Sunday, May 13, 2018

Slanting news on Sandy aid cuts





Sunday, May 13, 2018

Sunday morning news always provides me with a lot of ammunition when it comes to showing just how news organizations slant their stories against Trump.
So, I was not disappointed when I opened a local daily today to find one more in a series of distorted stories designed to influence Northern New Jersey voters to vote against the GOP this fall.
In New Jersey, no subject is so sensitive as The Sandy Superstorm that hit this region on Halloween in 2012.
Therefore, the subject became a symbolic tool against the Trump Administration and the GOP who are resisting Democratic efforts to pass a pork-filled Sandy aid package – and the story was ripe with anti-Trump rhetoric by an author who has a history of ranting and raving against Trump.
Like previous stories written by the same author, the story left out critical facts and engaged in what many critics see as class manipulative tools for slanting news.
By narrowing the information to the fact that the GOP does not want to pass the aid package as it, the story implies that the GOP is attempting to screw New Jersey again.
To understand how media manipulates in stories such as this, there are particular slots in which slanted information is installed. Headlines and kickers often tell readers how they should interpret the story.
This is very much the case in this story, where the headline implies that the state of New Jersey is “under attack” by the Trump administration, because the GOP won’t pass the aid package.
Selection of sources also skews stories like this, and this is no exception with six prominent Democratic leaders quoted before the story ever gets to a Republican and when it does, it picks two republicans who are sympathetic to the Democratic cause – partly because one is in a high risk area in the 2018 midterms, and the other has a quote that largely implies misinformation – which I’ll get to shortly – even if most reader aren’t likely to get to the end of the story anyway.
The first quote in the story is from the most patrician politicians in the state, Rep. Pascrell, whose press releases would qualify him for “the spin doctor of the year award,” following a script written for him from some Democratic think tank and a leader in the anti-Trump campaign of the last year and a half.
The pullout quote – which is something larger meant to call attention to a specific biased point come from a notorious Democratic south jersey political boss, selected here to be most provocative and add to the story’s credibility, when the story is only telling half the facts in order to convince voters that the GOP is essentially evil.
What is left out, of course, is the actual argument being made on the federal level, and how common it is for the winning political party to steer federal funds to those districts that supported them. Every president does this. Reagan and both Bushs did it, so did Obama and Clinton when they were in office. But it appears that when it comes to Trump, this becomes something out of the ordinary.

So, today’s GOP according to this story helps send tax dollars to “moocher states” when in the past places like New York, New Jersey and California could have borne similar titles.
This, of course, is the story’s effort to boost support for the anti-GOP movement for the mid-term election and steer its readership into believing the GOP is stealing from them somehow.
Republicans are “reprehensible,” according to the third Democrat quoted in a row for this story.
The GOP clearly does not want to use federal funds to help New Jersey and New York build a gateway project, a rail tunnel between northern New Jersey and New York City. But part of the excuse is that both rail systems involved have failed to meet safety requirements that are conditions for the funding, a fact that this story conveniently left out. The GOP has a lot of motive for wanting not to give the region this perk since New York and New Jersey massively supported Clinton in 2016.
The story, of course, piggy backs on the fact that a GOP tax rehaul, is forcing governments in New Jersey to deal with the fact that they over tax their residents. But to divert attention, local politicians are blaming Trump for denying tax write offs the wealthiest home owners while boosting the salaries for ordinary workers.
The fourth quote in the story by another Democrat suggests that if the GOP gets away with not funding Sandy aid it will continue to come after New Jersey in other ways in the future. This, too, is classic spin, making a conclusion without any real evidence to support it, a conclusion the author conveniently did not challenge or seek proof of, and certainly made no effort to get a GOP response to.
By the time we finally get to the first of two GOP legislators three quarters of the way through the story, we have been thoroughly subjected to so much negative spin that we ignore the fact that the first of the GOP legislators is under the gun because he faces a serious challenge in the mid-term election and is already known to be sympathetic to Democratic causes.
Could the author not find any legitimate representative to explain the GOP side of this story – since it is clear the only side the author wants to give us is the Democratic one?
What the author is not telling us is why the GOP is opposed to giving New Jersey Sandy aid.
In fact, the GOP is willing to fund it, but not under the conditions Democrats have set, when the Democratic pork accounts for “billions” in aid spending unrelated to Sandy, which includes funding of The Smithsonian in Washington, and Head Start facilities throughout New Jersey that had little or not damage from the storm.
The other token Republican quoted in the story is from a shore district hit hard by Sandy and so is concerned about the loss of aid. But he also was mistakenly quoted as saying he was concerned about Trump’s unwillingness to fund a child health program called CHIP.
This quote implies a significant Democratic spin, an almost blatant lie that this story and other media have bought wholesale when two Democratic legislators brought it up in Paterson late last year.
Trump in fact is absolutely willing to fund CHIP. But Democrats are holding the bill hostage in order to force Trump to support their Dreamer legislation.
Trump has even agreed to fund the Dreamer legislation but only if the Democrats support funding his border-security measures.
Since they won’t, it is the Democrats who are preventing CHIP from being funded, just as they are preventing aid for Sandy because of the pork they’ve attached to this bill.
The story in my local Sunday newspaper mentions none of this, which is how media manipulates the public by telling only one slanted side of a story.




Monday, May 7, 2018

How media slants stories





Monday, May 7, 2018


If I had a nickel for every time I heard a reporter, or an editor say over the last two years “We got to get ride of this guy in the White House,” I could fund my own presidential campaign.
Journalists are not unbiased – worse, they don’t want to be.
Our profession – which really isn’t a profession because unlike being an attorney there is nor bar we must pass or ethics board to judge us if we violate our own rules – is about power, not information, and our goal is to sway people to a preconceived point of view, not to give people facts and let them make up their own minds.
Some news businesses are worse than others – such as The Washington Post, the Hill, Politico, the Washington Examiner, the LA Times – all of which have a single mindset about destroying the current president. Most of the reporting is rehashed crap from The Washington Post – which is trying to prove it’s still a powerful player inside the beltway and is bringing down the craft of journalism in the process.
As I have pointed out before, local media tends to be better than national media, when it sticks to reporting on local issues – since they get their information directly from the source. But even they can sometimes run afoul of journalistic integrity.
Most media hides behind the illusion of “being fair,” believing that if they give their victim a chance to respond they’ve done enough to qualify as being objective.
Many reporters and editors envision themselves as “upper west side liberals,” and subscribed to all the accepted media such as The New Yorker and Atlantic and so automatically believe the propaganda those publications spew and thus believe all Christians are bigots and poor whites are trash.
Of course, only a handful of media people realize they are biased, assuming their somehow have the right take on the world, even though many get their information on a national level second hand, from skewed sources they would never accept if they were reporting locally.
We all know that any information that comes from a single source should be questioned, yet local media when dealing with national issues frequently accepts the diatribes of the Washington Post as gospel. Even the LA. Times, the New York Times, and Politico repeat the posts’ abusive reporting unquestionably.
Most reporters view the world through liberal shaded class, seeing what they want to see, hearing what they need to hear in order to support this skewed world view.
The myth of objective reporting is so pervasive, even reporters and editors believe it.
They subscribe to the idea that a story is objective if they somehow present “both sides” in an issue, counting words so that neither argument has priority (although the NYT gave this up completely when covering Trump.)
But this is an illusion, and mostly acts as cover for a media outlet when it is attacked as being unfair. Media can attack as much as they want as long as they get a response.
If someone doesn’t respond or refused to comment, they become guilty by default.
This kind of reporting often leads to “us vs. them” kind of journalism, good guys vs. bad, supporters of an issue vs. those who oppose it, when in reality issues are often much more complex, perhaps too complex for media to handle since our bread and butter is about conflict, not resolution.
Media tends to strip issues down to extremes, seeking out the most extreme groups – such as seeking out neo-Nazis to represent issues on the political right rather than more moderate republicans.
So, when we do a story about abortion, we seek out women libers and extreme pro-life, when many women fall in-between the two extremes.
This kind of reporting automatically leads to sensationalism, a tabloid journalism that deliberately stirs up people’s emotions rather than trying to find common ground.
This slams the door on possible new solutions.
News reporters deal with stereotypes, exaggerated examples to paint characters that are hardly realistic, such as calling all Christians anti-abortion, and all feminists dikes. In this view, all GOP seem like Nazis, and all Democrats, saviors.
While reporters love to tell you how someone else is prejudice, many reporters, editors, publishers constantly pre-judge subjects in creating thumbnail sketches of them in order to simplify them for their stories.
Journalists, editors and reporters get to pick who the good guys are, and who they want the public to perceive as bad – even when sometimes both sides exhibit deplorable behavior.
Reporters reflect the culture they are raised in, so that the change from street-wise reporting of the past to college trained, changes the way they approach stories – especially because most colleges have an extreme liberal bent.
Although this may not seem obvious, media tends to support the status quo – which is why it tended to support Clinton over Sanders, and later Clinton over Trump – because both Sanders and Trump represented a populist and perhaps less controllable element in modern politics.
This was why the alternative press of the past and even of today gets dismissed because it unlike major media challenges accepted doctrine.
Mainstream media changes slowly and only when mainstream society does – which is why it took media so long to jump on the anti-Vietnam war wagon or accept gay marriage.
One critic of my blog complained that I cannot argue with “facts,” about Trump when it is clear that she does not have access to facts.
Journalists are consumed with collecting facts which legitimizes their pre-conceived point of view and justifies their bias.
The more facts you put into a story, the more charts you show, the more polls you take, the less likely people will perceive your story as fake.
An NTY article on crime involving immigrants was just such an example, filled with charts and official quotes that gave it legitimacy, since it wanted to show how most immigrants do not engage in crime. But this wasn’t the argument. It is the amount of crime associated with illegal immigration.
Journalists love official sources, and so believe that if they stuff a story full of these, no one can possibly believe they are biased or have skewed the facts.
But many of the stories that we perceive as factual come on the heals of staged events such as the Democratic sponsored women’s march or the thinly disguised Democratic anti-gun walkout of school kids.
Another way of skewing a story is to dramatize it, using fictional techniques to sway an audience to a particular point of view. We get this a lot in magazines such as Newsweek and The New Yorker, and the New York Times magazine.
This works well in helping to support the misconception of good and bad guys, creating twists and turns in the plot that forces the audience to sympathize with the people we have selected as our good guys.
Journalists are constantly playing off people’s emotions, sensationalizing news so that people feel they have more at stake than they actually do.
We also break down news into episodes – what next – much the way contemporary TV crafts stories so that we have to keep following them to get to some eventual sense of resolution. This is what media does to the Russian conspiracy, the porn actress story, and such – each fully designed to create a continuing impression of impropriety largely created in media’s lurid imagination.
All this gives the audience the illusion that they actually understand what is going on, but it mostly media created myth, designed to manipulate them for a particular purpose.
Media creates myths using violence, conflict, disaster or scandal. This is the stuff we are best at and gets the most hits on a news website.
The more media stirs up emotions, the more likely you are being manipulated.
And you can tell what a news organization is selling right from the headline. This is the thesis statement for the story. The more lurid, profane and manipulative the better. Most people don’t read passed the headlines. In fact, you don’t have to. The headline says it all. And if it’s nasty or negative, that is the point of the whole story.










