New Board

For refugees from MyWay and Tek Board II, and for anyone else wishing to participate.


    How Journalists Purge Peers Who Don’t Lick Hillary Clinton’s Boots

    Share
    avatar
    sinister_midget
    Admin

    Posts : 1573
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 64
    Location : Home

    How Journalists Purge Peers Who Don’t Lick Hillary Clinton’s Boots

    Post  sinister_midget on Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:10 am

    How Journalists Purge Peers Who Don’t Lick Hillary Clinton’s Boots

    This election year has been so perpetually obtuse, we’re no longer shocked by anything. In 2008, journalists abdicated their investigative roles to usher in the “inevitable” Obama presidency. Today, they’re evolving further away from objectivity, and it’s no surprise to see national press outlets morphing into outright fan clubs for one candidate.


    Two things.


    First off, Barry Hussein was only "inevitable" after Hitlery had already been "inevitable" before he came along.


    Secondly, I can't recall a time when the press was anything other than partisan. Maybe some smaller outlets were: local TV stations, small newspapers, etc. But that's still true, there are small venues that, while definitely left-leaning, make an effort to give the other side a fair shake even if they do mostly fail because of their in-built bias.


    In my long recollection, the national media has rooted for Democrats (pre-ultra-left all the way into the hardcore Karl Marx variety of today). I can't say before Kennedy because I don't know. But what little I was able to judge at such a tender young age was only different from today in degree. They were anti-Nixon (both when he lost and when he won). They were anti-Goldwater. They were anti Ford, and Reagan, and Bush, and Dole, and Bush, and McCain, and Romney, and every other person to run trying to get the candidacy.

    What has changed is they no longer pretend objectivity. They used to insist they were above the partisan fray. They'd even print or air something every now and then (usually fairly mild) against a leftist that they could later point out as proof of how balanced they were. But they were never balanced any more than Hildebeast was ever honest.

    To display this new position they have staked in support of Hillary Clinton, I will endeavor a common media practice: creating a neologism.


    A few years back at a party, I met the journalist who created the term “racial profiling.” That I cannot recall his name is a testament to the glory achieved when one makes a successful contribution into the cultural lexicon. There are several such media-made glossary entries, such as “Yuppie” and Stephen Colbert’s “Truthiness,” which is a snarky variant of Norman Mailer’s “Factoid,” and meant to describe questionable media information.


    How the Media Purges Apostates



    My sure-to-be-glossed-over entry is “Buffalo Purge.” It describes an increasingly popular act among media members, wherein they use group-shaming tactics to either cow an ideological defector into submission, or expel the individual from their ranks.
    The term’s source—my pre-fab etymology, if you will—comes from a nature documentary. In footage shot in Yellowstone Park, a pack of wolves pursue a large group of bison. The chase is lengthy, as the wolves size up weaker herd members as targets. Then, from the back of the stampede, a larger bull takes action. He lowers his head and delivers a blow to the haunches of a slower runner impeding his path. The herd then thunders off, leaving the forsaken bison for canine fodder.


    This is thick with metaphors for today’s Hillary-besotted media. As the alt-right wolves nip at their heels, the Clinton press needs everyone in lock-step to achieve her election. Anyone seen as impeding the pack will be tossed aside, for the sake of preserving the herd mentality. Examples of this practice are recent, and mounting.


    On August 17, famed medic Doctor Drew Pinski made a guest appearance on the KABC talk show “McIntyre In The Morning.” Pinski dared express deep concerns over Hillary’s health and the care she was receiving. Hardly of the conspiratorial vein, Pinski’s comments sound rational and thoughtful, derived from a physician’s experience and empirical knowledge.


    A week later, Pinski’s own TV show flatlined. CNN suddenly cancelled the six-year-old show, with a final broadcast on September 22. Of course, the official statement from the network called the cancellation a mutual decision and other balloon gas. But the abrupt mid-season cancellation transpired within a week of Pinski’s KABC appearance. KABC also pulled the interview from their website.


