Being in the habit of playing the moaning old man who's natural stance is presumed to be the opposite
of whatever Journalists write (which isn't true in my defence!) -this little ditty caught my eye on how the
mainstream media offer their indignant musings of the world we find ourselves in today.
This is merely my opinion. My opinion is based on the circumstances I am in at the time of writing and
and any facts I may offer would be beyond refute regardless of how I attempt to 'slant' those facts.
Any tampering with the fact in favour of giving the impression that the whole opinion must have merit,
could lead the reader to believe I was attempting to dupe that reader for my own ends.
Simply put, facts are facts and my opinion is open to interpretation.
If my vocation is to report information with a commentary or explanation, the article should be set out in
a manner that shows this so the reader can be confident that no 'weaseling' is in play.
It's about trust.
Sky Views: Even the weather is fake news in Trump's America.
By Hannah Thomas-Peter.
'In New York, winter storm Stella pulled her forecasted punch.
America's largest city had battened down the hatches, prepared for 18-24 inches of snow and blizzard conditions.
Flights were cancelled, shelves were emptied, trains stopped running, schools closed and shops shut.
But although the massive weather system caused serious disruption and damage further inland, her predicted
impact on the big population centres along the coast failed to materialise.
Just seven inches of snow fell in Central Park.
"Snowmaggedon," according to various righteous commentators, became "nomaggedon".
It has since emerged that America's National Weather Service knew by Monday evening that the snow fall total
would likely be lower, but decided "out of extreme caution" to stick with the higher forecasted amount.
The reason; to avoid confusing the public.
Chief of Forecast Operations Greg Carbin told the Associated Press news agency that "The nature of the beast
is that there's always uncertainty in every forecast and we have to get better at describing that,"
Despite Carbin's admirable honesty after the fact, this incident worries me.
Not because the prediction wasn't perfect (which prediction ever is?), but that important information was withheld.
That's because I think that anything that reduces the likelihood of people heeding future warnings is a very bad thing.
The weather in North America can be savage...'
Nothing wrong there and even though I know that Hannah Thomas-Peter began her piece with 'Sky Views'
I would -as a reader, agree with the above information as it seems, although this Journalist has hinted that
something 'worries' her.
Maybe that will appear later.
If the debate is that an agreed organisation who monitors weather decided that a warning level was originally
correct and then after realising a storm was abating in certain areas, that warning wasn't required, then surely
a rational mind would accept that to change a warning for a general area for the sake of a specific area could
lead to confusion.
In the old days, we'd say it's what what our parents taught us.
It's actually refreshing for a change to read that there are men and women looking out for our best interests
and making sound, mature decisions based on rational perceptions of outcome.
I would dare to salute Mr. Greg Carbin and his people for their principled judgements.
'...In the aftermath of superstorm Sandy I still remember wandering around downtown Manhattan, eerily quiet
without any power or mobile phone coverage. I remember the National Guard rolling down Second Avenue in
armoured vehicles and how quickly that part of the city started to feel isolated and frightening.
And we had it easy compared to other parts of the North East where whole communities were devastated...'
I recall lots of things and I don't live in that country. I have sympathies for those who endure such terrible
weather conditions and if possible, I would assist to make sure fellow human-beings could survive those
elements of life that we have no control over.
This may seem harsh, but since the article has 'Trump's America' in it's heading, I'm dubious on how the
Reporter can make the leap from a natural climatic function of the world to a human elected to lead other
humans.
And remember, this is an opinion piece and should be treated so. That doesn't mean I disrespect Hannah
Thomas-Peter's article or herself, it just that when these opinion-pieces are given, my experience tends to
make me prepare for the other shoe to drop.
But we're assessing a natural force's effects on civilisation and since the majority of adults have been involved
with weather in some form or another, recollections are like assholes... everyone has one.
'...In extreme weather, trust in public services and institutions can make the difference between life and death,
between heeding an evacuation order or staying, stockpiling fresh water and medication, or winging it.
It is the only currency that matters.
But there is also something else at stake.
America's new commander in chief rode to power on a populist's disdain for "the establishment"...'
Are you going to suggest that Donald Trump should wear a coat when out in such inclement weather...?
