If I was a Journalist, I'd be wondering how much longer I have in the outrage-paradigm before someone asks me to write
a neutral report. Seriously, with all the articles that have two sides to a particular topic, how long can mainstream journalism
rely on deliberately causing the fuming from a reader to be beneficial to their word-juggling salary?
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump and the rules said he had enough of them to become President of the United States.
Yet everyday, the MSM roll out stories that have negative connotations about him and indicate that those who voted for him
were either tricked or have poor judgement.
Great Britain leaving the European Union is assumed -by the many daily reports from the media, as a bad decision and
one has to wonder, if the referendum had gone the other way and the UK had voted to stay in, what would those same
news outlets say then?
'Exclusive: What Britain has took for granted for years is just the same'?!!
Activists are never reported on to explain their preferences, press-releases from particular groups with favoured agendas
are never acknowledged in a report and official outlets -that provide substance to an article, are not enlarged on to show
that no bias is actually coming from the Reporter, merely being provided a vehicle to purvey that message.
But why only one side...? Why only offer one side of a story? Surely when the current trend of virtuous people marching on
their capital city with rage and five-word slogans, a media can report on both sides of what is for debate?
But they don't.
We're at a time when the establishment press are being seen for what they are, companies with a type of product that's
struggling in a technologically-driven environment where adaption -just like many industries, is reluctant to due to its status
position in society. You're supposed to trust the Press, not some gossiping blogger or YouTube commentator.
The nature of free-markets ensures that those who's product isn't competitive, will struggle and probably fail.
If the mainstream outlets provide a healthy all-around-appreciative commodity, then lesser -and possibly contemporary
styles of information outlets will wither. In essence, the best is best.
But choice can be a factor of course and this would be principally be based on the content of the news provided.
Due to the trust that readers/viewers have come to socially accept, the information would have to be able to -not only hold
the reader/viewer's immediate attention, but also imply that further investment of finance and time in future information
-collation should be a must.
One might think that it would dishonourable to cater for a particular section of society and provide news that holds the duel
purpose of supporting that chosen perception and even promoting it. But sadly, honour isn't something in a Journalist's
vocabulary these days. Honour doesn't pay the bills and dignity in their craft and the truth are just words that belong in a
romantic hardback from Reader's Digest.
I understand that, I really do. Reality has a habit of making you hold your nose and force you to eat shit.
Heck, just watch the in-house pundits on a Paper-Review section of news programme...! They'll take a side and argue with
acting that wouldn't be out of place in a school Christmas play!
Paper-Review... a worrying trend as well. Journalists talking to Journalists about what Journalists wrote.
So if we accept the pragmatism that catering for a parts of society who hold a particular opinion brings its rewards and by
connecting those groups using appropriate phrasing, a medium's audience can be enlarged. Views that would consider
themselves different can be brought closer by nuance prose and those deemed unpopular by the media's audience can
be painted even darker than before.
In fact, we can go further. Why not create new enemies for that avid group of readers/viewers...?! Let's choose sides with
the use of religious-beliefs, skin-colour and different perspectives. Lets divide society up and with what amounts to strife
-causing propaganda, sit back and watch the shit-show. All the while, the warring factions are paying you to dance to a tune
they never decided on.
But the unvarnished truth...? The alternative views that combat those audiences' model of the world?
Well, to maintain favour, one can omit and obfuscate pieces of information and stay with the preferred narrative.
The mortgage gets paid, the lights stay on and the in-group readers/viewers sleep confidently in their beds knowing they
are right and someone else is wrong.
But in reality, a person can have opinions that are right and wrong. We all have them. It's what makes us so pliable.
How many reading this already know that...? Don't you think Journalists know that too?!!
The death-throes of mainstream media are undignified and after all these years of supposedly 'fighting the devil' -as the
Fourth Estate liked to proclaim, they're dying in the most dishonourable manner.
a neutral report. Seriously, with all the articles that have two sides to a particular topic, how long can mainstream journalism
rely on deliberately causing the fuming from a reader to be beneficial to their word-juggling salary?
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump and the rules said he had enough of them to become President of the United States.
Yet everyday, the MSM roll out stories that have negative connotations about him and indicate that those who voted for him
were either tricked or have poor judgement.
Great Britain leaving the European Union is assumed -by the many daily reports from the media, as a bad decision and
one has to wonder, if the referendum had gone the other way and the UK had voted to stay in, what would those same
news outlets say then?
'Exclusive: What Britain has took for granted for years is just the same'?!!
Activists are never reported on to explain their preferences, press-releases from particular groups with favoured agendas
are never acknowledged in a report and official outlets -that provide substance to an article, are not enlarged on to show
that no bias is actually coming from the Reporter, merely being provided a vehicle to purvey that message.
But why only one side...? Why only offer one side of a story? Surely when the current trend of virtuous people marching on
their capital city with rage and five-word slogans, a media can report on both sides of what is for debate?
But they don't.
We're at a time when the establishment press are being seen for what they are, companies with a type of product that's
struggling in a technologically-driven environment where adaption -just like many industries, is reluctant to due to its status
position in society. You're supposed to trust the Press, not some gossiping blogger or YouTube commentator.
The nature of free-markets ensures that those who's product isn't competitive, will struggle and probably fail.
If the mainstream outlets provide a healthy all-around-appreciative commodity, then lesser -and possibly contemporary
styles of information outlets will wither. In essence, the best is best.
But choice can be a factor of course and this would be principally be based on the content of the news provided.
Due to the trust that readers/viewers have come to socially accept, the information would have to be able to -not only hold
the reader/viewer's immediate attention, but also imply that further investment of finance and time in future information
-collation should be a must.
One might think that it would dishonourable to cater for a particular section of society and provide news that holds the duel
purpose of supporting that chosen perception and even promoting it. But sadly, honour isn't something in a Journalist's
vocabulary these days. Honour doesn't pay the bills and dignity in their craft and the truth are just words that belong in a
romantic hardback from Reader's Digest.
I understand that, I really do. Reality has a habit of making you hold your nose and force you to eat shit.
Heck, just watch the in-house pundits on a Paper-Review section of news programme...! They'll take a side and argue with
acting that wouldn't be out of place in a school Christmas play!
Paper-Review... a worrying trend as well. Journalists talking to Journalists about what Journalists wrote.
So if we accept the pragmatism that catering for a parts of society who hold a particular opinion brings its rewards and by
connecting those groups using appropriate phrasing, a medium's audience can be enlarged. Views that would consider
themselves different can be brought closer by nuance prose and those deemed unpopular by the media's audience can
be painted even darker than before.
In fact, we can go further. Why not create new enemies for that avid group of readers/viewers...?! Let's choose sides with
the use of religious-beliefs, skin-colour and different perspectives. Lets divide society up and with what amounts to strife
-causing propaganda, sit back and watch the shit-show. All the while, the warring factions are paying you to dance to a tune
they never decided on.
But the unvarnished truth...? The alternative views that combat those audiences' model of the world?
Well, to maintain favour, one can omit and obfuscate pieces of information and stay with the preferred narrative.
The mortgage gets paid, the lights stay on and the in-group readers/viewers sleep confidently in their beds knowing they
are right and someone else is wrong.
But in reality, a person can have opinions that are right and wrong. We all have them. It's what makes us so pliable.
How many reading this already know that...? Don't you think Journalists know that too?!!
The death-throes of mainstream media are undignified and after all these years of supposedly 'fighting the devil' -as the
Fourth Estate liked to proclaim, they're dying in the most dishonourable manner.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.