Friday, April 27, 2018

Bill Cosby’s double jeopardy




Friday, April 27, 2018


It’s an incredibly sad day, hearing that a jury convicted Bill Cosby.
I feel almost the same way I did when prosecutors decided one trial wasn’t enough to get O.J. Simpson and changed the concept of law to say people can be tried twice for the same crime.
This is not to say Bill Cosby is innocent.
But no jury anywhere on the planet was free from hearing the crucifixion of Cosby in the media. So, it becomes very, very difficult to know if he got a fair trial at all.
We live in an era of new vigilantism known as MeToo in which media is complicit – willing to try and convict someone in the public arena long before the case is actually brought to trial.
Now, men wear the scarlet letter and Cosby’s conviction sets the stage for additional abuses, just as Watergate did in the political arena.
Media like the attack dogs we are has gotten the taste of blood, and nothing will get it out of our mouths.
This is not new. Guilt by accusation goes back centuries and has touched many cultures. Christ suffered it when Pilate washed his hands.
Like O J, Cosby was a black man that should have transcended race, someone who supposedly did everything right as far as the system is concerned but managed to cross an imaginary social line that society as a whole could not accept.
O J supposedly killed a white woman; Cosby supposedly drugged and raped scores of women. And this is unacceptable for a white or black man.
Yet there is something terribly symbolic in these convictions, a kind of ironic lynching since few trials of white men – regardless of how well-known or powerful – achieved such notoriety. This, of course, with the exceptions of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, both of whom have faced similar trials in the media and to date, both have survived.
I understand O.J. best, frustrated and enraged by a failed marriage, in which his ex-wife publicly taunted him until he snapped and allegedly killed her.
Clinton makes sense, too, since many political leaders have used their positions to elicit sex.
The whole silliness of Trump has turned The New York Times and The Washington Post into cheap tabloids, revealing for the first time just how pathetic the two most powerful newspapers in the country really are.
Cosby makes no sense.
Like Trump and Clinton, he had all the power in the world to get almost any woman he might have wanted without having to drug them.
But like some cheap skid row pimp, Cosby didn’t feel confident enough in his own manhood to simply ask. Maybe he was secretly insecure and could not handle rejection. Maybe he got off on the power the drugging gave him, not just to have sex, but to do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted and could get away with it.
Like most tragic heroes, it is some flaw in his character that ultimately brought him down, exposing him to the worst elements of society – vigilantes and media – who like wolves waited just out of view to attack him – a very powerful black man who should have been far beyond their reach, perhaps too good, the way those Native Americans were when Andrew Jackson forced them onto the trail of tears. No matter how white those Native Americans were, or how beyond race OJ and Cosby seemed to be, in the end, they became the target of unrelenting attacks – inspired by their own actions, a lesson for any person of color who thinks doing all the right white things will make him immune.
The howl of MeToo will focus on Cosby’s victims, and perhaps rightly so. As with Watergate, there really was something at the end of this rainbow for the vigilantes to sink their teeth into. But just as in Watergate, this will inspired both MeToo and media to continue their campaign against all men, who will be tried in public long before they ever get to face a jury, and lacking the resources of an OJ or a Cosby, will likely plea guilt even when they are innocent, or get convicted in an obsessed arena for Cosby like crimes when they are not anywhere near as onerous.
This is the problem with the Cosby conviction, it will give these groups new license to kill.