I'm guessing that somehow, your continuing article will be able to connect your memories of a desolate
Manhattan and the rumbling armoured vehicles of Second Avenue to President Trump's time in the White
House.
It's only a guess, but I'd suggest those worries you mentioned are something that are negative to this current
President and as little relation to snow storms and bottled water.
'...In practice what that meant was the questioning of climate change, hinting at a distrust of vaccinations,
accusing journalists and intelligence agencies of inaccuracy, bias and sabotage, and the rubbishing of
employment figures and other economic indicators.
President Trump's approach has, I think, contributed to a creeping and toxic distrust of so many pillars of
American society.
It is an atmosphere in which his counsellor Kellyanne Conway used the phrase "alternative facts" on live television
and invented a terror attack on US soil without losing her job.
It is an atmosphere in which the term "fake news" has become a caustic, commonplace dismissal of any set of
facts or opinion that one doesn't like or agree with.
There is a battle going on in this country for control of what is true...'
And there it is... the complacency. A corporate platform to give one's opinion and the first thing this Journalist
does is put the reader at ease with a nice story about hunkering down in a storm and memories of weather
-forced loneliness in the city that never sleeps.
She extols the virtues of the US National Weather Service and how it's decision-making tends to lean on
over-caution. Nothing nefarious went on in regards of relaying information to the public, the Weather Service
merely decided that confusion could cause more problems than it solved.
In a cartoon world, I believe we would see the reader nodding in agreement with the above comment.
And that's what she wanted. That's what all Journalists look for with their prose. A straight-forward account
with a sensible no-nonsense outcome, which tends to make the reader absorb the positives and hopefully
re-use them in the real point the Journalist is trying to convey.
The suddenly, like a rabbit out of a hat, the Journalist lists the subjects that the President has voiced his
doubts about and in her umbrage that someone could actually hesitate in believing the mainstream media,
she forgets that she had to lead the reader down a pathway of pragmatic -yet soft writing to get to the real
point of this article.
She basically tricked that reader.
For the jaded subject of such a formulaic, deliberately manipulative exercise it's another example of how
'The Establishment' has become so self-righteous due to it's longevity. Facts are facts and have no bearing
on the reporter of those facts.
The responsibility that's taken in reporting the facts is immense and the trust goes hand-in-hand with that
responsibility is sacred, so hallowed that to even treat it lightly could cause damage that may never be
repaired. Trust is something every human-being needs and it must never be trifled with.
But due to the complacent attitude gathered over many years, the reporting of news is seen by those
reporting it as mere fodder to be pushed through their own agenda-filters. Agendas that benefit either the
writer or those who hold the reins of that writer.
The facts become chess pieces to add weight to the biased accounts and the tired reader or viewer accepts
that one is ultimately connected to the other. I think it's called 'infotainment'
'...Anything that contributes to more distrust, cynicism or weariness in ordinary people weakens their ability to
demand it from elected representatives and those in public life.
In this regard, I think the National Weather Service's decision to withhold information from the public has done
more damage than it will have intended to.'
SOURCE:
And finally, the insincere judgement that any reader/viewer/listener would not have the ability to appreciate the
nuances of the Weather Service's decision to not confuse the public in this instance and within this journalist's
comment, knowingly promotes her own profession to a loftier position of trust.
There are scandals, crimes and acts that the public would frown upon that the mainstream media deliberately
turn a blind-eye to. Police Forces and Journalists have colluded in telephone-hacking for reasons that are still
not truly revealed. Rupert Murdoch's 'The News Of The World' newspaper was primarily closed down because
of this reason.
Countless people come forward and report sexual abuse at the hands of certain political figures and after
years of pressure, a British Government decided to hold an investigation into this subject. The inquiry is
dogged with resignations, deaths and other problems... yet investigative journalists never ask the question
why.
Those of high-rank in 'The Establishment' have preformed deeds that involve -not only having mainstream
media ignore victims, they have demanded that a narrative is formed to condemn their particular problem
and any of the future.
If I'm supposed to doubt someone who says something that doesn't go with the established line, why would
I naturally accept someone who tells me tales of snowstorms and Second Avenue when their true motive
is to insult someone because they don't 'like' him?
