The Blue Pill.

[BIAD]

Here we go again, where a so-called news outlet poorly attempts to influence Guardian readers by
implying a revived sit-com is somehow negative because it goes against a Journalist's narrative.

There may be some guidelines that need going over for those of the fourth estate that struggle with
what is reality and what isn't.

First off, it's a television show for entertaining the public and garnering advertising revenue during
things called 'commercial breaks' It's gone on for years and usually, these breaks serve as an ideal
time for an audience to make a cup of tea or nip to the bathroom.

Secondly, if a programme is aired that you don't like, there are buttons on your remote to change
a channel. It may be a little hi-tech for Journalists, but my 96 year-old mother-in-law dares to do it,
so you can too.

As a side-note, may I also state that Transformers aren't real. The Bad-guys in the shows don't really
die and Peter Falk wasn't a real homicide Detective.

It's entertainment, it's hopefully eye-candy for a guffaw and ratings. A way of keeping people in
employment and benefitting from offering wares from manufacturing companies to prospective
customers.
Got it?

This constant woe-is-me, who's-gonna-look-after-the-segregated, Trump-is-connected-to everything
keyboard drivel from the mainstream media isn't working. All it's revealing is how the same liberal
mediums have been used to steer to a voting public and recently -due to an event that in their self
-grooming brashness, they didn't see coming, is being over-used in a fit of panic.



Roseanne Barr is an actress. Someone who pretends to be someone else to entertain for money.
There are skills involved and I've heard that the good ones make lots of money and are in high
demand.

But in the world of The Guardian, this actress is seen as something more now.
Back in 2017, Lucy Mangan of The Guardian wrote:

When good TV goes bad: how Roseanne’s dream turned into a nightmare.

'The sitcom’s honest portrayal of a working-class family made it a hit for eight seasons.
Then the Connors won the lottery and everything got weird.
The implosion of Roseanne hurt. It had been so good, so funny, so groundbreaking when it first appeared
in 1988...'

SOURCE:

But now that evil Trump grabbed the White House, it's become:

Is it possible to separate Roseanne from its controversial star?

'The reboot of the family sitcom has become a monster ratings hit but the off-screen views of its lead star
continue to unsettle.

The original series of Roseanne featured gay characters, cohabiting teenagers, women rebelling against sexist
bosses and it was, for its time, shocking and progressive. It was also award-winning.

Now, it’s back on ABC for an initial eight-episode run (a second series has already been commissioned).
Why wouldn’t old fans like me herald the return of Roseanne?
The answer: Roseanne.

Roseanne Barr was known as a colorful character long before her show’s debut. But though some on the left might
have found her behavior distasteful –crotch-grabbing after singing the National Anthem badly at a baseball game,
for example –in general, she was regarded as a card-carrying, Obama-voting Hollywood liberal.

Sometimes, an extreme one: she ran for president in 2012, losing the Green Party nomination to Jill Stein.
Also in 2012, she tweeted the home address of the parents of George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin.

But in the run-up to the release of the new show, it became apparent that Barr had changed sides.
She’s embraced Trump and expressed far right views about everything from economics to immigration.
She’s an enthusiastic retweeter (and sometimes deleter) of conspiracy theories, from Pizzagate to slurs about
Palestinians to doctored photos of school shooting survivors doing Nazi salutes.

And since the relaunch of the show, an old photoshoot of Barr dressed as Hitler baking cookies meant to represent
Jewish people has been doing the rounds again on Twitter –Barr is Jewish, and the shoot was done for the satirical
Jewish magazine Heeb in 2009, which maybe makes it slightly less antisemitic.
But it was still in unquestionably bad taste...'

So what?! It's a television show, there's lots of them. If you don't like it turn to another channel!
Jeez, the holier-than-thou attitude that Obama and Hillary have cultivated in the left has been so absorbed into
mainstream media-thinking, that it's now defined as the norm... the established way that's believed all people
perceive reality.

Like this:

'...But does all of this mean that folks who loathe everything about the current president should boycott the new
series on ethical grounds?

In 2018, Roseanne Conner, like her creator, is also a Trump supporter. But unlike Barr, her support of Trump is
driven less by belief in rightwing conspiracy and more by the belief that he’d do more for her white, working-class
Illinois family than Hillary Clinton. Does this normalize Trump supporters? Maybe...'

'Normalise'...?! A comedic sit-com that uses current political divides to entertain and hopefully acquire a large
audience. The Journalist -Jean Hannah Edelstein, is also hopeful that the reader will slip out of what the general
public accept as reality and join her in a make-believe environment where an actress and her character become
one.

Who cares what Roseanne Conner believes in? Seriously, the show is make-believe and no amount of wishful
thinking will change that. The media scoff at Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and Santa Claus, but when it comes
to writing a piece that uses another immaterial subject for a preferred agenda, then it's a quick ponder on word-play
and a browse through a sent-in summary of a show to find a way to prove a point.

And you wonder why the majority of the media were wrong about the 2016 US election!

The intelligentsia-bubble that mainstream media exists in needs to wake up and smell the dust on the hot television
valves. The eight years of Democratic governance has changed because there was an election where the public
voted for someone you didn't vote for.

Roseanne Barr -or her fictitious character is not the punchbag you should be jabbing at, it's Hillary and her awful
acting abilities.

The rest of the article can be found here.
The Guardian: