Last night, my local Fox affiliate aired a program that featured a segment in which an expert analyst examined video clips of two prominent regional politicians then rendered estimations of their honesty and / or intent to deceive based on interpretation of body language and facial expression.
The title of the program? Fox Chicago NEWS at Nine.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that’s right, you heard it here first!
THE NEWS IS NOW INTERPRETIVE!
Coincidentally, I discovered this article in a local newspaper this morning:
“Local Fox affiliate announces lay off of entire reporting staff: In a move to cut expenses, Fox announces it will lay off all reporters, a spokesperson for the network announced. When asked if the move means Fox will no longer report news, the spokesperson assured Fox will continue to report news and will replace the reporting staff with a more cost effective but highly regarded seer of manifest signs.”
Okay, I made that newspaper article thing up, but I swear, the thing about the ‘news’ is true.
… so… my question is…
Is this or is this not among the most disgraceful violations of journalistic professionalism we have ever seen?
… and, if you’re up for it…
Is this the low or is the most shocking still to come before a new day finally dawns over this nightmare?
‘Bill K’, yeah, I know. That’s my whole point. We are united in this, but I guess I am trying to suggest that we actually want to replace the capitalism-infomercial faux ‘news’ with actual journalism some day, don’t we?
‘Warrern Peace’, I am not judging or namecalling the analyst or the practice. I am suggesting a ‘news’ program ought consider airing something somewhere more in the neighborhood of… oh… I don’t know… um… NEWS? That would be as opposed to ‘predicting’ events or ‘judging’ the subjects featured in the reports. I know it’s a whacky and controversial concept but just raw minimal verifiable fact is the way they did it originally.
‘Butterfly’, my point precisely… "more entertainment than fact"… on a program with the word ‘news’ in the title?
‘Dan’, stop it! I don’t care to distinguish between ‘liberal’ liars and ‘conservative’ liars. ‘Liars’ is as inclusive an umbrella as we need. Deal with that, and nature will resolve the whole ‘liberal’ / ‘conservative’ thing. (By the way, ‘drive-by-media’ is a huge tip-off. If you sincerely want to agree with me on something, lose that phrase.)
… and furthermore… Fox media is YOUR media… You love Fox, remember?
‘Rick’… WOW! 41% BEST ANSWER! That has to be the most impressive I’ve seen, in fact, until I saw that with my own eyes, I’m sure I would otherwise have insisted it is impossible, but there it is: 41%! … In addition, I commend your spelling, grammar and vocabulary. That is excellent work and you are a worthy adversary… I was going to ask you how you do it, but I think I just answered my own question. Based on the usual quality of content from the demographic of your persuasion, you are clearly at the top of the intelligence food chain (and I sincerely mean that as a compliment).
Never NEVER watch any mainstream media. None of it is designed to give you any information that will make you "think". It is all owned now by corporations with a larger agenda bent on keeping you asleep while they carry this out. This has been going on for a long time now, media is just as corrupt as the government. Here is a nice quote to send you off, Its from David Rockefeller, a man who has more power in the U.S. than anyone in the government, especially Obama. All because he is a part shareholder of the Federal Reserve (people who make the money) and remember the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty if an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"–
David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991
5 responses
Do you want to comment?
Comments RSS and TrackBack Identifier URI ?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackbacks