New York Times came out with a story embracing cannibalism
as if this is something new when it comes to American media.
News has been eating its human kind for centuries and never so
more so than today.
Of course, violating the most sacrosanct rule of humanity
may be a merely a ploy to make up for lost readership by adopting the antics of
the National Enquirer.
But it may well already be an established fact: the primary
activity of modern media is to devour human flesh as its recent coverage of the
January 6th committee shows.
Media how tends to sacrifice its political enemies as
subsidence with scathing headlines helping them to drink other people's blood
in order to survive.
The New York Times, however, went far beyond its usual
vulture-like feeding habits to suggest it might turn the rest of humanity in
the parasites previously exclusive to media.
This was no satire created by a noble writer such as
Jonathan Swift but the ranting of a lunatic staff writer typical of the kind of
journalist media has let loose on the world, a serious proposal by a sick and depraved
New York Times editorial staff that has run out of other norms to violate.
Unfortunately, the New York Times didn't even have the human
decency to offer themselves up as a possible solution to world hunger. We have such an excess of useless media; we
might be able to feed the world for a year if humanity doesn't run out of
antacid first from devouring such rancid meat.
This would have the added benefit of significantly reducing
the world's carbon foot print by halting the most significant source of
poisonous hot air. If people thought cows polluted at least they generally
pollute only out of one orifice whereas journalists pollute out of every pour.
Eventually, of course, we will regretfully run out of
journalists to skewer over the open fire. But we many never run out of
pontificating pompous self-righteous professors for which there will never be a
shortage if you can stand the unbearable taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment