Saturday, April 15, 2023

If all people everywhere stopped paying attention to the News Media

We might just become informed.  Here's a startling headline: 

A Christian group has amassed more than 12,000 signatures to oust the Tennessee Republican leader who expelled two Black lawmakers 

Here is the story.   Of course if you follow the peanuts, you find out this is a 'Christian' activist group entirely allied with the modern secular Left, right up to embracing the eugenics of the 21st Century.  Hard left.  Note the story doesn't say 'hard left Christian group' or 'leftwing Christian group'.  

Nope.  In this case, just Christian group.  Of course it is dishonest; a falsehood that is so because it purposefully neglects to tell you what you should know, and what we darn well know it would say if it was a conservative Christian group going after a liberal Democrat. 

I sometimes think if people just stopped paying attention to the media, it might go away.  If anything else, we might begin to find out what's really happening in the world.  After all, we wouldn't have to go through the effort of unlearning that half truths, diversions and false narratives that inundate us on a 24/7 basis before we even get started looking for the information the press doesn't tell us.  

BTW, the fact that the lawmakers were black appears irrelevant.  And it came down to one vote difference.  Yet every single news outlet rushed with the emphasis being only on skin color.  Which reminds me that the only thing worse than naked racism is nakedly exploiting racism.  Again, turn off the news and cancel the subscriptions, and you might just learn what's happening in the world. 

18 comments:

  1. The average journalist is akin to someone who breaks into a house, exposes the wiring, and leaves a bunch of gasoline and old rags in the area. Then when the house burns down he says to himself "I'm not a bad person. After all, I didn't create the spark that started the fire myself, and someone else could have prevented it after I left."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Journalism has never been unbiased. But the problem is that most national outlets today are all biased the same way. Since there is little oversight, and since those not on board with their biases have been marginalized by hyphenation (right wing/conservative media), they are free to do as they wish. So a young black teen shot (and thankfully survives) by a white man is making 24/7 headline, front page news. A white woman shot and killed by a white man? I saw the story on the BBC. Not a single network mentioned it. One of the grave evils the news has taught us - only care about people when they can be exploited. And as you say, no accountability so no need to accept any.

      Delete
    2. A radio news update on that case said "police have said that there was a racial component to the incident" and did not elaborate. Of course, simply the fact that the teen shot was a different race than the shooter is a "racial component" and I suspect that this is all that they had. But by saying it in that way they let the listener conjure any vile racist motivation that they want, and they know that this is exactly what they are doing.

      But sometimes they are more direct. During the BLM riots of 2020, the news would occasionally say things like "some social media users are scared that there could be a protest in this part of town, starting this evening. Police say that they do not want to see violence, but that they will not stand in the way of those exercising their right to protest." And lo and behold, there was then a riot in that location at that time.

      Delete
  2. It's not an activist organization. It's a letterhead organization with a board of eight people and a staff director named Nathan Empsell, who was ordained an Episcopal priest at one point in the last 15 years. It took in just north of $400,000 in contributions in 2009 of which about a quarter was expended on Mr. Empsell's compensation package.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It took in those contributions in 2019.

      Delete
    2. I encourage Mr. Griffey to block this person. All he does is engage in meaningless pedanticism. It's peak boomer behavior, and it contributes nothing of value to the conversation. It's a joyless form of trolling.

      Of course the left uses shell companies to accomplish its objectives! "Not a real activist organization" isn't the compelling argument he thinks it is. Now watch as he pivots to discussing the definition of the word "activist."

      Delete
    3. So, NJA, you just spent two paragraphs to say exactly what? After four decades in teaching, I don't find clarification "pedantic".

      Delete
    4. Not Julian AssangeApril 18, 2023 at 1:55 AM

      It's pedantic because he's splitting hairs over a label. If a left-wing organization is accomplishing its goal of muddying the waters, then it's successfully engaging in activism. Its staff size and income statement are irrelevant.

      Delete
    5. That it was mentioned at all speaks volumes for the press. But it's still noteworthy how the press frames different groups. Has anyone ever heard the MSM use the term 'Christian or Religious Left'?

      Delete
    6. NJA, Art is OK. Yes, he seems to dip into a haversack of endless stats and details, and often times goes there and away from the topic at hand. But seldom does he do so to hijack the discussion. In this case, I think he's saying that the organization shouldn't even merit mention, let alone mention in any particular way. That a similarly small group would never catch the press's attention in normal circumstances if it wasn't to the Left is likely true. As long as he's not abusive, accusatory, or purposefully trolling, I'm OK with it.

      Delete
    7. It's pedantic because he's splitting hairs over a label. If a left-wing organization is accomplishing its goal of muddying the waters, then it's successfully engaging in activism. Its staff size and income statement are irrelevant.
      ==
      The term 'splitting hairs' does not mean what you fancy it means and your last statement is stupid. The term 'activist' means someone who is active. There are no flesh-and-blood people involved in this organization other than its nominal board. It exists to provide a salary for Nathan Empsell and a hook for the information ops people fancy are 'news' stories. It's a reasonable wager that it is financed by a modest number of households, congregations, and foundations who maintain their donations at a level wherein they do not have to be itemized on the IRS 990 form. We've recently discovered that ActBlue makes extensive use of straw donors, so it wouldn't be surprising to discover they'd received laundered donations and the number of people behind this outfit is very few.

      Delete
    8. (Tom New Poster)
      Thank you, Art. As a Texan would put it: I want to know how many cattle go with that hat. These Lefties don't have the committed numbers they like to boast.

      Delete
    9. Not Julian AssangeApril 19, 2023 at 1:14 AM

      "The term 'splitting hairs' does not mean what you fancy it means..."

      Yes, it does. And way to prove that you're not pedantic.

      "...and your last statement is stupid."

      By contrast, the entirety of your statement is stupid. Not surprising. Boomers mistake pedanticism for intellectualism. In that vein, it's worth mentioning that you forgot to separate your two clauses with a comma.

      Delete
  3. Agreed. Even local media parrots the MSM talking points as if they’re true. A friend of mine has been repeatedly misrepresented by our local media because she went against the Covid narrative. I keep wondering... how can I support all them even less than I do now??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. We have one network that sometimes deviates from the dominant narrative and will allow both sides to be shown. They sometimes even interview dissenters, though only sometimes. With topics like LGBTQ, abortion, transgender and the like, they fall into line along with all the others and the MSM.

      Delete
  4. Some days I think we could save ourselves a civil war by just burning down all the media buildings and salting the earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know. I wish we could get a movement going that say Just Don't Look, like the Simpsons Halloween special. Just go one month and ignore the press from top to bottom. Even those not on the Left doing it alone would impact sales and advertising.

      Delete
    2. I don’t actually know how many people watch the news, per se. But it’s like SNL... who watches it anymore? Except that clips still regularly get views in the millions. It would have to be clips too. Boycott it all!

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts