It is odd that when other sources are brought into the mix, the established narrative just doesn't make sense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not hauling out the usual 'they're all in it to keep the public fearful' slogan, that should be a given by now.
But when wants to financially profit from relating information in a long-term manner, wouldn't it be prudent to be more realistic of
the truth?
I mean if we go with the silly idea that two-plus-two equals five, then four-plus-four must equal ten! If not, then the original narrative
breaks down and nothing is gained. If the same producer of this daft equation attempts to fix it by stating two-plus-two now equals four,
the distrust from the first mistaken equation remains and doubt becomes a regular concern from those one seeks to influence for financial
gain.
Again, all of this is obvious in the world of common sense. But if one sees their business in selling information failing and are aware that
debatable topics cannot be deemed 'news' -in the sense of such information is merely opinions, what can one do?
Change the manner of purveying information and hope the reader/viewer/listener doesn't retain the idea that a preferred narrative had
been supported for money...? Continue with their outlandish and often easily-debunked production of biased reporting and become no
different from the internet-outcasts they call 'fake news'?
If it's either of those two, the result to the news-outlet should be evident by now and if a business is struggling due to its conduct, I'd think
a radical overhaul would have to be on the cards, that includes a proclamation of what they had been doing before they'd realised they had
been deceitful.
However, I believe the Boardroom isn't ready for that quite yet. Being' effective' became a trendy notion with the marketing-agencies of many
media-outlets a few months back and I think this has some miles still left in it. It does generate money to some extent via outrageous viewpoints
butter-patted into confident narratives and backed by official-sounding influencers.
'Effective' means -in the Public-Relations realms, a narrative that is designed to be emotive on several fronts, carry well-known brand names, clash
politics and the public's opinions together and usually can only seem reasonable as a stand-alone set of sentences.
Through the use of upbeat, strong vocal -or written articulation and with a sprinkling of direness, even a mild and bizarre narrative of any subject
can survive for sometimes more than a week! One only needs to survey the Covid chronology to see such use of effective-conditioning throughout
the globe and how it became so effective for those who sought to use an unusual seasonal flu for their own ends.
But I can't see this strategy working for long and my curiosity is tickling to see what next is up their Chantilly-laced sleeves! Can they reset?!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not hauling out the usual 'they're all in it to keep the public fearful' slogan, that should be a given by now.
But when wants to financially profit from relating information in a long-term manner, wouldn't it be prudent to be more realistic of
the truth?
I mean if we go with the silly idea that two-plus-two equals five, then four-plus-four must equal ten! If not, then the original narrative
breaks down and nothing is gained. If the same producer of this daft equation attempts to fix it by stating two-plus-two now equals four,
the distrust from the first mistaken equation remains and doubt becomes a regular concern from those one seeks to influence for financial
gain.
Again, all of this is obvious in the world of common sense. But if one sees their business in selling information failing and are aware that
debatable topics cannot be deemed 'news' -in the sense of such information is merely opinions, what can one do?
Change the manner of purveying information and hope the reader/viewer/listener doesn't retain the idea that a preferred narrative had
been supported for money...? Continue with their outlandish and often easily-debunked production of biased reporting and become no
different from the internet-outcasts they call 'fake news'?
If it's either of those two, the result to the news-outlet should be evident by now and if a business is struggling due to its conduct, I'd think
a radical overhaul would have to be on the cards, that includes a proclamation of what they had been doing before they'd realised they had
been deceitful.
However, I believe the Boardroom isn't ready for that quite yet. Being' effective' became a trendy notion with the marketing-agencies of many
media-outlets a few months back and I think this has some miles still left in it. It does generate money to some extent via outrageous viewpoints
butter-patted into confident narratives and backed by official-sounding influencers.
'Effective' means -in the Public-Relations realms, a narrative that is designed to be emotive on several fronts, carry well-known brand names, clash
politics and the public's opinions together and usually can only seem reasonable as a stand-alone set of sentences.
Through the use of upbeat, strong vocal -or written articulation and with a sprinkling of direness, even a mild and bizarre narrative of any subject
can survive for sometimes more than a week! One only needs to survey the Covid chronology to see such use of effective-conditioning throughout
the globe and how it became so effective for those who sought to use an unusual seasonal flu for their own ends.
But I can't see this strategy working for long and my curiosity is tickling to see what next is up their Chantilly-laced sleeves! Can they reset?!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.