Baby Carriage Full of Beercans: Bush's Fake News

Baby Carriage Full of Beercans

Assfulls of goodness.

My Photo
Name:
Location: New York, New York, United States

There's nothing sadder than an aging hipster. That's why I've been so uncool all these years.

Wednesday, March 17

Bush's Fake News

So, is this Wag the dog bullshit something that just goes on ALL THE TIME?

When Bush stole the election, I thought maybe elections were fixed all the time. Now, I'm beginning to think my paranoia about the news being bullshit propaganda isn't such a paranoid fantasy after all. Well, actually, maybe it is a bit paranoid... since it seems Bushco's fake news was exposed, just as their fake election was exposed.

A few days ago, an editor of the NY Post called in and confessed to Howard Stern that she believes the media is afraid of the government... and that someone higher up in the NY Post is really not acting in the interest of fair and unbiased journalism. I took a closer look at the New York Post the last couple days and I noticed that all the stories really do seem to be masterminded with a conservative spin. Little things all throughout the paper, like Howard Stern pointed out, even the "Letters To The Editor" section seem contrived.

I watched CNN more closely last night, too. I'm buying into this idea that the media is afraid of the government. After all, the government can use the FCC to issue gigantic $500,000 fines to any station they feel like for alleged "indecency" when in fact the laws regarding "indecency" are limited to the "7 dirty words," as described in comedian George Carlin's famous routine. However, the FCC goes beyond the written law and adds some vague "standards of decency" which is not written down legally anywhere and which no broadcaster can refer to in order to make sure they are not "breaking the rules." That works quite in favor of the FCC, doesn't it? What's worse: if the broadcaster objects to the FCC's $500,000 fines and would like to challenge them in court, the FCC can keep the issue completely OUT OF COURT indefinitely while refusing to renew broadcast licenses. This is an effective way for the government to silence any media which becomes too "fair and unbiased."

But more likely, I suspect that the same special interest groups that support Bush simply happen to control a great portion of the media.

Where is this "liberal media" we heard so much about when Clinton was in office? In fact, I heard the term "liberal media" THROUGH THE MEDIA. What does that mean?

I've recently heard that the first ever liberal talk radio news network is coming March 18th. First EVER? In contrast, there are supposedly 80+ conservative talk radio news networks (did I hear that right?) I saw this on CNN last night... there was some lunkhead conservative saying that there was no liberal news networks "because nobody wants to hear it."

Really? Nobody in this country wants to hear a liberal perspective? I doubt that. It seems like the word "liberal" has been painted as practically "communist" with the most general of brush strokes. When I compare dictionary definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," I'll be damned if liberal doesn't look a lot better at least theoretically. When I compare politics, conservative politicians don't seem all that conservative these days. They seem like damn evil monsters.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home