THE INTRIGUE I notice in this period of Quarantine, many fellow friends are producing what seem to be daily blog posts. They are quite explosive in an unsubtle manner, trying to capture a sort of natural flow expressive of them. Which is fine...
I am aware of that trend, that style dubbed ‘stream of consciousness’. I remember it was exemplified by that ‘James Frey’ guy who produced ‘A million little pieces’. (The author who Oprah Winfrey Ambushed and who the Towel character in South Park was inspired by)
In fact, while on that topic, it seems many authors who recount their experiences of substance-use apply that semi-explosive & dramatic license upon their historical delivery.
For now, I address something which with a sweeping statement, I encompass ALL people who even slightly fall under this category, generalizing without hesitation! That something is the media, the press and all those lurid commercial authors alike.
How is it that our perception is shaped by these few? That we must see reality through their unsobre lense? How have the people of this planet allowed all these news figures and journalists to sustain their monopoly of information?
Yes.. of course it is always a pleasure - as a certain relief - to fall safely into the comfort of a powered up television, to allow the voice to wash over you in the comfort of your home. It seems so harmless, so warmly innocuous to hear that pre-music News Bulletin that sounds like a Terran Soundtrack. But the reporter is omni-potent! They’re everywhere!
They reach your home, they reach the streets, news stands and aisle queue at the shopping till. Your cellphone and laptop and so on;
But are they qualified? Who elected them? Why should we be injected with their feelings, and be forced (and it is a force) to react and feel - collectively or personally - the same feeling of defeat, depression and social disillusionment?
There is no indication that these people are able to assess information with a sober and intellectually honest narrative. They are doused with an attitude of intoxicating red wine, head-ache inducing and convulsive... and they talk with a morbid flavor of adult severity, where within anyone who questions them or challenges them is repressively dismissed as childish, uneducated or unhygienic.
THE IRRESPONSIBLE MEDIA
[definitions
[ Mana : Power, authority; a supernatural life force ]
The media irresponsibly insult the president, and the president of the US. Yet they show no intelligence which places them in any position to have this right.
In other words they show no sign of being imbued with strength or a higher attribute. Whether stronger in health or vitality, fitness & strength. But they project an illusion of having more powerful and abundant social mana.
What gives them this right? The only power they have is that they control all the news outlets, which are established in such a way that the attention of the population is daily hi-jacked by the news headlines. Like an avoidable psychological trigger.
The people must consider if they have handed this responsibility to a worthy bunch. And remember the interpretation responsibility - A social force that binds you to some duty.
Can someone prevent the affects and the nature of the news pervasive? You cannot easily avoid it and if you do, it would be a conscientious effort accomplished by your OWN personal effort!
When they insult the president, whether the audience knows it or not, they are only reinforcing the belief of incompetence, uncertainty & poor government. And they introduce into the bodies and minds a type of uncomfortable rage difficult to relinquish.
Their irresponsibility comes with their desire - a completely ravenous and murderous desire - to spread bad news that happens. No matter how irrelevant the event was to your present life. The journalist takes a certain morbid satisfaction in being blithely unconcerned in their manner, as if the sterilized logic held within their delivery renders them worthy of being clinical and professional.
Whether it’s animal abuse, a tragic death, or some criminal getting acquitted. Or some damning trial being postponed. You can be sure of that gut-induced hatred and the resultant feeling thereof.
And remember.. these are the same people that call you insane when you advocate harsher police measures and a death sentence dispensed on-the-fly in the courtroom (Without bureaucratic paper work and wasted tax money).
DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE & INTELLECTUAL The definition of intelligence is clear: A cat that snaffles your biltong from under your unaware vision is intelligent. A funny or well-spoken person is intelligent.. A clever invention is intelligent, and so on.
The definition of intellectual is not so clear. And it is difficult to harness an understanding especially when flooded with the means to understand itself. But it can be denoted with one singular word :
Belief
Surely if I use a ruler to measure something, then I believe that it’s measurement is just, and so it follows that through its usage, I could produce great square structures and geometrically sound shapes?
Just as much as if a person believes in certain key realities and concepts, then their message will be helpful, uplifting and maybe useful?
The definition of being intellectual is the ability to factor in key concepts and beliefs into your narrative (or actions).
What do THEY believe? What ideals and behavioral patterns do they cling to? What attitudes and traditions do they nourish?
I believe them, these so-called adults to be morbid and unsmiling.. with their grave and sombre attitudes and their lust for murder, depression and sensation. They piggyback their urge for depravity into their blasê crime reports. They delight in murder and sharing murder and tragedy within the minds of the people.
They cherish a certain ‘intellectual’ caprice during their public deliveries and they practice a form of social empowerment which relies upon the audience to be defeated.
And they then beg you to be civilized and composed when you find no outlet to discharge the mental sickness and hatred that you’ve incurred from them, as they transmit their so-called noble & accurate information over whatever broadcasting platform they use.
On April 07 2020 13:37 EsportsJohn wrote: Can't tell if this an intelligently designed shitpost or a fundamentally flawed and naive view of the world laid bare.
It's a pretty simple case of understanding that sometimes media leading the culture, vs culture leading the media. Are you serious that you believe much of the media in the US in benign? That they don't have an agenda that they have directly espoused, both in private and public? Do you live under a rock?
Well the good news is that whatever insipid influence you think 'the media' has it clearly isn't very effective if you managed to escape from it. Probably nothing to worry about then.
Actually, it has been quite effective overall. Take a look at the candidates running for president. It has been a contest to see who could promote ideas the furthest to the left. They would not do this unless they perceived a shift in thinking. They spent the last 2 years, and 100s of millions of dollars to further it. The vast majority are from one branch of Congress or the other. They have been able to use our money to run around the country for 2+years as a field of nearly 20 candidates rather than doing anything of worth in either House other than try get rid of the president in one way or another, culminating in a meaningless vote to impeach him when they case was iffy at best, knowing full well it would not get passed the Senate, then held onto for over a month after the vote. Every single one of them is still in office. No effect? Really?
On April 07 2020 13:37 EsportsJohn wrote: Can't tell if this an intelligently designed shitpost or a fundamentally flawed and naive view of the world laid bare.
well, don't worry attitudes like this is why local journalism is dying and the news media gets worse and worse every year. People who reward how news agrees with them instead of its integrity or context. Why bother questioning power when we can worship whatever demagogue is willing to lie the most?
On April 08 2020 02:02 Sermokala wrote: well, don't worry attitudes like this is why local journalism is dying and the news media gets worse and worse every year. People who reward how news agrees with them instead of its integrity or context. Why bother questioning power when we can worship whatever demagogue is willing to lie the most?
This is intellectually lazy. You also seem to feel that if someone disagrees with your view, then they are simply wrong. That is an opinion, not a fact.
The reasons why local journalism is weaker than in previous generations is due to the fact that were are not dependent on 3 channels point of view. We have a plethora of outlets in the modern age.
While I agree that many will tend to watch news that does agree with their view, it is not true in every case. I make myself watch much that I do not agree with. Why? Becuase I want my views tested. I want to be able to have a real debate with those of different views. To do otherwise is simply blanketing oneself in warm fuzziness.
Still nobody seems to have a clue that there is indeed (and always has been) a 'contest' between culture and media. Sometimes one leads the other, and vice versa.
Poe's law and Trump strikes again. Though in this case, it appears to not be a parody.
What's worrying is not the idea that Trump is somehow not irresponsible, but that the OP seems to be demanding that the media is elected, in effect becoming a tool of government, that he sincerely wishes his government becomes a dictatorship.
On April 08 2020 02:02 Sermokala wrote: well, don't worry attitudes like this is why local journalism is dying and the news media gets worse and worse every year. People who reward how news agrees with them instead of its integrity or context. Why bother questioning power when we can worship whatever demagogue is willing to lie the most?
This is intellectually lazy. You also seem to feel that if someone disagrees with your view, then they are simply wrong. That is an opinion, not a fact.
The reasons why local journalism is weaker than in previous generations is due to the fact that were are not dependent on 3 channels point of view. We have a plethora of outlets in the modern age.
While I agree that many will tend to watch news that does agree with their view, it is not true in every case. I make myself watch much that I do not agree with. Why? Becuase I want my views tested. I want to be able to have a real debate with those of different views. To do otherwise is simply blanketing oneself in warm fuzziness.
Still nobody seems to have a clue that there is indeed (and always has been) a 'contest' between culture and media. Sometimes one leads the other, and vice versa.
You're the one who thinks that if someone disagrees with you they're just lying instead of providing information.
We don't have a plethora of outlets in the modern age. We have sitcoms masquerading as news programs chasing the ratings in order to fill a gap of content the world never needed.
You clearly don't want your views tested if you are calling out everyone who is testing your views as being dishonest and forcing their information onto you.
There is no contest between culture and media. Media is culture and Media isn't journalism. The fact that you associate the news so close to your culture shows just how little respect you have for any objective source of information. We get it you want trump to win because he tells you what you want and crafts a worldview you can feel good about if you shut your mind off and don't question anything going on.
What you don't understand is that everything you put in this blog is a cancer to a republic.
You are more right with your second option. I didn't unhesitatingly produce this. And once produced I grinded, feeling deflated and exposed.. symbolically
Obviously people sometimes are overcome with a regretful paranoid frenzy. But I had to commit. I had to commit to the piece of shift writing in its form. With little editting
Because if I ran over it, with every iteration it would have been reshaped until such a point came when you didn't think either of those options
"We don't have a plethora of outlets in the modern age. We have sitcoms masquerading as news programs chasing the ratings in order to fill a gap of content the world never needed. "
@Sermokala: Do you mean fictional pieces of media. TV shows and series? Yes that is a horrible masquerade. In fact equally as powerful as it undermines the standard of life. Look.. all the lurid scenes in Game of Thrones, performed by these unsmiling overly-intoxicated characters. And that dumb unsmiling dwarf.
THERE has to be some relationship between Media and the Press VS culture, tradition, customs and our daily byplay.
In my delivery, I hinted that writers too are to blame, fictional writers.
Now do our media have insight into the decadent standard of projected life that these pieces of consumable media set? No.. since Game of Thrones made it into Time magazine, with heavy praise.
@sermokala's opposition "People protect themselves with warm fuzziness" Yes I've kind of seen that before in some forms...
(Edit) and I agree, that once a news organisation has established itself as a business it must stay on top. Cos there are thousands of competing outlets. Anyone can launch a channel or write an article today.
And finally I must clear up, that I base my delivery entirely on MY nation. I declare that sweeping generalisation on the English Status Quo of my country South Africa!
I'm not like our local idiot celebrity Trevor Noah, who has the audacity to come to your country and make jokes about things he doesn't understand
The above is an improvised clip, filmed from my cellphone, talking about my own interpretation of mind control and brain washing.
In case u thinking I'm trying to become famous I don't have even an incipient following! Believe me
@EsportsJohn I was protected pre-emptively from your attack.. since I already said the press try reduce someone to being uneducated or childish.
But I try and give people some strikes, in any online engagement.
Especially people who play StarCraft because their bodies and minds are always under strain and sometimes irritable. Whether or not they drink coffee.
And they usually imbued with a very assertive intelligence which they declare aloud when entering a forum discussion. They declare it in the form.. of dismissing the source of the current topic. More quickly than I type 'Impulse 9' into the quake console
But mostly if you enter a dialogue with this person and develope a semi-sense of trust. Then you might become friends or realize you're allies on the same page
On April 08 2020 02:02 Sermokala wrote: well, don't worry attitudes like this is why local journalism is dying and the news media gets worse and worse every year. People who reward how news agrees with them instead of its integrity or context. Why bother questioning power when we can worship whatever demagogue is willing to lie the most?
This is intellectually lazy. You also seem to feel that if someone disagrees with your view, then they are simply wrong. That is an opinion, not a fact.
The reasons why local journalism is weaker than in previous generations is due to the fact that were are not dependent on 3 channels point of view. We have a plethora of outlets in the modern age.