Sunday, April 22, 2018

I want to nominate Tom Steyer for sainthood




Sunday, April 22, 2018

I want to nominate Tom Steyer for sainthood,
Even if Jews can’t be saints in the Catholic faith
I want Steyer to be a saint because like all saints
He’s obsessed with bringing down the president
Who beat his candidate in an election
Steyer claims the Russians stole
And he’s willing to put his money where his foot is
Right beside the fork tongue Native Americans
Said all white men had, and Steyer’s living proof.
I want to name Tom Steyer for sainthood
Because he managed to get the New York Times
To write a slanted piece on his behalf,
Slamming his alter ego in the GOP everybody knows
Must be crooked because he’s spent even more
Than Tom Steyer has in trying to buy off public opinion.
I want to nominate Tom Steyer for the Nobel Peace Prize
Just the way some fool did for the one Obama got
But didn’t deserve, Tom being rich but still a man of the people,
Because he believes all the hogwash the LA Times
And The New York Times, and even the Washington Post prints,
Anyone that stupid has to be someone in touch with
The common folks even though Tom is filthy rich,
I want to nominate Tom Steyer for the Nobel Prize
Because he’s proved snowflakes don’t melt in sunlight
Even when they live their lives in the Golden State,
Defying logic and science the way fundamentalist Christians do,
I want to nominate Tom Steyer for sainthood
Because like saints he just lets crap come out of his mouth
And he doesn’t care, spreading bullshit like gospel
And somehow managing to make fools believe he
Knows what the hell he’s talking about when he doesn’t,
I want to nominate Tom Steyer for sainthood
Even if he is Jewish or German, or not even American,
Even if he is a liberal living on the wrong coast
Even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
Even though he puts up billboards
Instead of crosses, to hand a president on
Just like people back in the old days did Christ,
I want to nominate Tom Steyer for sainthood
because spends millions maybe billions
and isn’t getting anything back for his investment.
I think.


Saturday, April 21, 2018

Poem to The New York Times




Saturday, April 21, 2018

I want to believe everything
The New York Times tells me
Because, well, it is The New York Times
I feel the way the ancients Jew felt
Lost without their sacred text
To tell me what to believe
And what not to believe,
Or how I should feel or not
This breath I breathe
Edited to fid with some
Copy editor’s conception of reality
If it’s not fit to print,
It can’t be real.

I want to believe everything
The sacred Washington Post claims as truth
They brought down Nixon after all
So, they must be important
This lust for power
Leaving them with blood
Not ink on their fingers,
Like Lady Macbeth,
Driven mad by their own
Lust for greatness

I want to believe everything
I hear on PBS
Less stressed they paint my world
In painful color I cannot
Even contemplate for myself,
Newscasters hired for their smooth voices
And their liberal ideal
Like the snake oil salesmen
My plagued my grandmother
Forcing my grandfather to drive off
With a shotgun full of buck shot

I want to believe everything
Every talking head on TV tells me
Because they have press passes
To get the news straight from the source,
Those noble knights on a crusade
To save this holy land we live in
In the name of some new religion
That has no god
Pretending their want to keep the faith
When it’s the trade routes they fight for
Coin changers on the steps of the temple
Selling trinkets to us instead of truth.



