There Was a Time
Americans received their news at specific times during the day. First was the morning paper delivered to your doorstep by kids on bicycles. Next came the news at noon that was primarily local news with a smidgen of national news when warranted. But when Dad got home from work with Mom and the kids setting the dining table with the mouth watering aroma of a perfectly cooked roast beef permeating through the house, the channel (one of five to seven available) on the one and only television was immediately changed to the 5 o’clock news. Primarily local news that most were already aware of from the morning paper and talk with co-workers and friends during the day. But it was the nightly national news programs that Dad’s (and many Moms) across the country were waiting to watch. Anchored by the likes of Walter Cronkite (CBS Evening News,) David Brinkley and Chet Huntley (The Huntly-Brinkley Report on NBC.) ABC had a difficult time in regard to national nightly news and appeared to try someone new every few years to boost ratings. Peter Jennings, Howard K. Smith and Frank Reynolds were the most notable of three who come to mind.
That was pretty much it back then. Three networks anchored by men we all trusted to tell us the truth. Very little punditry which at that time was primarily relegated to radio so for the most part, Americans had to look no further than the 6 o’clock nightly news to keep up-to-date with what was going on in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Americans got the news and it was up to them to come to their own conclusions. During elections and other more cultural stories, equal time was given to both sides when warranted. You heard both sides of the argument.
The key take-away from the two paragraphs above is trust. We trusted those three networks to tell the truth. Americans trusted their nightly news anchors more than they trusted elected politicians and by extension, the government itself.
The papers were different. Back in the days of William Randolph Hearst who owned many newspapers across the United States, he was the leader of the information highway chalk full of corruption and lies all backed by the democrat/corporate political machine. When it came to politics, Americans knew only what he wanted them to know. That being said, history shows this practice is far from new. It’s been going on since the days of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as stated in my article The Media: Truth, Lies and Propaganda.
25 or so years later, for better or worse, the information age began with the birth of the internet. It was the Big Bang. Websites popping up offering their own version of the news including commentary. Chat rooms, forums— then mainstream media soon after got on board the information train. Tube sites like YouTube and Rumble took us to where we are today with streaming video. We’re now just a click away from hundreds of places where we can find just about every point of view imaginable. Some rational and others where you shake your head in disbelief thinking … seriously? The question you have to ask is— Is this nothing more than information overload leading to the point where no one knows who or what to believe? Are facts actual facts? Or are they conclusions based on the interpretation of information given at a particular time. And if that’s true, that is really nothing more than plausible deniability. Pundits and reporters just claim “well, we didn’t know that at the time,” meaning— they can get away with saying just about anything they desire. Fortunately for me, I never got into all the streaming sites. I don’t live on my phone [it’s here somewhere] but all this can make a huge impact on young impressionable minds.
The Media Merry-Go-Round
Take another look at the cluttered image above. You’ve heard of most of these names, right? So have I. Next question— are any of you subscribers to any of these sites? I didn’t think so, neither am I, so why do these sites like VOX, Slate and others seem so familiar? The answer is that they all cite each other’s articles on their own sites. Fox news cites CNN— MSNBC cites Fox News— they both cite articles on Axios, The Washington Post, Politico and VOX and so on. In just about every newscast from mainstream media, they all basically cite each other’s articles or pundit’s comments which makes one wonder— who actually subscribes to these websites other than competing reporters and pundits from other news or commentary organizations? Go to any of these websites, choose a headline article then ask anyone if they’ve heard of it. Hell, ask anyone if they’ve ever heard of or been to any of these sites and I’d bet money the majority would say… “What? Who?” And most who have will say the only reason is because they heard about them on the news or somewhere else.
