This is why more and more of us are turning to alternate publications (Substack and contributors like you) for our news and information. Legacy media started a slow fade, and is dying even more rapidly of late. Thanks for a good read.
“The legacy media is dying for a reason, it cannot be saved, it cannot be reformed.”- Konstantin Kisin.
Narrative is more important than the truth and when truth interferes, narrative must win out. The morale of this story besides a terror attack being thwarted due to dud bombs is that people need to really be vigilant when they decide on their news media consumption. When media try to explain away two losers trying to commit violence or “fiery but mostly peaceful protests,” it is obvious that it is not a credible source and should be ignored or boycotted. When views and clicks disappear, it is either reform or go out of business, but it is also up to individuals to hold these outlets accountable for what they report and especially what they don’t report.
I actually think this is a good thing. The sooner the legacy media outlets lose all credibility, the better so that they lose whatever influence they have left over the public.
Because acknowledging the truth would challenge the fundamental worldview of those who are in charge of the majority of our educational and media institutions.
"It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon them not understanding it."
really should be
"It is difficult to get someone to believe something, when their entire worldview depends upon them not believing it."
People should watch "The Man in the High Castle" to understand what happens when you lose a civilizational war.
Russia, China, and Islam want their empires back. How badly do we want our "Western" civilization ? Or do we really believe that all of these world views are equally acceptable ?
They're solely focused on their paying subscribers. They provide entertainment for a particular fan base. If you expect more than that you're either high or you're just stuck in a Woodward and Bernstein past that no longer exists.
And Woody and Berny were part of the problem then, too.
In the early days of electronic journalism, cameras were sent everywhere. The time and costs of film and processing were eliminated. As a result, more viewers saw events on TV that they'd actually witnessed firsthand. And like the Wizard in Oz, the curtain was pulled back. What looked like a huge crowd on TV was in fact a thin strip of participants who gathered in front of the camera. There were many similar contrasts between reality and news TV reporting. Each one undermined the narrative on offer.
That was the beginning of the end for broadcast television news. It became a part of every story in exactly the way that any old school city editor told his reporters not to be. The internet is the same except there's more desperation. Who is surprised that the reporting is miserable?
The NYT now overtly praises itself for its "ideology" and lambasts the conservative press for lacking an ideology or having the wrong ideology. In other words, NYT is preparing the minds of its readers that it holds the correct ideology and readers should expect and demand ideology and bias in their reporting. They must believe this ploy will work with their readers who are by and large uneducated college grads with little or no learning in civics, economics, history, science, or math. Only a college graduate in sociology or gender or postcolonial studies will fall for this ploy - and by and large these uneducated types are its core audience.
This is the problem with the extreme bias of the media - these reporters absolutely believe what they initially report. NBC News, CBS reporters, Axios, CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere and Abby Phillip, the NYT and Politico reporters think this way. It is called a mindset; it is their narrative. They may be temporarily reprimanded for what they report but they will tell their fellow "journalists" that their initial reports were accurate and they were forced to retract them.
I can answer the "Duh" question of the subtitle: Because the (mainstream) media is Pravda for a domestic terror organization - the Democrat Party. Are you really still wondering about that? The sooner you grow up and stop asking stoopid questions the better.
The NYT basically preaches to the choir, their choir. Same for the others. I do wonder whether their act is wearing thin even with the Left. There is a lot of leftist substack out there. I suppose you can pack more vitriol into a long form essay. More and more conservatives and leftists consume very different media leading to a very different reality for the two groups. Consider Heather Cox Richardson, by some measures the most popular substacker. She is predictably leftist and her commentors are the foam at the mouth and chew the carpet type. Just as an experiment, I scrolled back through her posts looking for an anodyne topic. I found one in her essay about Memorial Day. But the commenters were still chewing the carpet and foaming at the mouth about all the normal leftist talking points that had nothing to do with what she wrote about.
You can't force people to believe what is true and not false. But you can raise questions at least about the illogical stuff they do believe as well as the fundamental character flaws of those who espouse it.
This is why more and more of us are turning to alternate publications (Substack and contributors like you) for our news and information. Legacy media started a slow fade, and is dying even more rapidly of late. Thanks for a good read.