Thursday, April 19, 2018

Media polls are bullshit




Thursday, April 19, 2018

When you see a poll done by CNN or The Washington Post, run like hell.
Media organizations doing their own polls, as opposed to allowing real professional to conduct them, are generally a form of political terrorism.
The media group is most likely trying to drive candidates out of a political contest (mostly aimed at the GOP) or trying to drive down popular opinion through a bogus testing of sample voters.
This is part of media’s ability to create news. They make up the questions they know will get a reaction, and then go out and ask people, and then come back and report on it as if this is some objective slice of life, when it was merely media making news they want to report.
Most media these days when it comes to the GOP or Donald Trump are deeply involved in making up their own news and reporting it as if it was real news.
Media and associated interest groups are well known for creating pseudo events such as the woman’s march or the student walkout to generate a sense that public opinion is strong on issues media is trying to sell.
Media creates events for the express purpose of being able to report them as news, even when reporters are perfectly aware that they are staged or give them the results they want.
Media polls are one of the most vicious and underhanded ways of manipulating public opinion and subtly attacking public figures or candidates media dislikes.
When media wants to make someone look bad, they create one of these polls, phrasing the questions and the explanations to make certain the poll numbers come out as they want.
Even legitimate polls provide superficial results, like a wine tasting in which media assumes much about people’s opinions with less than a sip.
Media polls usually distort the results by phrasing the questions to get a negative result. Pollsters have long known that you can manipulate the results by how you ask the questions and in which context you ask them.
These polls provide misinformation which are then reported as legitimate beliefs.
Except for the best pollsters, very few of the polls can tell you what the data actually means or whether the result have any validity.
They can alter the results by discriminating against specific groups, and so by asking only certain groups, achieve the result they need.
These polls allow media to make sweeping generations that deliberately mislead their audience.
But they have the worst effect on politicians and other public officials, who are forced to take them seriously because polls have another nasty impact on politicians and their campaigns.
This, of course, is the real aim of most media generated polls, to provide a skewed view of reality that will scare the hell out of a politician, a political staff and more importantly campaign contributors.
The results can chase away important professional campaign staff, who want to avoid a losing cause.
The polls also may damage small serious and better candidates from running in the first place.
These media polls have often affected the outcomes of primaries elections where they chase candidates out early in the game, limiting the field to savvier political people.
Some of the most prestigious and respected publications such as The New York Times fail when doing polls to conform to the standards set by the American Association for Public Opinion (AAFPO). One report showed the Times’ compliance with these standards at a dismal 25 percent.
CNN is probably worse. No telling what standards the Washington Post follows since it hardly abides to basic journalistic ethics in the first place.
You can’t always tell who is actually sponsoring the pool, or even who conducted it. Unless you’re lucky enough to actually take the survey, you can’t tell just how the questions are phrased, the exact wording, or how slanted the explanation leading to the questions are.
Many questions and explanations are framed in a way to elicit the response the pollster wants.
You don’t even know who was actually polled, whether they were straight, gay, white, black, men, women, or even the geographical location such as a primarily liberal or conservative part of the country.
It is almost impossible to know if a poll is slanted when it is reported about, and considering the viciousness of current liberal media, you can bet the poll was a push poll, meaning every aspect was created to build on a pre-determined result.
The thing to watch most is where these liberal media outlets focus their attention. Are they publishing polls in areas where they hope to create an upset against the GOP? Are they deliberately manufacturing polls that will chase candidates out, or create a public perception that the GOP candidate is weak or vulnerable when in reality they are not?










