Advertisement - story continues below
Our friends in the mass media are an interesting lot.
They believe themselves to be purveyors of the news (and of course tellers of the absolute truth, which is of course their version of the truth.) When a reportable event occurs, they gather the initial bits and pieces and formulate a story. Should emerging facts change the form and color of the story, the reporters may or may not alter the original tale depending on the editorial policy of the given media source. If they wish to protect someone, for instance, facts become rumors based on some prejudice or other.
We have seen this practice in the liberal media for six years now. If they want to degrade someone’s image, rumors are generated and reported as seemingly factual. All this with no legal recourse if the targeted individual happens to be well known to the public.
Advertisement - story continues below
In some cases, their suspicions in lieu of facts give birth to anonymous sources “close to the case (or whatever)” who provide sketchy inference to ongoing events. When one media source breaks a story of interest, other media sources take notice and build upon the original report with opinions of their own. As more and more reporters get involved, the story grows; and the public becomes witness to what is like a track and field event. It is called “conclusion jumping,” with the “conclusion” bar being set higher and higher with each report and commentary (which tends to be based on previous reports.) Years later, when interest has turned to another direction, someone does an in-depth report where consolidated facts provide an accurate picture of the event–a picture that should have been available at the outset and as soon as responsibly possible without the enhancements.
There seems to be an unwritten law of the national media, that being if events fall into the category of the normal, they can’t be interesting and hence non-reportable. These events can be political malfeasance, murders, attacks, rapes, or other violent acts and scandals within large metropolitan areas. The activist screech owls remain strangely quiet about it because that is just the way it is in the big cities. It is also an unfortunate truth that children are killed or disappear every day, and the media is very aware of it. Every now and again, a story about one of these losses is magnified; and a single case makes national attention. It is as though the other young victims just aren’t newsworthy, although the situations are usually just as tragic.
Lately, we have been reading and hearing about all the starving kids that need to be brought here for a better life, at taxpayers’ expense of course. How many hungry kids are out there who don’t have it as good as the average American child? Tens of millions? Why has this old story suddenly become news and therefore a noble mission and responsibility of ours? Have the organizations that perport to help these kids gone out of business? Not according to my mailbox.
Advertisement – story continues below
Is it just a coincidence that we have a Cloward-Piven “drown the country in debt” advocate in the oval office? It’s clear that the White House conducts the media choir and gets quite put out when conservative notes of truth are heard above the compliant singers. The leaders of our present government are acutely aware that when the melody isn’t pure, many will not follow the Pied Piper of the oval office into the abyss of socialism. Thus, the compliant media showers scorn upon conservative news sources, websites, and commentators. Perhaps our leader will issue an ultimatum to conservative news sources via Executive Order: convert or be eliminated.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.