“The legacy media is dying for a reason, it cannot be saved, it cannot be reformed.”- Konstantin Kisin.
Narrative is more important than the truth and when truth interferes, narrative must win out. The morale of this story besides a terror attack being thwarted due to dud bombs is that people need to really be vigilant when they decide on their news media consumption. When media try to explain away two losers trying to commit violence or “fiery but mostly peaceful protests,” it is obvious that it is not a credible source and should be ignored or boycotted. When views and clicks disappear, it is either reform or go out of business, but it is also up to individuals to hold these outlets accountable for what they report and especially what they don’t report.
I actually think this is a good thing. The sooner the legacy media outlets lose all credibility, the better so that they lose whatever influence they have left over the public.
When they plead incompetence, it is because the truth is far worse.
Because acknowledging the truth would challenge the fundamental worldview of those who are in charge of the majority of our educational and media institutions.
"It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon them not understanding it."
really should be
"It is difficult to get someone to believe something, when their entire worldview depends upon them not believing it."
People should watch "The Man in the High Castle" to understand what happens when you lose a civilizational war.
Russia, China, and Islam want their empires back. How badly do we want our "Western" civilization ? Or do we really believe that all of these world views are equally acceptable ?
Why?? It’s simple - they hate America 🤷♂️🤷♂️
They're solely focused on their paying subscribers. They provide entertainment for a particular fan base. If you expect more than that you're either high or you're just stuck in a Woodward and Bernstein past that no longer exists.
And Woody and Berny were part of the problem then, too.
In the early days of electronic journalism, cameras were sent everywhere. The time and costs of film and processing were eliminated. As a result, more viewers saw events on TV that they'd actually witnessed firsthand. And like the Wizard in Oz, the curtain was pulled back. What looked like a huge crowd on TV was in fact a thin strip of participants who gathered in front of the camera. There were many similar contrasts between reality and news TV reporting. Each one undermined the narrative on offer.
That was the beginning of the end for broadcast television news. It became a part of every story in exactly the way that any old school city editor told his reporters not to be. The internet is the same except there's more desperation. Who is surprised that the reporting is miserable?
Yet another example that progressives believe brown skin people have no agency. They can only react to what some white person said or did.
The NYT now overtly praises itself for its "ideology" and lambasts the conservative press for lacking an ideology or having the wrong ideology. In other words, NYT is preparing the minds of its readers that it holds the correct ideology and readers should expect and demand ideology and bias in their reporting. They must believe this ploy will work with their readers who are by and large uneducated college grads with little or no learning in civics, economics, history, science, or math. Only a college graduate in sociology or gender or postcolonial studies will fall for this ploy - and by and large these uneducated types are its core audience.
This is the problem with the extreme bias of the media - these reporters absolutely believe what they initially report. NBC News, CBS reporters, Axios, CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere and Abby Phillip, the NYT and Politico reporters think this way. It is called a mindset; it is their narrative. They may be temporarily reprimanded for what they report but they will tell their fellow "journalists" that their initial reports were accurate and they were forced to retract them.
I can answer the "Duh" question of the subtitle: Because the (mainstream) media is Pravda for a domestic terror organization - the Democrat Party. Are you really still wondering about that? The sooner you grow up and stop asking stoopid questions the better.
The NYT basically preaches to the choir, their choir. Same for the others. I do wonder whether their act is wearing thin even with the Left. There is a lot of leftist substack out there. I suppose you can pack more vitriol into a long form essay. More and more conservatives and leftists consume very different media leading to a very different reality for the two groups. Consider Heather Cox Richardson, by some measures the most popular substacker. She is predictably leftist and her commentors are the foam at the mouth and chew the carpet type. Just as an experiment, I scrolled back through her posts looking for an anodyne topic. I found one in her essay about Memorial Day. But the commenters were still chewing the carpet and foaming at the mouth about all the normal leftist talking points that had nothing to do with what she wrote about.
You can't force people to believe what is true and not false. But you can raise questions at least about the illogical stuff they do believe as well as the fundamental character flaws of those who espouse it.
Why? Because they're apologists for the Muslim terrorists. It's who they are. It's what they do.