Ask the F**king Question—The Interview
Have you ever watched an interview with a politician or one of their surrogates only to symbolically pull your hair out as you scream at the TV and say… Ask the question? “Ask the damn question!” And they rarely if ever do. You stand up, walk away and say… “well, that was a waste of time.” More often than not, it’s true. Have we reached a point in time where expectations that we as voters will get real answers to real questions are nonexistent? It’s like, why bother— they’re not going to answer anyways. I’m certain this (what is referred to as pivoting) frustrates the questioner even more as the respondent just smiles and gives the look as if saying…“that’s all you’re getting from me. Next question?” What’s worse is complete lack of followup questions. Perhaps it’s because of the frustration of not getting a real honest answer in the first place. And we have to consider who is doing the interviewing. There’s a reason why they call them softball interviews and hardball interviews and also why Candidates flock to particular partisan news organizations in which to be interviewed. Kamala Harris chose CNN because they are “friendly’s.” Will she go into the lions den and interview anyone on FOX news? Highly unlikely. But nothing pisses off the viewer more than all the pivoting, all the word salad responses given by the ones being interviewed. We expect a little but damn! Pivoting throughout the entire interview just to give talking points instead of answering valid, serious questions? Again, everyone does it to a degree but when they go overboard to becoming obvious? Just lost my viewership and most likely my vote for the candidate being questioned. If you can’t handle the lions den, you have no business running.
Don’t you wish there was a Television Show called…..
Personally, I believe a show like this would be one of the most consistently viewed shows with top ratings everywhere. Before I go into the premise and how the show will be produced, just remember you heard it here first so send royalty checks to….. well, for the time being, just order one or all of my books. To all show-runners out there, feel free to contact me.
OK, let’s begin with the obvious premise which is to get politicians and their surrogates to keep from pivoting when asked a question. It’s a one-hour show with a politician or one of their surrogates in the proverbial hot-seat. (Could be any prominent person actually.) They will not know the questions they will be asked. They will be able to refuse to answer up to three questions without being penalized although their refusal will be telling enough. For each question answered, a specific amount of money will be given to the contestants campaign PAC or to a charity of their choice. If they are private citizens with no restrictions on receiving prize money, then the money can go to them directly. Questions will be selected from responses the show receives from the public. Questions they personally would like to see answered by an upcoming contestant with the final determination made by a panel of judges.
Upon arriving to the set, the audience will be given a scoring device with two buttons. Whether they agree or disagree with the answer given is not relevant just as long as the specific question was answered. NO PIVOTS. If the audience deemed it was answered, they choose Button A, if it wasn’t, they choose button B. If the majority of the audience chooses button A, the host moves on to the next question or a followup question. If the majority chooses Button B, the crowd is given a signal by the judges to yell out… “Answer the Fucking Question!” in unison. The contestant is given another chance to answer. If the question is answered, the host can move to the next question or ask a followup question with the same rules applying. If the contestant fails a second time, it’s one strike. If the contestant fails to answer three questions, a large stage hook appears and the contestant exits the stage in disgrace and humiliation.
Remember— the questions will be direct and specific. No gotcha questions and the contestant could lie through his teeth in giving their answer and it would still be considered an answer although they could be called out on it in a followup. Personally, I believe the show would be a hit.
The Irrelevance of Polls
For the life of me, I could never quite understand the relevance of polls as far as the general public is concerned. The target of the polls? Sure— perhaps it might give them a slightly better understanding of which way the wind is blowing in regard to a particular issue or candidate but the general public? No. Think about it. Have you ever voted for anyone just because their polling numbers were high? Have you ever voted for anyone on the sole basis that “according to the polls,” it appears everyone else will? If you’re an idiot and lack either the will or ability to make up your own mind based on information and just a little research then I would take it as a firm no. Why do I bring polls into the mix?
Look at any news broadcast today and it’s remarkable how many times the anchor, pundit, interviewer and guests cites one poll after another believing polls can somehow affect the way we see a particular person or issue. They spit out numbers as if by doing so holds some secret magical meaning. Truth be told, for the public and their votes, they do more damage than good. If the polls are too high— why bother. If the polls are too low— why bother. And that’s for the idiots out there who actually do base their way of thinking on polls. How sad is that… right? On top of which, you have to ask the questions— (1) How were the polls administered? (2) How many were polled? (3) How was the polling question framed? (4) Where was the poll taken? (5) How do they determine who is a likely or unlikely voter? (6) Do those conducting these polls skew their polls one way or another? (7) Why should the public trust polls with so little information on the ones doing the polling? And the answers are? The general public don’t give a rat’s ass. To most of us, polls numbers are placed in the category of fun facts. And they’re not really factual. Well, perhaps to the ones doing the polling but to the public? All to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Again— what I personally find so interesting is how often the media relies on polling for their stories. As if it’s supposed to make them appear more accurate. It doesn’t.
