The Blue Pill.

[BIAD]

It should be improper of a reader to take sides when reading a mainstream article unless the sentiment is obviously
skewed to drive the reader into accepting a certain narrative and ideally, the preferred one of the writer.

But now that Journalism is scrapping against the up-and-coming news reporting from other platforms -platforms
like Rogue Nation to some extent, it does have the tendency to get 'down-and-dirty' with underhanded manipulation
of words.

So if one refrains from automatically taking an opposing side of a report or digging in one's heels to maintain a
a view that an article supports, one can see that the many countries around have different opinions on a topic.
It's that simple.

No emotive rhetoric to assist a personal political advantage, no intellective judging to maintain a class level and
no phrenic combat with hopes that a book will be better promoted. Mainstream news is in a war -not from other
outlets borne of technology, but because their self-created class structure is under siege.

If we're living in a world where news reporting has become impassioned discussions between Journalists, influencers
and pundits for a viewer or reader to be enthralled by their persuasiveness, it could mean that this profession has
lowered itself onto the stage of entertainment, where continuity takes second-place to dazzling the audience in hopes
of gathering ratings.
But in a war to win, you'll take any terrain to fight and the bag of dirty-tricks is fortified with decades of knowing how
to lie-by-ommision and perfidious fourberie.

Anyway, we'll see with this main-headline piece from the BBC. It's from a Saturday and that's relevant, the concocted
notion that news is less important on a weekend can unconsciously add to a reader's rapport with a chosen outlet.
We'll see.

Trump: Knife crime left London hospital 'like a war zone'

'US President Donald Trump has deplored London's knife crime, at the National Rifle Association's (NRA) meeting.
Lauding US gun rights, the president said he recently read that an unspecified London hospital was "like a war zone
for horrible stabbing wounds".

He also told the firearms lobby's conference in Dallas, Texas, that American gun rights were "under siege".
Mr Trump is due to visit the UK this summer, after previously cancelling a trip amid calls for mass protests...'

Ignoring the need to remind the public to protest US President Trump's visit to London in order to give mainstream 
media to report on, the above implies that he's identifying a 'unspecified London hospital' and since the name of that
medical establishment isn't said, any credit to Donald Trump's comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.

You know that Journalists believe the standard reader's attention span is around eight to ten sceonds, you know that
don't you? Well, that means any gist... any emotive message must be placed in the first paragraph for it to work.

The hospital isn't named by President Trump, therefore dear reader, it might not be true. Facts support truth.
If we accept the comment isn't true, then we can write-off anything this person says, okay?

But who's message are we seeing here...? An individual BBC Reporter's dislike for Donald Trump or a cunning use
of words to insult one area and water-down another that disturbs a narrative? If it's the latter, then what benefit would
it bring to a reader? Within that answer is the true reason why we've seen this recent turmoil in the US Presidency and
the mainstream media.
The symbiotic relationship between Journalism and Donald Trump.
Lengthen your attention span, there's more on that.

'..."I recently read a story that in London, which has unbelievably tough gun laws, a once very prestigious hospital right
in the middle is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds," he said on Friday.
"They don't have guns. They have knives and instead there's blood all over the floors of this hospital.

"They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives, knives." He mimed a stabbing motion.
"London hasn't been used to that. They're getting used to it. It's pretty tough."

It is unclear where Mr Trump sourced his information...'

The BBC are once again, conning the reader with the use of 'nowism'
You're reading from the prestigious web page, you've been indoctrinated to believe anything reported in newspapers,
television shows and websites is factual, it must be... it would be wrong to believe anything else.

If the BBC are saying 'It is unclear where Mr Trump sourced his information', then the reader isn't supposed to ponder on
the idea that the most powerful country in the history of mankind might... just might have a security system that involves
monitoring the world around them. No, the reader is just to assume that if the BBC doesn't know which hospital President
Trump is referring to, then researchers in the White House don't know either.

That relationship I mentioned before is here, staring you in the face.
President Trump offers a viewpoint -based on acceptance that he's the President and that indoctrination society has nurtured
within you demands that he must be telling you the truth due to his standing, but he leaves out facts in order to focus on his
message.

Biased media jumps in and by revealing the lack of factual support, it nudges the reader to suggest that the man at the
podium might not be telling you the truth. Forget researchers and script-writers, forget well-versed political advisors and
data-collection systems, this gun-loving guy is talking out of his ass!

If this is true, then everything he says is a lie and the MSM is fighting-the-good-fight to remedy the situation.
No need to read on, the guy in the red tie has lost and you can go back to watching cat videos surrounded by advertisements.

But is it another mistake by Donald Trump...? Is it simply that mainstream Journalism are more astute and their ethical
backbone cannot abide such serious and simple errors? Or is it the well-worn shell-game of using controversial remarks
to agitate a willing fouth estate that assists it's dwindling monopoly?

Remember, the BBC have stated President Trump's statement source was never specified, but in the same paragraph,
the article reveals this:

'...However, a leading London trauma surgeon told BBC Radio 4 a month ago that his hospital was likened to an
Afghan war zone. The interview was the basis for a Daily Mail article.