While I agree that many will tend to watch news that does agree with their view, it is not true in every case. I make myself watch much that I do not agree with. Why? Becuase I want my views tested. I want to be able to have a real debate with those of different views. To do otherwise is simply blanketing oneself in warm fuzziness.
Still nobody seems to have a clue that there is indeed (and always has been) a 'contest' between culture and media. Sometimes one leads the other, and vice versa.
You're the one who thinks that if someone disagrees with you they're just lying instead of providing information.
We don't have a plethora of outlets in the modern age. We have sitcoms masquerading as news programs chasing the ratings in order to fill a gap of content the world never needed.
You clearly don't want your views tested if you are calling out everyone who is testing your views as being dishonest and forcing their information onto you.
There is no contest between culture and media. Media is culture and Media isn't journalism. The fact that you associate the news so close to your culture shows just how little respect you have for any objective source of information. We get it you want trump to win because he tells you what you want and crafts a worldview you can feel good about if you shut your mind off and don't question anything going on.
What you don't understand is that everything you put in this blog is a cancer to a republic.
To think that there is not a contest of ideas ignores a lot of history in my view. If you look at past times, especially those during war times, it is quite apparent that there is often a clash of ideas in this regard.
If I didn't want views tested, I surely would not have posted thoughts in a public forum.
I do agree that media on both sides is a joke of what it used to be. It is almost exclusively editorialism, rather than journalism. That does not take away from the fact that we have broadcast, cable, and the internet. Getting news only from one source, or from only one-sided sources is the choice that people get to make. We have to pilfer through the nonsensical jargon to get to the roots of an issue. This is a sad state of affairs. But, whose choice is it to make these programs in this manner? The culture of the broadcast sources themselves? It is a bit of both really. They wouldn't do it if they did not think they could sway people, and make some moolah to boot.
On April 08 2020 02:02 Sermokala wrote: well, don't worry attitudes like this is why local journalism is dying and the news media gets worse and worse every year. People who reward how news agrees with them instead of its integrity or context. Why bother questioning power when we can worship whatever demagogue is willing to lie the most?
This is intellectually lazy. You also seem to feel that if someone disagrees with your view, then they are simply wrong. That is an opinion, not a fact.
The reasons why local journalism is weaker than in previous generations is due to the fact that were are not dependent on 3 channels point of view. We have a plethora of outlets in the modern age.
While I agree that many will tend to watch news that does agree with their view, it is not true in every case. I make myself watch much that I do not agree with. Why? Becuase I want my views tested. I want to be able to have a real debate with those of different views. To do otherwise is simply blanketing oneself in warm fuzziness.
Still nobody seems to have a clue that there is indeed (and always has been) a 'contest' between culture and media. Sometimes one leads the other, and vice versa.
You're the one who thinks that if someone disagrees with you they're just lying instead of providing information.
We don't have a plethora of outlets in the modern age. We have sitcoms masquerading as news programs chasing the ratings in order to fill a gap of content the world never needed.
You clearly don't want your views tested if you are calling out everyone who is testing your views as being dishonest and forcing their information onto you.
There is no contest between culture and media. Media is culture and Media isn't journalism. The fact that you associate the news so close to your culture shows just how little respect you have for any objective source of information. We get it you want trump to win because he tells you what you want and crafts a worldview you can feel good about if you shut your mind off and don't question anything going on.
What you don't understand is that everything you put in this blog is a cancer to a republic.
To think that there is not a contest of ideas ignores a lot of history in my view. If you look at past times, especially those during war times, it is quite apparent that there is often a clash of ideas in this regard.
If I didn't want views tested, I surely would not have posted thoughts in a public forum.
I do agree that media on both sides is a joke of what it used to be. It is almost exclusively editorialism, rather than journalism. That does not take away from the fact that we have broadcast, cable, and the internet. Getting news only from one source, or from only one-sided sources is the choice that people get to make. We have to pilfer through the nonsensical jargon to get to the roots of an issue. This is a sad state of affairs. But, whose choice is it to make these programs in this manner? The culture of the broadcast sources themselves? It is a bit of both really. They wouldn't do it if they did not think they could sway people, and make some moolah to boot.
