Hi Surya, one of the main problems with Trump is that he's been highlighting the pompous
manner that many Journalists carve a narrative that suits a certain perception.
They have a podium that makes sure that nobody steps off their journalistic reservation and
allows the readers/viewers to see that it's basically a scam.
Don't get me wrong, there's no sinister conspiratorial plan within the Journalist community in
regards of secret meetings and phone-calls in the wee-small hours (although a private website
was discovered where Journalists discussed ways of preventing certain truths being revealed.)
But money talks and in an era of 24-hour-news, getting one's message out, would you refuse
the fiscal opportunity to report something that may not be entirely true?
The days have long-gone when a reporter would purvey information without a personal comment
on the incident reported. Two or three generations have grown up in a world where a number of
'Journalists' or really 'Presenters' publicly discuss the information they're announcing and political
parties have realised it's an ideal vehicle to use/abuse.
CNN is taking the brunt of it, but many news outlets are guilty of persuasion through omission of
the full facts. It's usually not the fault of the actual Presenters, but the act of those editing the news
to fit in the time-slot.
The Wikileaks were really ignored during the recent US Election with only a passing mention of
them when it suited their narrative. 'Cherry-picking' was involved, but the main desire was to stay
within a certain set of values that favoured one of the candidates in the election.
It was constant and for many of those reading and viewing the information, it assisted in forming
their opinions of the candidates. The people on television who supposedly report the news are
perceived as celebrities and with that, many perceptions are nailed onto their conduct.
Some believe that if they present news to millions of viewers, our natural social-standing is that
these people are telling the whole truth and beyond deception. They seem familiar and 'act' to
give the impression that they're just like the viewers... a regular Joe/Jane.
But look at their salaries, their incomes are far-beyond the average person and to maintain
the lifestyles they enjoy, I'd doubt a noble and honourable conduct would stand them in good
stead when dealing in the world of politics.
What could also be worse for news-outlets is what do you do when there's no 'interesting'
news...? Can you not just take a small article and enhance it into something that might catch
the viewers/readers eye?
Well, Journalists do it every day, they have to. Something you find important may not be to another
and in the world of ratings and newspapers sales, a flavour must be available to any potential
customer in a world where your work-skills decide whether your salary will continue.
You're only a couple of steps away from green-screens and crisis actors, and with a professional
political system who's status must be maintained at all costs, there's no shortage of customers
to 'use' your broadcasting talents.
As I've suggested, its not sinister... it's just that over the years, it's become part of the establishment.
manner that many Journalists carve a narrative that suits a certain perception.
They have a podium that makes sure that nobody steps off their journalistic reservation and
allows the readers/viewers to see that it's basically a scam.
Don't get me wrong, there's no sinister conspiratorial plan within the Journalist community in
regards of secret meetings and phone-calls in the wee-small hours (although a private website
was discovered where Journalists discussed ways of preventing certain truths being revealed.)
But money talks and in an era of 24-hour-news, getting one's message out, would you refuse
the fiscal opportunity to report something that may not be entirely true?
The days have long-gone when a reporter would purvey information without a personal comment
on the incident reported. Two or three generations have grown up in a world where a number of
'Journalists' or really 'Presenters' publicly discuss the information they're announcing and political
parties have realised it's an ideal vehicle to use/abuse.
CNN is taking the brunt of it, but many news outlets are guilty of persuasion through omission of
the full facts. It's usually not the fault of the actual Presenters, but the act of those editing the news
to fit in the time-slot.
The Wikileaks were really ignored during the recent US Election with only a passing mention of
them when it suited their narrative. 'Cherry-picking' was involved, but the main desire was to stay
within a certain set of values that favoured one of the candidates in the election.
It was constant and for many of those reading and viewing the information, it assisted in forming
their opinions of the candidates. The people on television who supposedly report the news are
perceived as celebrities and with that, many perceptions are nailed onto their conduct.
Some believe that if they present news to millions of viewers, our natural social-standing is that
these people are telling the whole truth and beyond deception. They seem familiar and 'act' to
give the impression that they're just like the viewers... a regular Joe/Jane.
But look at their salaries, their incomes are far-beyond the average person and to maintain
the lifestyles they enjoy, I'd doubt a noble and honourable conduct would stand them in good
stead when dealing in the world of politics.
What could also be worse for news-outlets is what do you do when there's no 'interesting'
news...? Can you not just take a small article and enhance it into something that might catch
the viewers/readers eye?
Well, Journalists do it every day, they have to. Something you find important may not be to another
and in the world of ratings and newspapers sales, a flavour must be available to any potential
customer in a world where your work-skills decide whether your salary will continue.
You're only a couple of steps away from green-screens and crisis actors, and with a professional
political system who's status must be maintained at all costs, there's no shortage of customers
to 'use' your broadcasting talents.
As I've suggested, its not sinister... it's just that over the years, it's become part of the establishment.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.