you buying

  It appears to me that the mainstream news these days is intended to incite more so than inform. I understand the motive behind that, it sells. It speaks to the character of man. Now, it's true that the news may get you upset no matter how it is reported. The difference is in the past you weren't being told to be upset. That was up to you to decide if any "action" needed to be taken. We were given the facts without opinion and left to decide. As Walter would famously say, "and that's the way it is" followed by the days date. There was no judgement from Walter although he was called the most trusted man in America. He earned that moniker honestly. He presented the facts as he knew them to be.

 This morning I turn on the news and they are reporting about protestors in Atlanta. A new facility for Police is being constructed there. Protestors attacked the facility with Molotov cocktails and other acts of violence. I didn't listen closely to the story, but the reporter called those protesting, domestic terrorists! I did listen as one protestor, a woman that appeared to be in her sixties, explained that Atlanta didn't need more police, they need more help for the homeless, for low-income families and programs for the criminals. Her feeling was the tax money should be spent on those things. How she felt about burning the place down wasn't broadcast. I'm not certain she was even asked about that. No, the main part of the story was domestic terrorism! A term designed to scare you, to incite anger and a call to action. Of course, eliminating the police force I'm not sure who is supposed to respond. Are we now to send the military to fight these domestic terrorists? To fight the war on terror. 

 In other news they were talking about criminal justice and bills introduced to the legislature. Under 25 you shouldn't be charged with a crime. Science tells us your mind isn't fully developed. If you're 17 you can join the Army, be trained in combat skills, sent to fight in foreign wars and receive medals for that, hailed as a hero. If you're 24 and just a thug that shoots someone in a botched robbery or gang related activities, you aren't responsible for that. Your brain isn't fully developed yet! You get counseling. Depending upon which news network you are listening to it may be fully supported or not. The liberal news outlet explaining how this would prevent mass incarceration and reduce future crime. We should be building rehabilitation facilities not prisons. Of course, participation in any programs would be voluntary. Once it is explained to you that what you did was wrong and you're sorry, your brain has developed a bit more. Not everyone matures at the same rate you know. 

 I remember when the opinion portion of the news cast was called the editorial. It was made clear that this was the opinion of the reporter. It was understood that the television station, the parent company that controlled the broadcast, did not necessarily agree with that opinion. Despite any disclaimers I hear today I don't believe that to be the case today. Those reporters had best toe the line or face the consequences. I saw that a few years back on my local news station. The reporter was fired immediately for something that she said. It was an honest question, but what was inferred from that question got her fired. The city of Baltimore had three black women as Mayor in succession. Each one had major issues. The last one, Catherine Pugh, was removed from office for dishonest dealings involving millions of dollars. The reporter asked, maybe we should try something different. What was inferred was that she was disparaging black women. That is what got her fired. I disagreed with that decision. It seems like a reasonable question to me. Understand, she didn't make any reference to their race just their actions while in office, but she lost her job on inference, not implication. The station management bowed to public opinion in a predominately Democratic city, controlled by a predominately black leadership at all levels of government. The reporter was white. That was her only mistake and that's my opinion.

 When I was young, I didn't listen to the news as much. It was pretty boring stuff. My father would say, sit down and listen to what it being said. Most of the time, after listening a bit I would ask, what did that mean? Dad would say, that's for you to think about. Other times he would offer his opinion, well ok, most of the time he did. But back then the news lasted about an hour at most. Today it has been stretched out to a couple hours. It's mostly the same story over and over. 

 But in an effort to make it more entertaining the style of reporting has been changed. Now it's a show. You have the good guy's vs bad guys. If you follow a station on either side of the political divide that should become evident to you. Each station reporting the same events with a different slant. Protestors or terrorists? Depends upon who is doing the reporting. Fact or conspiracy? Is racism running rampant across the land? Depends upon a few factors, doesn't it? If something is denied to a certain demographic it is probably racist. If a program is developed to benefit a certain demographic that is progressive. So, yeah, it depends. 

 The objective today is to sell a product, not necessarily inform the public. It's evident with the marketing techniques being used. There is a news station or pod cast that will agree with your opinion. Buying the product is the objective here. It isn't really about the news; it is about the show. How entertaining is it? What characters do they highlight? Yes, I believe the objective today is to incite, not to inform. The objective is to rally your political base through the medium of the evening news. By doing so they can create anger or fear. Either emotion will serve the purpose. Control by motivating the people to action, whatever action you choose, and fear to create compliance. There are those that will simply cower in the corner. Patriot or domestic terrorist? Depends.