Death of Journalism in the era of a new King Lear

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The New York Times today predicted today the death of print journalism.

This comes as no surprise since journalism itself is dead -- at least objective journalism.

While not everybody in journalism is as biased and unfair as is Maggie Haberman of the Times or countless other reporters from The Washington Post, most are.

It is the nature of the beast these days, an indication of contemporary journalism that in the glorious times of the past, would have been called “yellow” though these days wears the distinction of being called “fake.”

These reporters are people who have ceased creating a wall between their personal opinions and beliefs and fact we are powerful maybe power-hungry individuals with a diluted sense of purpose.

This is not fake news, but it is dishonest, corrupted news, part of a new breed of journalism that no longer requires ethical behavior by its journalists.

Unlike in the past when journalism has its ups and downs, this change is so fundamental that the industry is not likely to recover.

I guess them it is appropriate that The Times declares its death since it once claimed god as dead and plays as significant role in killing both.

Dysfunction in The White House has allowed these wolves through the gates as we watch a reenactment of a Shakespearean tragedy -- not the Macbeth we would have gotten had Clinton won, but a sad and pathetic King Lear with Trump playing both the king and the fool.

Media -- upset with its inability to steer the presidency to Clinton -- now seeks to flex its muscles to bring down Trump.

And it has had plenty of help from inside the White House:  a palace guard still loyal to the old king and three factions like three children to whom Trump has abdicated power -- all of whom work against each other to gain the ear of a king who listens to nobody but himself.

For a time, this kind listened to a worm named Bannon, who would bring down the king rather than concede power to either of the other two.

Although Bannon pictures himself as Darth Vader of Star Wars movies, he is really more like Gollum of The Lord of Rings: sneaky, slimy and vicious, powerless except for the trouble he can cause and clever enough to make use of an equally vicious and unethical media who would sell its soul to prove it still has power.

While media portrays Bannon as the anti-christ he clearly sensed a kindred spirit in them when served as unnamed source for stories he needed to undermine his enemies with in the White House.

And media without scruples was more than willing to comply since these leaks furthered its own agenda.

But media has no friends only temporary alliances and as Bannon has since found out turns on those alliances at even the slightest whiff of blood.

The big question remains how much damage has Bannon done?

Do the wolves roam free behind the castle walls to ravage the mad king at will?

Does Bannon’s banishment allow one of the other princes to step up in time to save the king?

resume