Doc Griffiths.

Dr Martin Griffiths, who works at the Royal London Hospital, blamed knife and gun violence as he said: "We're doing
major life-saving cases on a daily basis.

"Some of my military colleagues have described their practice here as being similar to being at [Helmand province's
former Camp] Bastion." He added: "We routinely have children under our care, 13, 14, 15 years old are daily occurrences,
knife and gun wounds."...'

So is it that this article is hinting Donald Trump uses supposedly information areas like the BBC and the Daily Mail -and
therefore, such mainstream outlets are important to the US information-gathering services and should be held in regard
by the reader? Or is it that this report has inadvertently stated President Trump must be speaking the truth because MSM
never lies?

I believe it's both and both know it. 'Fake News' is news your side doesn't like. The wording is everything and an account
can be twisted for the means of the one thing both parties hold dear. Money.

'...At least 38 people in London have lost their lives to knife crime so far this year, the Met Police said.
It is not the first time Mr Trump, who will visit the UK on 13 July, has remarked on security in the UK capital.

Last year he criticised London Mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorist attacks in the city...'

Irrelevant. Mayor Khan's inability to deter terrorist attacks have no bearing on drug-related knife attacks, so why place
that comment here? Unless these crimes are terrorist-related and the BBC have not highlighted the connection.
Do you see how mainstream media flails about looking for countering discourse...?!

It's meant to be nerve-nudging, annoying reading that they hope you'll become interested in. And if you wish to continue
that interest, then 'stay tuned' -as they used to say! With all of Trump's agitating Tweets, with his argumentative comments,
surely someone around him would have noticed the verbal tennis match it creates?
I believe they do and I believe the billionaire businessman from Hollywood does too.

'...Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent, said although there had been a spike in knife-related deaths
in London, it was a separate issue to gun control.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's just politically convenient, in a speech to the gun rights lobby, to try and
make those comparisons and they are totally spurious. She added: "If he needs reassurance, Donald Trump is going to
be much safer in London than he would be at home."...'

And she's correct, the chances of someone physically thrusting a blade into the President of the United States are very
low compared to somebody pulling a trigger of a device and sending a projectile across the space and security that stops
the use of a knife.

But that banal comment doesn't negate Trump's meaning of what he said and the seperate issues of gun-laws and recent
stabbings in London. The outcomes are the same, failure to follow certain laws result in injury and death. The fact of the person
speaking about knife crime in London and gun-laws in the US happens to have a security team around him and the general
public of London doesn't, seems to have been missed in this opportunity for the interviewed criminologist to imply Donald
Trump is being disingenuous!

'...It was Mr Trump's fourth address to the NRA and his second in office. The last president to do so was Ronald Reagan in 1983.
An estimated 80,000 people have attended this year's NRA convention in Dallas.

The lobby supported Mr Trump during his 2016 presidential election, spending over $11m (£8m) in advertisements for him,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

After a high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead in February, Mr Trump said he would "fight" the NRA on gun control.
At the time, the president appeared to support raising the age limit of purchasing rifles, closing background check loopholes and
confiscating firearms from mentally ill individuals.

The US president later said there was "not much political support".
Mr Trump instead pushed a proposal to provide firearms training to school employees.
His administration, however, has taken steps to ban bump stocks, which allow a rifle to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute...'

THE BBC:

There now, fairly unbiased reporting in the final paragraphs. The NRA supported a candidate (and others) to assist him to
get into presidency, a position that would favour their opinions.

An incident in Florida urged the US political body to do something about the amendment-right to bear arms and some work
was done to staunch similar atrocities without seriously effecting that constitutional amendment.

Ironically, there's no journalistic response on President Trump's comment of "not much political support" which might cause
the report to unveil that Democrats and Republican politicians -alike, are wary of upsetting their respective bases.

It would be easy to suggest this article is just another filler -and it is, but it's also an insight to how modern Journalism works.
Granted, reporting news shouldn't have a biasedness, but that's the world we live in today and since many aspects of this
profession involves little research and leans more towards emotive outrage, the stories offered, ask the reader to lay their
common-sense scrutiny to one side and revel in the wordplay that falsely elevates them to a self-imagined superior position.

To oppose an idea is to never purposely give it credence to it and be confident to do so, based on the facts that favour one's
own opinion. When it means that you display those facts by having to concede that the opposing party also adheres to them,
then this 'good-people/bad-people' mentality goes out of the window.

It does mean you're being noble to offer that the opposing side as contemplated and divulged these facts, but it also -thankfully,
dilutes the negativity that been bombarding the public for the last couple of years. Kanya West says it's about time we just dropped
this tribal group-think and maybe... just maybe, this article is showing hints of the vitriolic scales falling away from our eyes.

Both sides can be right and both sides can be wrong... at the same time. So don't have sides and stop allowing the mainstream
media to profit from using this juvenile emotion-engineering.
They should just report news.