Posts Tagged ‘Fake News’

A GROWING BODY OF INNUENDO

May 30, 2017

 

Facts are facts. News is news. Allegations and innuendo are neither facts or news. Yet, due to electronic transmission, there is a confusion generated and allegations are accepted as truth.

It was about two weeks ago that I read an article about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson considering a run for the presidency. This article was generated from a GQ interview in which he answered questions rather ambiguously but without denial of the thought. He’s having a ball with it. The story has made it through the web and back meaning he is seriously looking into it. It’s beginning to generate a donation flow to a non-existent campaign.

I laughed knowing, at least hoping, that it was not a sincere consideration as I read through the drivel. I don’t know anything about The Rock’s political acumen or his knowledge of history or world affairs. He might be quite knowledgeable in all those areas. He may also be ignorant. He’s an entertainer by trade. He’s a celebrity. Those attributes make some people send checks to his manager. Me? Eh, not so much.

However, just for fun, I chose to share the “news” verbally with a friend to see what kind of response it might evoke. I was prepared to be called a fool for believing it. To my surprise, there was no questioning, not even an eyebrow raise. It was readily accepted as true and something to hope for (anybody to get us away from Trump). I honestly don’t know if it was carried any further. In any case, I doubt that any research was done to verify or deny the veracity of the idea. The idea was implanted.

Newscasters try mightily to make their presentations believable by quoting an “anonymous source close to” the origination of a story. That anonymous source might be the aide to a congressman who was actually present when a third person phone call took place. That aide might have conveyed their understanding of what was discussed based on a perception of that half of the conversation. From there it became news as a fourth or successive person shared it with a reporter who shared it with the public.

It is foolish to believe anything you read or watch on the one-eyed idiot box. There is an agenda for everything these days. If you like the agenda, you are likely to accept it as true otherwise it is summarily rejected. That’s the way we’re programmed. Innuendo becomes truth. When repeated enough times, it is undeniable fact.

BTW, President Trump was seen eating some bacon and picking his nose with his right hand on Air Force One just before landing in Saudi Arabia last week. He didn’t bother to wash or even wipe it before shaking hands with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. 

That’s the truth!

 

WE NEED INFORMATION TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS

April 5, 2017

One of the biggest mistakes most people make is drawing information from only one source or sources of only one dimension. In order to arrive at a conclusion (a reasoned decision based on facts and evidence), a person has to avail themselves to all facts and information possible. The conclusion must be drawn without regard for personal preferences or desired outcome.

The reason, as I see it, for the extreme divisiveness between our political viewpoints at present is that most people are predetermined to accept a particular result. They (we), refuse to consider evidence contrary to the desired conclusion. Neutral thinking is no longer taught, learned or accepted.

We, of the general public, must rely on the sincerity of the source(s) from which we derive our conclusions. Unfortunately, very few of those origins are unbiased. The information our government affords the public always has a slant or bias. Politicians believe they are responsible for determining how we must feel and think. To remain in office, it is necessary for them to influence how we think.

We all have dispositions toward particular radio and TV stations. We tend to read books, newspapers and magazines that generally agree with our viewpoints. We gravitate to information that reinforces and builds upon what we inherently know or believe.

Introducing nonconforming data into preferential thought frustrates the mind, thus it is disregarded. When such happens, when we discard facts or evidence because it conflicts with a foregone conclusion, we diminish our capacity for reason. We subject ourselves to invalid consequence due to illegitimate presumptions.

Our political system, meant to be adversarial, has become viciously antagonistic. Democrats refuse to work with Republicans because they are not Democrats. Republicans likewise block proposals offered by Democrats. Compromise to modern politicians is ‘you agree with me or else’! Correspondingly, the public takes similar positions. President Trump is not protested for what he has done politically. He is disavowed and derided because he is not a Democrat.

The lack of civil political discourse by those in office as well as the citizens who elect them is exactly why we had to endure the past eight years. It is the reason for the polar change to a character and style of complete opposite.

There is no middle ground in politics today because we refuse to listen and accept that which is different from what we ‘inherently’ know or want to be true. There is no compromise or concession. We have enacted rule by edict and opposition by anger over the past decade. The future does not look pretty.

The average life expectancy of a democracy is 200 years. We have exceeded that mark. We need to look at what we’re doing to our country and our individual lives. We must look at, see and consider both sides within the political arena before moving forward. As a society, we’re not making good decisions.

The governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil and China only serve those in charge. Are your decisions derived from full information?

SUNDAY NEWS PROGRAMS…THE FEAR AND THE SPIN

January 25, 2017

I spent Sunday morning triple flipping. That’s what I call it when I take in the political lies and spin from three TV stations at once. I tend to change channels between CNN, FOX and one other. Often the third is MSNBC but depending on the time, it could be a broadcast station. This week it was Media Buzz on FOX, Meet the Press on NBC and Reliable Sources on CNN.

This week, the three stations listed above had quite a spread of topics. I was particularly interested in the discussion on CNN. Thus, I spent the majority of my morning viewing time with them. All the while triple flipping, however. They (CNN) spent the better part of the program (I estimate about 24 min. air time) talking about nothing other than honesty in the Trump administration. The panel discussed how they expected information would be shared with the press and the American people and how reliable it might be.

The gentle diatribe seemed to center around how they would interpret and interpolate what came to them in briefings and what they were able to glean otherwise through their (chuckle, chuckle) reliable sources. It sounded much like they were afraid that if they tried to spin too fast, too hard or too much they might actually but unwittingly and undesirably present the truth. Whoa, careful, careful!

Of the entire discussion, I heard not one utterance regarding the lack of credibility of information they received over the past 8 years. Not one word. Nobody brought up Fast and Furious. No one offered dialogue about “If you like your doctor…” or “…no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase”. My hearing deficit may have precluded me from hearing anything about the myriad scandals (within the “scandal free”administration), coverups and lies about them that these stations, and almost all others, ignored. But that might be because President Obama said in 2013,“This is the most transparent administration in history”.

Politiks is politiks! There will always be things happening within our government that may never be known until we’re all long gone. There will be leaks from and about virtually every event by almost every department. Some of those leaks will be for real and some will be purposefully misleading. It’s a matter of how we receive, and personally analyze what we receive, that can leave us with knowledge. Or, we can rely on the opinions of the powder-faced journalists, reporters and pundits to guide us through life.

For myself, I choose to see what happens. Prejudging what may occur and trying to alter the perception of what actually does occur to meet my preconceived allusions is too difficult.

The coming four years is unquestionably going to be different from the past eight years. It well might be a disaster, but I’m willing to see and judge it for myself…on what happens, not what is said about what might happen. If it all goes to pot, there’s always impeachment and removal from office. With Republicans in charge of the congress, and not afraid to be labeled racists, it could happen. President Trump could also make America great again.

I’ll be attentive and not at all hesitant to be critical of anything I see, read or hear coming from Washington, D.C.

HOW TO CREATE CHAOS AND DISTRUST IN THE MIDST OF A “PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER”

January 16, 2017

OBAMA JUST FIRED THE COMMANDER OF THE D.C. NATIONAL GUARD” – Freedom Outpost

http://freedomoutpost.com/obama-just-fired-the-top-commander-of-the-dc-national-guard/

 

D.C. NATIONAL GUARD COMMANDER TO STEP DOWN ON INAUGURATION DAY – Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/14/national-guard-commander-inauguration/

 

TRUMP TEAM TO REMOVE COMMANDER OF D.C.’S NATIONAL GUARD IN THE MIDDLE OF INAUGURATION – Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-dc-national-guard-commander-removal-trump-20170113-story.html

 

HEAD OF D.C. NATIONAL GUARD TO BE REMOVED FROM POST IN MIDDLE OF INAUGURATION – The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/commanding-general-of-dc-national-guard-to-be-removed-from-post/2017/01/13/725a0438-d99e-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html

I have a tendency not to believe much of what I read and question a lot of what I see. My hearing is shot so, for clarity, I often ask for what I think I hear to be repeated – occasionally multiple times. It may disturb a lot of people who want to accept whatever agrees with their foregone conclusion in any situation, but it keeps me sane. Well, as sane as I’m going to be at this point.

