I happened to catch a few minutes of a pundit (one I won’t name as they’re all pretty much interchangeable) and heard something that gave me pause.
The argument de jour was the perennial knock on media bias and the unfair way the media portrays one side or the other depending on which side they’re rooting for.
One of the guests pointed out the very show they were on is guilty of the same thing. Kudos on them, I thought, but here’s what amazed me.
The response from the host was something along the lines of (and I’m paraphrasing here):
Yeah, but I’m not a journalist; I’m an opinion journalist. The difference is we expect journalists to tell the truth and be unbiased on the presenting of the news.
My chin got hurt when it hit the floor . . . they just admitted to their viewers they are biased (no great surprise there as most people watch networks specifically for the expected bias) but, more important, that they habitually lie and that was OK because they only presented opinions.
Never mind that every one of these networks has the name “News” in their title . . . they are only putting forth opinions and are hence excused from telling the truth (and excused from being fair and unbiased).
For a moment, I worried that all their viewers — and viewers everywhere — would rise in indignation and collectively shun these biased liars and we’d finally see the beginning of the end for these hack cable “news” shows.
But, then, clear critical thinking clearly clarified the situation . . . they weren’t worried about losing viewers. For one, most viewers go into these shows expecting exactly what they get. For another, most won’t pick up on the admission as that requires analysis via independent thought and that’s not an ability typically found in cable news viewers.
Cable “news” remains strong and bringing us all the news fit to lie about.
And now, the photo:
I spent a whole 45 seconds researching the name of that flower/plant/whatever. I mean I could have gotten up and grabbed my flowers book but instead, I typed “red flower” in a Google image search. I scrolled a few pages and then said something that sounds a lot like rock it.
I figure there’s a good chance some reader or other will recognize the flower and tell me about it.
I could up the chances by saying a name that’s obviously wrong. Let’s say I called that a chrysanthemum . . . twenty readers would dive for the keyboard racing to be the first to earn the privilege of telling me I’m wrong.
Then again, you can’t always trust what you hear from others.
That’s a joke I use often. I don’t mean I say something and then give that answer. Rather, whenever someone asks a question, I answer. If I don’t know the correct answer, I make something up.
I mean, it’s not like they’re going to correct me since they wouldn’t have asked the question if they already knew the answer.
If you want to follow in my footsteps, learn the difference in the way questions are asked. For instance, “do you know what that’s called?” is a TRAP! They obviously know and want to show off their little bit of knowledge, lording it over all others.
On the other hand, “I wonder what that is?” is a perfect question giving you the opportunity to pick up the flag and charge up the hill of made-up knowledge.
Let me give you an example . . .
We have regular time and we have Dark Time . . . this is The Color Representation of the Wobbly Wheel of Dark Time.
And . . . that’s it
Some of these posts will likely be longer as the mood hits me, but most will be thus; short, uninteresting, bland, and relentless.
You can read about Project 313 HERE.
That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.
Note: if you are not reading this blog post at DisperserTracks.com, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website. Could be they also torture small mammals.