I could link to examples of the topic that I am about to discuss, but I purposely avoid doing so. For good reason. It would be impossible to do so
without someone assuming that I am accusing either the Left or the Right of being the main culprits. And that, quite simply, is not true. It is
journalism and media as a whole that act in this fashion, regardless of which side they pander to. So, having gotten that out of the way...
Anyone willing to look with an objective eye, and be intellectually honest with themselves, will notice that facts have been a major obstruction to
the news lately. As an example, let's say a major newspaper prints an article that, while describing the story, incorrectly brands a political figure
as being a member of a particular faction of beliefs. "Mr. Blank, an anti-unicorn figurehead, blah blah blah." Mr. Blank, who has no actual connection
to anyone who could dislike unicorns, finds the association made in the article to be reprehensible, and requests/demands a retraction. The original
article appeared, say, page 2 above the fold on Monday. The newspaper admits that the information was incorrect, and prints a retraction. This appears
in the left hand column of page 18D, Friday morning. It contains 3 lines of text, with only the word 'Retractions' to define the entire column of
text. Do you see what they did there?
Monday, beginning of the work week and 7-day news cycle. More likely for the article to have been read than any other day of the week. The false
association was seen and likely taken as fact by a noticeably larger number of people than if the same article had appeared in the same place Friday.
The retraction was likely not even noticed nor read by 90% of those that read the original article. Thus, the newspaper was able to misrepresent Mr.
Blank to fit the narrative they wished to advance, while legally and 'ethically' covering their actions with a retraction that got less notice than a
fart in the wind.
A major news website, again looking to forward a political stance, loosely mixes facts and speculation, while purposefully avoiding making a clear
distinction between them. "President Baseboard today announced a mobilization of national Guard troops to the greater Barndale Metropolitan area. As
you know, this has been the site of ongoing civil unrest since the controversial law was passed. These troops could be used to enforce martial law and
also to aid in forcefully evicting some persons from the affected area." Quick breakdown: the president absolutely did announce said mobilization. And
there is truth to the fact that they COULD be used to enforce martial law. Or evict people from a given area. Trained military personnel with armored
vehicles and heavy firepower are capable of doing a plethora of different things. But, the president, who this website's average reader probably
dislikes, said nothing whatsoever about evictions or martial law. In fact, the troops are intended for protection of valuable civil and governmental
assets in the area, such as museums and research centers. There had been many occasions of rioting in Barndale and arsonists have already destroyed a
significant religious shrine there. But, since Joe and Jane Reader are much less likely to have listened to the announcement themselves because of the
aforementioned dislike, they take the report to mean that the president has martial law and evictions planned already. The article did not openly lie,
but it also did not directly distinguish the author's opinion from the facts.
The pop culture website all of the morally upstanding cool kids frequents publishes an article. "We Are Offended By The Recent Statement From CoffeeCo
CEO Bob Andweave, And Here's Why You Should Be Too"
So the CEO of a private company, during a discussion about a mostly unrelated topic, voiced an opinion about market participation and the use of
chinchilla labor to clean coffee bean roasters. But this opinion goes against what the young, emotional readers of the website are constantly told is
the viewpoint they're supposed to have. And the title of the article just directly slams that forced point of view into their eyeholes, without any
question that theirs is the reasonable stance. They simply state that his opinion is bad, and their readers are directly obligated to view it as such,
lest they risk failing to conform to the crowd. Teens and young adults are especially prone to being swayed and influenced by this particular type of
social engineering. Because if the high school experience has one thing in commonfor us all, it's peer pressure based conformist fear.
Media no longer employs reporters. They are all now journalists. And that is an important distinction. Reporters gather and present facts in the
former of a news story. Journalists now believe it is their job to directly shape the reactions people have to the facts. Even if it means omitting
the facts that don't fit the desired reactions. And WE AS A WORLDWIDE CITIZENRY LET THEM DO IT. We are as complicit in our brainwashing as are the
ones planning it. We are complacent in feeling that the 'news' we consume is all accurate and presented in a reasonable tone. We are perfectly fine
with letting a talking head or click bait website clearly tell us what to think and feel, who to be outraged at, who we are supposed to believe and
And while you, dear reader, are quite possibly, at this very moment, thinking "duh, pfishface! EVERYBODY knows that...", do they? Everybody? And if
you agree with what I have said here, and have as much disdain for it as I do, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP FIX THE PROBLEM?
And what can we do together?
edit on 24-2-2017 by pfishylives because: (no reason given)