Projection and The Intentional Vagueness of Fear
How many times have you heard the following before during interviews (especially with a conservative) also just reporting so-called news? (1) There is a body of evidence that tells us… (2) The perception by many is… (3) It’s been said by those in the (fill in the blank) (4) There is a very strong belief that… (5) Recent polling shows… (6) There is no direct evidence… (7) Sources tell us that… (8) Experts say… (9) An overwhelming percentage of (—-) believe…
The point is that anyone reporting on or commenting using any of the lines you’ve just read preceding said report or comment should for the most part be considered meaningless. When you use lines like the ones above, you can basically make up the rest. Why? Because you can’t hold a fictitious person or group accountable. It’s all conjecture. Which is fine just as long as the public knows it is beforehand. The trouble is— many on the left treat it as gospel. Do I know this for a fact? Do most on the left treat whats said on liberal media as gospel? No, I don’t. However, every one of my articles are opinion pieces. I state that right on my homepage in bold letters and I encourage all my readers to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
The Media— Objective Reporting or Campaign Surrogates
We hold (or should hold) our news media— keyword: “news media” to a much higher standard because it’s primarily from them we base our opinions and conclusions from. Look at the cover image again. Just about every one of those logos are left-wing liberal organizations hell bent on making sure that Trump does not win this upcoming election. From some of the stories I’ve read, all I can say is they must thank the Gods above that libel and slander laws from public figures are so difficult to win.
They constantly say— (1) If Trump wins, it will be the end of democracy in the U.S. (2) If Trump wins, it will be the end of medicare and social security. (3) Trump is evil. (4) If Trump wins, it will be nothing but chaos. Now let’s stop and think about this one for a moment. We hear it all the time from liberal pundits and we have to ask upon hearing that statement, is it just a statement or a threat? Seeing that (outside of the January 6th riot at the capitol which many questions remain on how it all began) all rioting during a Presidential election where Democrats lost took place in large liberal cities. To the point where businesses board up their storefronts if it looks like Democrats will lose. Imagine that. So, chaos? Democrats and the left have it down to a science. The most comical statement you hear on the news that (5) if Trump wins, everything goes to shit which I find a little incredible seeing that his previous term in office proves the contrary. I recently saw somewhere where the positive reporting on Harris was around 89% and the negative reporting on Trump was 84%. Fair and balanced, don’t you think? What’s laughable about the sentence above is that from what I’ve seen and read so far about Kamala Harris is I can’t imagine how anything written about her could be remotely positive seeing as her policies as a potential President are nowhere to be found. Then again— that’s the media for you. Ignorance must be bliss. Or as Nancy Pelosi might say, “she’ll have to win the election for America to find out what she’ll do.”
As far as Liberal media is concerned, I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them in regard to honest objective reporting on just about anything conservative. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that simply because I am a conservative. That would be too easy. My opinion is based on watching liberal news broadcasts and reading articles from liberal news platforms although I must say they do a great job of lying and spinning the facts to fit their narrative making it that much easier to manipulate the minds of those who joyfully consume their shit to the point where they love the taste of it.
It doesn’t matter if they’re forced to admit they were wrong at any given time and conservatives can say they were right all along. Liberal media laughs at this because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. The deed was already successfully accomplished. People believed them at the time they needed them to.
Take the Truth in Media Challenge. Be a channel flipper. Watch news and punditry shows on CNN, then FOX, then MSNBC and whoever else you like. Take heed of the words in this article. Watch for the signs mentioned. Take nothing at face value then come to your own conclusions.
So who do you trust these days? TicTok? YouTube? Mainstream media? Government institutions? Or do you just go outside and view the world around you. Look at what’s going on in large cities run by Democrats. Look at what’s going on in our schools. Look at what’s going on in college campuses. Look at what’s going on at our borders. Look at what’s going on with migrant crime. Look at what’s going on in federal government. Look at what’s going on with the cost of food, rent, car insurance and other necessities of life in America. Then look at the way it’s covered (or not covered) on the news, where ever you get your news from. Then ask yourself…
who’s being honest?