You're not above anyone, Journalists... that's what's supposed to make you trustworthy.
of whatever Journalists write (which isn't true in my defence!) -this little ditty caught my eye on how the
mainstream media offer their indignant musings of the world we find ourselves in today.
This is merely my opinion. My opinion is based on the circumstances I am in at the time of writing and
and any facts I may offer would be beyond refute regardless of how I attempt to 'slant' those facts.
Any tampering with the fact in favour of giving the impression that the whole opinion must have merit,
could lead the reader to believe I was attempting to dupe that reader for my own ends.
Simply put, facts are facts and my opinion is open to interpretation.
If my vocation is to report information with a commentary or explanation, the article should be set out in
a manner that shows this so the reader can be confident that no 'weaseling' is in play.
It's about trust.
Sky Views: Even the weather is fake news in Trump's America.
By Hannah Thomas-Peter.
'In New York, winter storm Stella pulled her forecasted punch.
America's largest city had battened down the hatches, prepared for 18-24 inches of snow and blizzard conditions.
Flights were cancelled, shelves were emptied, trains stopped running, schools closed and shops shut.
But although the massive weather system caused serious disruption and damage further inland, her predicted
impact on the big population centres along the coast failed to materialise.
Just seven inches of snow fell in Central Park.
"Snowmaggedon," according to various righteous commentators, became "nomaggedon".
It has since emerged that America's National Weather Service knew by Monday evening that the snow fall total
would likely be lower, but decided "out of extreme caution" to stick with the higher forecasted amount.
The reason; to avoid confusing the public.
Chief of Forecast Operations Greg Carbin told the Associated Press news agency that "The nature of the beast
is that there's always uncertainty in every forecast and we have to get better at describing that,"
Despite Carbin's admirable honesty after the fact, this incident worries me.
Not because the prediction wasn't perfect (which prediction ever is?), but that important information was withheld.
That's because I think that anything that reduces the likelihood of people heeding future warnings is a very bad thing.
The weather in North America can be savage...'
Nothing wrong there and even though I know that Hannah Thomas-Peter began her piece with 'Sky Views'
I would -as a reader, agree with the above information as it seems, although this Journalist has hinted that
something 'worries' her.
Maybe that will appear later.
If the debate is that an agreed organisation who monitors weather decided that a warning level was originally
correct and then after realising a storm was abating in certain areas, that warning wasn't required, then surely
a rational mind would accept that to change a warning for a general area for the sake of a specific area could
lead to confusion.
In the old days, we'd say it's what what our parents taught us.
It's actually refreshing for a change to read that there are men and women looking out for our best interests
and making sound, mature decisions based on rational perceptions of outcome.
I would dare to salute Mr. Greg Carbin and his people for their principled judgements.
'...In the aftermath of superstorm Sandy I still remember wandering around downtown Manhattan, eerily quiet
without any power or mobile phone coverage. I remember the National Guard rolling down Second Avenue in
armoured vehicles and how quickly that part of the city started to feel isolated and frightening.
And we had it easy compared to other parts of the North East where whole communities were devastated...'
I recall lots of things and I don't live in that country. I have sympathies for those who endure such terrible
weather conditions and if possible, I would assist to make sure fellow human-beings could survive those
elements of life that we have no control over.
This may seem harsh, but since the article has 'Trump's America' in it's heading, I'm dubious on how the
Reporter can make the leap from a natural climatic function of the world to a human elected to lead other
humans.
And remember, this is an opinion piece and should be treated so. That doesn't mean I disrespect Hannah
Thomas-Peter's article or herself, it just that when these opinion-pieces are given, my experience tends to
make me prepare for the other shoe to drop.
But we're assessing a natural force's effects on civilisation and since the majority of adults have been involved
with weather in some form or another, recollections are like assholes... everyone has one.
'...In extreme weather, trust in public services and institutions can make the difference between life and death,
between heeding an evacuation order or staying, stockpiling fresh water and medication, or winging it.
It is the only currency that matters.
But there is also something else at stake.
America's new commander in chief rode to power on a populist's disdain for "the establishment"...'
Are you going to suggest that Donald Trump should wear a coat when out in such inclement weather...?
