Oops! Three “top journalists” at CNN have had to resign, blamed for a boisterously untrue CNN “news” story about President Donald Trump’s mythical Russian connection, and the head honcho at CNN, Jeff Zucker, is now getting flak coming his way (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/26/fox-newss-sean-hannity-calls-for-cnns-jeff-zucker-to-be-fired-in-wake-of-fake-news-scandal/). It kind of hurt him that he was caught on videotape saying the whole Russia story is–we quote–“bullshit.”
Well, like, who didn’t know that? Except for deeply dyed-in-the-wool liberals?
Our nooze media is an institution that not only doesn’t work anymore, but refuses to function as it should. It’s supposed to give us accurate information, once upon a time called “news,” which we as citizens can use as a basis for rational decision-making. But “news” is now “nooze”–a species of myth-making.
No one has been more complicit than the nooze media in the Global Warming hoax. But even more flagrantly, right before our eyes, they have tried to create the myth, “the Russians stole the election from Hillary!” and use it to undermine President Trump–even to get him ousted from office, if they can.
They’re also busy creating yet another myth: “Obamacare was a fantastic success, America loved it, and if the Republicans repeal it, there won’t be any healthcare anymore for anybody and you’re all gonna die, die, die–eeeyaaah!”
What are we supposed to do, if we can’t get any reliable information about current events? If everything we read in the papers and see on the TV news is very likely to be a lie? Where does that leave us?
If those questions ever did occur to the nooze magnates as they corrupted and debased their industry, I think the answer must have been, “Who cares?”
My operative theory regarding television is that literally EVERYTHING shown on TV is entertainment. They only have so much information to work with, but they stretch it into something quite different from factual news.
They don’t report that there was an event and leave it at that. The report that an entire nation mourns because of a given event. Then they interview individuals and ask about their reaction. They love to seek out the reactions which are unusual and dramatic, most importantly, what you see broadcast is only the clips which make the final cut. You’re not necessarily seeing an accurate representation of public reaction, you are seeing what the producers select, probably based upon what they think will be best for ratings.
When Kennedy was murdered, Walter Cronkite said: “From Dallas, Texas, the flash, apparently official, President Kennedy died at 1:00 PM, central standard time.” And then there was three day’s worth of round the clock coverage on all three major networks. Had you turned on your TV at 3:00 AM, they would have been talking about it, even though there were no new developments. That wasn’t news, it was talking about news, which is a completely different thing. While it was certainly not a happy or lighthearted time, this was a form of entertainment and a step away from factual news.
That horrible weekend, when I was nine years old, I was indoors with little else to do except watch television and I watched as they chewed on every event, anticipating the arrival of a certain cleric, or discussing arcane trivia regarding some minor figure in the drama that played out over the weekend. When Ruby shot Oswald, which I saw live, they had plenty of fresh subject matter and interviewed every person they could find with even the most tangental conniption to Jack Ruby. It was morbid, sickening and painful to watch, but it also set the standard for “news coverage” ever since. (Ruby died a few years later after having been the subject of endless new stories and speculation. He was the poster boy for instant fame and from 1963 until his death in 1967, it was almost impossible to avoid hearing more about Jack Ruby than I ever wanted to know.)
Sometimes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut, and so it is with the nooze media. They will grudgingly pass along the occasional factual story, but they are much more concerned with finding out what some celebrity thinks about the development than they are the facts and the real human cost. Lives could be ruined, families shattered and innocent people maimed, but they think I should hear what some Hollywood figure thinks about it all.
BTW, Mr. Cusack, I’ve been watching you since the Savage Steve Holland films and think you are a fine and gifted actor. However, I don’t give a damn about your political opinions.
Many years ago I was watching a nooze documentary about the poor people of some Pacific atoll that had been used for a nuclear test. And into the midst of this tragedy breaks a Fritos commercial! And I thought, “This is how the minds of crazy people work…”
TV is craziness. If you cut between images rapidly and heard all sorts of non-sequiturs in real life, that would be evidence of insanity. TV packages insane experiences and desensitizes us to this sort of thing. If Abraham Lincoln (or anyone from his era) were brought back to life and shown what was on TV, they would probably leave the room in disgust. Continuous pictures flashing in our faces is not a natural experience.
On my trip, I visited a site of historic interest. While there, I was able to slow down, enjoy the shade and enjoy the breeze. It was a slow-paced moment of taking in my natural surroundings. It was also just what the doctor ordered. We all need a more natural pace of life.
I like a movie to unwind with, after working hard all day. But I watch on the computer or on disc, minus commercials, promos, and inane celebrities.
I do the same thing. I have a nice collection of DVDs, including a lot of documentaries and concerts. I watch some things on Netflix and Amazon Prime video, both of which have some real garbage, but also some great old movies and documentaries.
San the interruptions of commercials, etc. the effect is much different. I would gladly pay for TV if that meant no commercials, but cable, sat TV, etc. are not done that way.