"They only tell ... only tell what they wanna"
I definitely know some things or do I? What I can read is cold filtered for my reading pleasure. What I can see on TV is warm pasteurized for security. What do or can I know? I can't know much and I read lots. The media today reminds me much of the women's magazines -- well scoffed for their lack of content despite volumous girth and weight. A $4 magazine contained less info than a doctor's pamphlet, yet cost $4 for an encyclopedia of ads and "free samples" of odiferous perfumes -- smelling of gumshoe tartar.
I could read on a fourth generation (4th-person) story on something in the middle East. This is a story where the names have been changed because otherwise the stories wouldn't sell. Also -- the "extraneous" has been removed and the more difficult concepts have been switched to a Matel (R) box cover. When you read it, it's generally as ambiguous as it is rampant with inuendos and contrived agenda relationships.
Without these, I would never know that Bush is to blame for Bolivian cotton price rises and that Al Gore once bought a fuel inefficient car for a friend who sold it to a brother who sold it to a cousin of a former roomate, who then did something questionable. I like to claim that I don't watch soap operas, but I do. I watch them everytime I turn on the news. "You know the boys in the newsroom have got a running bet"
It the pagentry and idol worship of glitz TV. Every newscaster, decorated in garb for the affair. The news begins and it is why this bit jibes well with the correct side. I'll even have thirteen people on this news channel agree with me and tell you why -- there, you have the news. You can't argue with us, you just heard thirteen people side with me.
Uh, if the emperor is nude, he's nude, no matter how the collective or mob perceive it or believe that he's clothed. More often I am blindsided with images that seem authentic, seem complete until you listen. There are too many generalities there. If you hear 80% opinion with 20% fact, that isn't right.
You see, we have here three words of a ten page report. Now, what these words mean are ... and that makes us right and the first to show it to you. Real News, Real Fast, Fair and Balanced. If you have to say it, people can't tell by looking. Great and good things tend not to need labels. If you have to say what it is, then it isn't.
Real News: in ten second spots, repeated every half-hour.
Real Fast: nice grammar; apart from the speed of the statements, the commercials are long and the tail ends of the news (CNN a.m.) have "community link" and "Suzanne" with statements for the AARP
Fair and Balanced: hmmm, don't think so. Name ten non-Republicans who watch FOX News. Why? FOX News is a conservative Republican soundboard, much like CNN (Turner fool television) is Democratic liberalism.
Fox News is more likely to bring on a group of yessirs and andhows to verify their statments.
I would like some news in edgewise, between the rally to the left, rally to the right, do the news political hokey pokey every single night. In the end, do I feel informed? If I watch CNN, I get long speeches against Bush. If I listen to FOX news, I get long winded speeches supporting Bush. What if Bush has little to do with it and I want just the news -- the facts, not how it relates to the 2008 election? I'm stuck, I can't get no ... news satsifaction.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
drowning in the insignificant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
that's great, if you don't trust the media, you can't ever be accurately informed on candidates, so you should just not vote.
You're wrong about Fox News, they only LOOK conservative compared to other media sources, truth is, they are very rogerian in their approach and love to quote other news sources and bring on the authors themselves to argue their point. Whether they like Fox News or not, they'll show up because Fox has the largest slice of the pie as far as viewers. Bill O'Reilly criticizes Bush all the time, but makes it clear that there are no other ideas or initiative coming from the left..nothing but bitching. I switch to CNN when I see something that may be slanted, and it turns out they are reported much the same. Fox may have a panel to argue the point later, but always there, at the very least, is NPR's Juan Willams (hard left Juan) who holds his own and middle-ground Mara Liason who is never more very far from the fence, whichever side she chooses. A well balanced panel with you put Fred Barnes in there, or sometimes Brit Hume himself who are conversative big-guns. I like Fox because I hear every possible angle. CNN, after being destroyed by Fox had to go out and get Glen Beck to try to present a different viewpoint. But for all the weight they've got stacked on the left side of the scale, they could have put Rush Limbaugh on and still not balanced it out (and Rush, although the diet is working, is so far right he can see the left).
Post a Comment