In chitchats with a variety of folks, I have often remarked upon the simple fact that the Media appears to have no memory of the past, is completely unvarying when it comes to advocating war, and patently neglects a surplus of obvious problems. The problems it does catch sight of, it appears unable of breaking through, staying at the surface of things, and consequently keeping constructs of speech at the most superficial level. When inquired about these behaviors of Media, the responses I’ve got vary from “well, that’s just the way they maintain ratings”, to “but my paper or network has the better ideology”. Americans seem satisfied to take what happens to them as given, and like Pangloss to respond, without a doubt, this is “the best of all possible worlds”.
I tend to think a little differently than that.
In this article are a few bothersome questions that I feel tremendously weaken the concept that Mainstream Media is trustworthy:
1: Why is it that as it pertains to war, the exact same news sources that criticize the president consistently, all of a sudden all look to lionize his cause? Shouldn’t the contrary be correct? Shouldn’t there be at least some dissent among the Mainstream sources? Is not this somewhat suspicious, if the press is free and independent?
2: How can it be that not only the press, but the whole nation has ignored that the first case made to the American people relating to war with Syria was marketed as being in order to remove Assad? Undoubtedly ISIS was around at that point, so why were they not the target? When precisely did they become the world’s Super Enemy? Seemingly this developed a few months after the Media campaign to attack Syria by other means hit a brick wall.
3: When did it come to be acceptable to terrorize the observing viewers, weaving questionable tales of extremists stalking under every bush, at the same time replaying traumatic footage time and time again (like the plummeting of the towers), right up until the people are extensively brutalized. How many times did we have to view the towers tumble? 1,000? 10,000? How disrespectful to the deceased, and to the dwelling.
4: When precisely did the trail of bodies sticking with the Clintons not become news any longer?
Questions, inquiries, concerns. And these are merely the tip of the iceberg.
With a little research it becomes obvious that the entire Media machine is beholden to a smattering of tremendously powerful Corporations, which educate the public that this, needless to say, is a good thing. Corporations really should be as huge as possible they say, because: Capitalism! If the predominant ideology makes them insanely powerful, and “accidentally” coincides with 99% of Americans being poor and in debt, well, at least we are not Communists!
And that is what you call a phony dialectic.
These entities, as a result, through their Media medium, create judgment, polarize politics, destroy the past like Winston in 1984, and maussade the present with the clod of hypnotic flicker rates, alluring tag lines, and the exact dope of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin, à la Brave New World.
But what would a reputable media appear like, you may ask?
1: A reputable media would harp nonstop on our nation’s continuous violation of international law when waging war, and the hypocrisy of proclaiming to defend Democracy while violating it.
2: A reputable media would keep in mind that the Fed guaranteed before its creation to scientifically avoid booms and busts, inflation, depressions, and crashes. Rather than examine its promises and policies, what we get is stagnant superficial commentary, which totally overlooks history and present truth. No one evidently can criticize the printing of endless paper money, the heaps of debt our economy runs on, or the international banks (of which the Fed is one), which deprive countries bare of resources (see: North America), and risk trillions on derivatives while pressuring austerity onto whole nations. And all the economists can mention is: “wow, look at those fourth quarter gains.”
3: A reputable media would run Trump and Hillary straight into the Gulf, and reject to validate the side show vision of our supposed presidential electoral proceedings.
Amongst the glossy blues and reds of our dynamic digital cable displays (which appear to progress faster than the state of politics), planes are disappearing and we are following pings, North Korea is hacking Sony in a fit of pique, Bill O’Reilly is murdering great men quicker than you can state “obstreperous,” while talking heads scream talking points on split screens to a split audience.
Is this “just the way things are,” or are we being gamed?
To countless it is becoming obvious that the Media is at this point an organized apologetics machine, and is not any longer a source for information, as it pours forth the dialectics of the Anglo-American establishment. Big Money, which owns Big Media, supersizes the small; barricades bothersome facts; sells politics like Big Macs; entices cravenly the debt-ridden with overpriced expendables; is tre cool with hyping vacuous celebrities, one-note politicians and golden doors, all at one time and with fantastic gusto.
And we become dumber and dumber as we process it all: bogus news, bogus money, bogus culture, and bogus representative Government. (Ah, America in 2015. Each day is greater than the next.)
Former president Eisenhower once notoriously stated, “Beware the military industrial complex,” and we ought to have listened to him. But now the goals of Big Military, Big Media/ Business/ Entertainment, and Big White House all seamlessly combine and overlap. One could be forgiven for wondering if we’re living in a thinly concealed tyranny, when the light of truth appears so rigorously unacceptable.