    These rash repercussions now look ridiculously reactionary following the medical debacle that was Hillary’s September 11 “episode.” (Who even knows how else to describe what happened to her, given her campaign’s various explanations?)


    Days after the good doctor was transformed from practitioner to pariah, The Huffington Post dispatched one of its own in similar fashion—and for similar reasons. Writer David Seaman also reported on the subject of Hillary’s health, discussing (and linking to) a YouTube post that detailed some of Hillary’s physical issues and garnered millions of views. Shortly thereafter, as he details in his own video message, Seaman found his credentialed access to HuffPo revoked and his articles erased from the site.





    These could easily be dismissed as isolated (albeit similar) incidents. They are independent decisions from segregated outlets, true enough. But the Buffalo Purge manifests not only in recurring episodes, but also with targets of increasing stature, as ever more journalistic players join in.


    Survival Of The Sycophants



    On September 7, Matt Lauer presided over NBC’s Commander-In-Chief Forum. Afterwards numerous journalistic sources accused Lauer either of asking tough questions of Hillary (something the evasive candidate is surely not used to), not being tough enough on Trump, or of being guilty of both. The Daily Beast, for instance, declared Lauer guilty of “Firing fastballs at Hillary, and lobbying softballs at Donald Trump.”


    The media’s unified uproar seemed more than just criticism. It felt more like signaling, a warning shot to all tasked with interrogating the candidates. Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, you have been served.


    This campaign season, journalists have moved beyond biased broadcasts, massaging off “official” reports, and selective candidate coverage. This time, they are more than comfortable staking out territory firmly on one side, calling out those who stray from the pack. Clinton must be treated with respect, and Trump must be dealt with.


    This month, Jimmy Fallon invited Trump to appear on “The Tonight Show.” It was pretty much what you’d expect: The canned jovial atmosphere was spiced with a few choice barbs, but overall it was a harmless and forgettable interlude. The next day, however, Fallon came under fire from all sides of the media spectrum. What had the host done to raise such scorn?


    The answer: nothing. He was demonized for not attacking The Donald, or even for simply having him on his program. Fallon—the man who “slow-jams the news” with President Obama—became a bison without a herd because he did what late-night hosts do: treat a politician kindly with lighthearted banter. What’s more, all this outcry took place after Hillary received fawning national coverage for appearing on Kimmel’s program and opening a pickle jar.


    A pre-opened pickle jar. So she could "prove" she was healthy.

    Somehow that was supposed to make sense.

    When I saw that, I was reminded of the 2000 election. The "objective" press was beside themselves with glee that Bush didn't know the name of the leader of Pakistan (Musharraf). They had it all over TV, jokes on the clown shows at night, gleeful newspaper articles and so on. Immediately after it happened, Algore (Dunce Extraordinaire) showed up everywhere he could find to mention that he knew Musharraf's name (never once admitting that he didn't until Bush couldn't name him, and even the probably had Tipper write it on the back of his hand so he couldn't forget).

    Not once did anybody point out why it might be important for a person not running anything to know that. All that mattered is Bush didn't. Which became even more important (with no explanation for this either) once Algore had said it a few times.

    Just like nobody wondered aloud why it might be important for Broomhillary to open a jar of pickles. It was on a comedy show, so it would have been appropriate to leave it at that. But the government media decided it proved something and went on about it.

    Such is the "objectivity" of the press. That shows how objective they were in 2000. But anybody breathing knows it was really no different in the 90s, or when Reagan was president, or all the way back to when Nixon ran against Kennedy. Maybe it was a little less obvious. But just a little bit of personal honesty about memories and one can easily see they have always been biased.


    Not to distract from his story. He's absolutely right. Just looking at the treatment of Lauer is more than enough evidence that every media person is expendable if they don't do everything in their power to protect Hildebeast and tear Trump down.


    You'd think the neocons at NRO and Weekly Standard could see and figure that out. But they seem to be either blind or too tied up in trying to make sure Hitlery wins so they can crow about being "right" all along.






      Current date/time is Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:40 pm