Don't want to get too deeply involved in this discussion, but I also wanted to point out that directed and/or personalized marketing also plays a huge role in how we consume news. Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. will take your search history and the things you've typed and feed you results similar to your own views, which can make it nearly impossible to find opposing viewpoints on big issues. This further feeds into a polar viewpoint in which you (maybe) falsely believe that your viewpoint is the predominant one and therefore is the correct one. We live in a dangerous modern environment where misleading information is common, and many large corporations are driving the flow of information. It's complicated.
Finding news with a fairly neutral viewpoint (because all news is biased) can be very difficult, but I tend to look at public news outlets which do not rely on monetization to fund their work as well as outside sources (public news outside of your region/country). Obviously, you still have to be cognizant of state media priority, but these are much more transparent, less biased, and more informational than private news corporations.
The internet pretty much killed newspapers, possibly TV too. A lot rely on subsidies, and to be eligible for them, they might have to follow a narrative supported by the local government. That mostly influences what is over- and underreported.
Or...'news is what someone wants suppressed, everything else is advertising' And 'Wes Brot ich ess des Lied ich sing', which means 'I'll sing the song of whose bread I eat'
There are good independent media sites, but it's easy to stumble upon just as much misinformation. Filtering the good and the bad is something you can learn with practice. Twitter is also great for more 'boots on the ground' information if you find the right accounts, which can be difficult since many suggestions it gives lead to uninformative garbage. Some accounts may be fake/abused to push a certain narrative, but they aren't hard to spot. I consider it one of the last safe havens of mostly uncensored information if we don't consider regional firewalls, so maybe not for long.
Google and FB already demonetize and censor if opinions don't fit into the narrative that higher-ups want. The purpose of that narrative is mostly to manufacture consent for new policies, and keep discontent to a minimum.
Prominent examples include the underreporting of French, Chilenian protests (while HK protests got reported just fine), economic problems. While meaningless politicky stuff, drama queenish, celeb stuff, coronavirus tends to get overreported.
And remember.. these are the same people that call you insane when you advocate harsher police measures and a death sentence dispensed on-the-fly in the courtroom (Without bureaucratic paper work and wasted tax money).
Concentrated power is problematic because it can be used to commit the crimes you wish to be punished. Distributing power lowers the probability of cooperating toward a selfish goal that hurts others. Judge jury and executioner. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Phrases which have become trite because they are so inherently obvious and true.
People put a lot of stock in job titles like 'judge,' 'scientist,' 'police officer,' but they are human and they have an in group they want to protect and an out group they don't care about. They have personal motivations. Keeping them honest is a matter of aligning their personal motivations with the good of society, which is no easy task and requires many systems of checks and balances (and if that system is implemented by an overarching power with personal motivations, it will also be tainted). The scientist must have research papers peer reviewed. The police officer must file a report each time there is an incident. The judge must have the agreement of a jury. The wasted bureaucratic paper work is the measure in place to limit their ability to commit crime under the guise of their occupation.
@esportsJohn It's not that complicated. All you have to do, is assert boldly that something is poisonous and stupid. Like let's take that royal couple, prince harry and Megan M.
She was known to be famous for a show called Suits. Which is a show about rich people, probably lawyers.. bickering amongst themselves in an affluent setting.
"What? Bunch of modern puffed up men wearing suits? Lawyers? Those corrupt bureaucratics who hide behind interpretations and laws? Those who'd likely complain and whine.. and get litigious if my fist were to suddenly manifest in their Face? Yes I'd like to reduce his mug to Doom 50% health but you're too much wimp cos you fight battles with paper. And your dumb overpriced suit. Why you wear the most restrictive clothing? The only guy I've seen wear that, in a hostile environment,is the blue G man in half life!"
And then look at the internet and online.. and realize you can't avoid these adverts that thrust themselves into your attention.
And develop your attitude from then on..
Then the problems become steadily clear and can be revealed & confronted aloud
EPT