Monday, April 16, 2018

Boycotting elite media news




Monday, April 16, 2018

Timothy Leary had it right when he told people to "Turn on, tune in, drop out.”
Although he was not talking about contemporary media, he should have been.
The secret to finding inner peace is not listening to CNN or reading The Washington Post. Their purpose is to make you as uncomfortable as possible – something they are very good at.
The path to enlightenment isn’t via The New York Times or any of the power media players who shape reality to their own liking.
And so, in following Leary’s advice, the way to reach personal fulfillment is to avoid all things that distract you from the pursuit of truth.
Since it almost impossible to get “truth” or even reliable facts from media these days, the best a truly enlightened person can hope to do is to avoid media outlets entirely.
In other words, stop buying the bullshit the big media players are selling, and the best way to do that is to stop reading or viewing their phony products.
Local media tends to be better at reporting local issues. But the minute they step over the line into state, national or international reporting, they give you the same bullshit, largely because they are getting it all from the same three or four elite news organizations: The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or PBS – all of which are so bent to the left you would need a chiropractor with a welding torch to make them seem even remotely straight.
Except for Fox or more recently Brietbart news, there is very little national media that lens to the right.
So nearly everything we read or see on TV beyond the borders of the state comes from the same few elite and biased media outlets, repackaged by local media who take their word as gospel, and so help spread the misinformation infection though even more devious means.
Since ordinary people cannot possibly have access to the same sources as the army of so-called objective journalists, we are forced to take their word that what they are reporting is accurate or fair, if not objective – when nearly all of it is filtered through some propaganda mechanism such as The Washington Post board.
If it has a Washington Post byline, he can almost be assured you’re being lied to – or at best, manipulated.
As noted before, objective press is a joke, myth gullible journalist students are subjected to and then get taught to ignore.
Media has always been slanted. The concept of “an objective” press came in reaction to the yellow journalism of the 19th century, when media reformers adopted a page of the already discredited Enlightenment and encouraged journalists get degrees, the presumption that they would become immune to personal prejudices everybody has.
This movement for more enlightened and thus objective journalists never envisioned the change in universities that soon brainwashed these poor souls into becoming “activist” journalist, an over educated self-important and arrogant troop bringing to their reportage the belief that they know better than the public and will force the truth down the public’s throat whether the public likes it or not.
These are a crusading lot that avoid the whole idea of objectivity, pursuing their own idea of truth. They are tainted by the misconception that they should take sides in a story or force change through their reporting, rather than giving the public accurate representations of all sides and letting the public make up its own mine.
The colleges spit out these like popcorn, and the elite media hires them.
 The elite media – as with most other media – also have their way of forcing these young journalists to bend in specific ways, forcing them to adopt the media outlet’s slant or find another job with a media outlet that slants in some other ways.
Most reporters already conditioned by college adopt the editorial policies of the media organization was.
News, of course, is managed by a string of similar activist editors (this particularly true with the elite media) who are selling stories out a point of view the media organizations wants. We hear a lot of people complain about Fox, but this is equally true of The Times and the Post. The only difference is that they are selling a different kind of propaganda.
Media – particularly the elite media – are largely unregulated political entities, answerable to no one, and protected by the First Amendment against government interference. So, they do what they want, attack who they want, with no oversight, even by journalists’ organizations.
Of course, few journalists would dare take on any of these media giants.
What reporter with a career in mind would criticize the Washington Post or the New York Times, when these represent the top of the career ladder? So even honest reporters stay silent and leave the questions of these media giants to political cranks or those who have been victimized by media.
The purpose of the elite media is to shape public opinion, but not always in a good way. These media outlets have their own motivations, destroying political lives at whim and without shame. When attacked, other media rally around them because nearly all media organizations, elite or not, value the power they have, and do not want to see things altered.
Even when these media organizations have good intentions, they are little better than benevolent dictators, who at a moment’s notice can turn vicious like a mad dog, even on people they previously supported. These elite media are king-makers, who cannot be trusted – from the beat reporter inside the beltway to the talking heads on TV.
As said earlier, the elite media feed smaller media outlets and so infect lesser news organizations.
Even the once potent TV networks have surrendered to them, allowing these few elites to control how national and international stories are processed for public conception.
This makes it impossible to get “a balanced” view by seeking alternate media sources since all news is tainted. You can’t even rely on going from right wing to left wing media with the hope of figuring out if the truth lay between them, since both are spinning you in different ways, and in most cases do not have a shred of truth. All you get is media static, a radioactive diatribe that spreads hate and disinformation until you can’t tell what is real.
With the 2018 election looming, this noise has been ratchetted, especially in the elite media who is now selling the idea that a Democratic sweep in inevitable.
It might be, but partly because voters tend to believe what they get from these media organizations and act like lemmings to make it reality.
But to remain sane, to not be tainted by all of this ruckus, the best informed are those who are the least informed, and have learned already to turn off this crap, and when going to vote, flip a coin, because it’s likely to be about as accurate at media reportage.