, fluffy crap. They've run complete bullshit by the likes of Lara Logan and Cheryl Atkisson. Look at how cozy Judith Miller was with the Bu$h ll administration, when they were setting us up for endless war in the Mideast, and how that same paper, the New York Times, played such a major role in starting the whole bullshit Whitewater story, and how they were there all along, egging things on until they culminated in Bill Clinton's impeachment.
And the list goes on.
Another of the problems with corporate-controlled media is that criticism of corporations is as good as non-existent in the mainstream media.
On the local level, newspaper owners and editors are highly resistant to running stories that might put their advertisers in a bad light. It plays out on the national level, where major corporate and government malfeasance doesn't stand much of a chance of seeing print or air time, except in the most unusual circumstances. I wonder how long it would have been, if it happened at all, that the public would have learned about the Iran Contra scandal under Reagan had Hasenfus' plane not been downed.
And once again, I have a lot more, but I'm not just starting to ramble, I've been rambling.
Maybe we'll continue this, if you see fir to respond. Maybe we could even do it privately sometime(?)
I promise I won't call you a butt fucking faggot, also.
I mentioned that I have won several awards for my work, but I forgot to mention that it was not for mainstream media work. It was when I wrote for a small alternative paper. I wouldn't--and don't--have a chance in the mainstream. I don't sanitize my work.
And once again, you have insulted my wife, who spent the best part of her career as a senior executive at a major motion picture studio. This is the second time you've done that, and I am sure she would not appreciate your derision.