I'm guessing that somehow, your continuing article will be able to connect your memories of a desolate
Manhattan and the rumbling armoured vehicles of Second Avenue to President Trump's time in the White
House.
It's only a guess, but I'd suggest those worries you mentioned are something that are negative to this current
President and as little relation to snow storms and bottled water.
'...In practice what that meant was the questioning of climate change, hinting at a distrust of vaccinations,
accusing journalists and intelligence agencies of inaccuracy, bias and sabotage, and the rubbishing of
employment figures and other economic indicators.
President Trump's approach has, I think, contributed to a creeping and toxic distrust of so many pillars of
American society.
It is an atmosphere in which his counsellor Kellyanne Conway used the phrase "alternative facts" on live television
and invented a terror attack on US soil without losing her job.
It is an atmosphere in which the term "fake news" has become a caustic, commonplace dismissal of any set of
facts or opinion that one doesn't like or agree with.
There is a battle going on in this country for control of what is true...'
And there it is... the complacency. A corporate platform to give one's opinion and the first thing this Journalist
does is put the reader at ease with a nice story about hunkering down in a storm and memories of weather
-forced loneliness in the city that never sleeps.
She extols the virtues of the US National Weather Service and how it's decision-making tends to lean on
over-caution. Nothing nefarious went on in regards of relaying information to the public, the Weather Service
merely decided that confusion could cause more problems than it solved.
In a cartoon world, I believe we would see the reader nodding in agreement with the above comment.
And that's what she wanted. That's what all Journalists look for with their prose. A straight-forward account
with a sensible no-nonsense outcome, which tends to make the reader absorb the positives and hopefully
re-use them in the real point the Journalist is trying to convey.
The suddenly, like a rabbit out of a hat, the Journalist lists the subjects that the President has voiced his
doubts about and in her umbrage that someone could actually hesitate in believing the mainstream media,
she forgets that she had to lead the reader down a pathway of pragmatic -yet soft writing to get to the real
point of this article.
She basically tricked that reader.
For the jaded subject of such a formulaic, deliberately manipulative exercise it's another example of how
'The Establishment' has become so self-righteous due to it's longevity. Facts are facts and have no bearing
on the reporter of those facts.
The responsibility that's taken in reporting the facts is immense and the trust goes hand-in-hand with that
responsibility is sacred, so hallowed that to even treat it lightly could cause damage that may never be
repaired. Trust is something every human-being needs and it must never be trifled with.
But due to the complacent attitude gathered over many years, the reporting of news is seen by those
reporting it as mere fodder to be pushed through their own agenda-filters. Agendas that benefit either the
writer or those who hold the reins of that writer.
The facts become chess pieces to add weight to the biased accounts and the tired reader or viewer accepts
that one is ultimately connected to the other. I think it's called 'infotainment'
'...Anything that contributes to more distrust, cynicism or weariness in ordinary people weakens their ability to
demand it from elected representatives and those in public life.
In this regard, I think the National Weather Service's decision to withhold information from the public has done
more damage than it will have intended to.'
SOURCE:
And finally, the insincere judgement that any reader/viewer/listener would not have the ability to appreciate the
nuances of the Weather Service's decision to not confuse the public in this instance and within this journalist's
comment, knowingly promotes her own profession to a loftier position of trust.
There are scandals, crimes and acts that the public would frown upon that the mainstream media deliberately
turn a blind-eye to. Police Forces and Journalists have colluded in telephone-hacking for reasons that are still
not truly revealed. Rupert Murdoch's 'The News Of The World' newspaper was primarily closed down because
of this reason.
Countless people come forward and report sexual abuse at the hands of certain political figures and after
years of pressure, a British Government decided to hold an investigation into this subject. The inquiry is
dogged with resignations, deaths and other problems... yet investigative journalists never ask the question
why.
Those of high-rank in 'The Establishment' have preformed deeds that involve -not only having mainstream
media ignore victims, they have demanded that a narrative is formed to condemn their particular problem
and any of the future.
If I'm supposed to doubt someone who says something that doesn't go with the established line, why would
I naturally accept someone who tells me tales of snowstorms and Second Avenue when their true motive
is to insult someone because they don't 'like' him?
You're not above anyone, Journalists... that's what's supposed to make you trustworthy.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.