For years I have been doing much the same as you see above, searching and researching; not trusting but attempting to verify. Especially when I encounter something that seems too real or too good to be true I tend to question until I am satisfied. Yesterday, however, presented a real challenge to my well being. I really cannot accept any of the above stories with certainty. While there is a confluence of information within them they all read very differently. I guess what might be inferred from any and all is that Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz will be in command of the D.C. National Guard when the inauguration begins, but not at the end.

“Whose choice is it; the General’s, the Army’s, Obama’s or Trump’s to leave his post in the middle of a peaceful transition of power”? The answer remains unclear.  With everything Obama has done in the past 2-3 weeks to make the first hundred days as chaotic as possible, I’m hedging that it is his choice. But then again, Trump wants to get rid of all the Obama acolytes. The General says he submitted his resignation some time ago and agrees that the timing of the acceptance is most definitely odd. So, is the day and time his choice?

“FAKE NEWS” AND THE NEED TO REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

December 14, 2016

We have fairness in broadcasting today. Not all of it is to the liking of the left leaning outlets controlling about 85% of the news, and that seems to be the problem. There was little rebuff with the repeal of the original 1949 FCC mandate because by 1987 the majority of news outlets had a significant liberal influence. The few others were scoffed and marginalized by the many. Truly, the only controversy came when facts surfaced that did not coincide with the coveted stories of the day.

The Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949, required that broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance with honesty, equity and balance. Federal oversight included reprimands and fines for noncompliance issued at the discretion of the FCC commissioner. The guidelines (typically acceptable for any government agency) were ill defined and arbitrary. Print publications were not included in the doctrine.

With the wider opportunity for voices other than those deemed “the only truth”, liberals now want to change our speech and the presentation of ideas. Political correctness, inclusiveness and gender fluidity all allow for pigeonholing today’s non-conformists or traditionalists as bias and bigoted. Liberals (socialists) want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine with tighter guidelines and more controls that align with their agenda. Ergo, fake news.

The latest seems to be Russians hacked the DNC to overturn the election outcome. It makes all Russians suspicious whether or not anyone of Russian descent or even anyone inside of Russia had anything to do with the information theft.  Where is the mention that the emails were true or that they were generated and distributed by a phony, lying, deceitful, conniving and unlikable Democrat candidate?

How better to take control of a population than to create a situation and amplify it to the point of crisis? Fake news is a perfect way of introducing a problem. Simply fabricate some “news”, The Russians Did It – The Russians Did It, post it on the World Wide Web, await the inevitable dispersal and declare it phony information pressed by the opposition. By making it appear as if it is coming from your opposition there is cause to declare and allege it’s false thereby proclaiming immediate credibility for your side. This practice has been around for decades and known as False Flag incidents or operations. The new twist is nothing more than progressive adaptation.

Journalism is no longer objective reporting of recent circumstance or events. It has become increasingly biased, opinionated and political whenever possible. By tweaking what is said or how a situation unfolds, the reporter can influence the thinking of those receiving the information. It need not be entirely false, misleading is generally sufficient. It’s all in the presentation.

A headline like “Cop Shoots Black Man” is all many will read or hear. It’s all many want to hear. It’s all they need to know. The underlying story might be that the black man was a terrorist who tried to assassinate the cop or tried to evade the cop and blow up a bank building or such. It may also be later revealed that it was not a black man, but a man in black clothing. The lack of information is as important to the story as that presented. None-the-less, the original story will incentivize some to riot.

With a new administration on the horizon, expect desperate cries of need for an Information Czar or Minister of Truth to oversee and direct our enlightenment. It will be nothing more than an attempt to further subjugate us under the ruling thumb of pro-socialists. It may well come in the form of another attempt to re-institute an updated Fairness Doctrine.