OK, at first it was kind of amusing. Snowflakes nationwide were losing their collective shit over the election of someone they did not support, because they were so enamored with the idea that Queen Pantsuit would be crowned on January 20, 2017. Things didn’t quite pan out that way, and things got out of hand very quickly.
There were recount demands.
There were unhinged lectures by out-of-touch, billionaire Hollywood actors, ivory tower academics, and snotty artists demeaning and harassing their fellow Americans, as well as the President’s family.
There were protests… sometimes violent ones.
And then there were the boycotts.
Uber, Nordstrom, UnderArmour, Nieman Marcus, “grab your wallet,” hearings on Trump nominees, unhinged demands that Ivanka Trump take art she has purchased off her walls, deranged mommies soiling themselves because a toddler – A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD – whose grandfather happens to be the President, is attending pre-school with their precious snowflakes…
I’m no longer amused. Frankly, I’m a bit disturbed by the concerted snowflake effort to literally destroy what they perceive to be “the enemy” at any cost.
And in case you were wondering, the enemy is not just anyone who voted for Trump. The enemy is anyone who does business with him or his family. They can’t just walk away from the product and not buy it. They must destroy the entire business for selling it, and in the process impact jobs – work for the very people they claim to want to defend against those evil rich bastards who take advantage of them and keep them down. Because the little folks don’t matter if your overall strategic goal is to decimate the enemy.
Believe it or not, I’ve only discovered Wegmans recently, but having seen the selection of cheese, wine, international foods, meat, teas, prepared foods… I’m a convert.
Of course to the demented prognazis, nothing is sacred. Not even Wegmans. The store’s “crime?” Selling wine produced by a winery Trump purchased in 2011.
The regional supermarket chain with a cult following is facing calls to remove Trump Winery products from its 10 Virginia stores. Over the weekend, about 300 members of the Prince William County chapter of the National Organization for Women made plans to pressure Wegmans to stop carrying products from the Charlottesville winery.
“Certainly if Wegmans is carrying Trump wines, I personally will not shop there,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, who was not present at the meeting. The nonprofit, which was founded 50 years ago, has more than 500,000 contributing members, making it the country’s largest feminist organization.
The Rochester, N.Y.-based Wegmans sells 237 Virginia wines from 58 wineries at its local stores. Among those wines are five varieties from the Trump Winery, including Trump Blanc de Blanc and Trump Winery Chardonnay. According to Jo Natale, vice president of media relations for Wegmans, the company has been selling wines from the Charlottesville winery since 2008, before it was owned by Donald Trump — and long before he campaigned for the White House.
You see, to the prognazis, choice is not an option. If they refuse to buy the product, no one should be able to purchase it! Conform, or face boycotts and hits to your bottom line. They don’t want you to even have the option of purchasing a wine from Trump’s Charlottesville winery, and they’re willing to impact the bottom line of a store — which, by the way, is committed to charitable giving and improving its communities, in addition to employing hundreds of workers, who I would guess make a fraction of what NOW president Terry O’Neill rakes in — to achieve their goal.
The prognazis, as usual, have a very tenuous grasp on economics. They don’t understand that if enough people simply refuse to purchase a product, the drop in sales will inevitably cause the store to stop carrying it. No boycott of the store needed. If the product is not profitable, it will go away.
But they’re not willing to wait that long. They don’t want you to have that choice. And they’re willing to work to destroy a business, rather than let economics take its course. They don’t want you to vote with your wallet. They simply want to force you and the store to conform to their desires.
And, not to Godwin myself out of the conversation, but there’s a certain familiar feeling to the prognazis’ actions of late.
On April 1, 1933, the Nazis carried out the first nationwide, planned action against Jews: a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. The boycott was both a reprisal and an act of revenge against Gruelpropaganda (atrocity stories) that German and foreign Jews, assisted by foreign journalists, were allegedly circulating in the international press to damage Nazi Germany’s reputation.
On the day of the boycott, Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung; SA) stood menacingly in front of Jewish-owned department stores and retail establishments, and the offices of professionals such as doctors and lawyers. The Star of David was painted in yellow and black across thousands of doors and windows, with accompanying antisemitic slogans. Signs were posted saying “Don’t Buy from Jews” and “The Jews Are Our Misfortune.” Throughout Germany, acts of violence against individual Jews and Jewish property occurred; the police intervened only rarely.
Much like the Sturmabteilung troops refused to allow people to make a individual choices with their wallets, opting instead to forcibly prevent them from making that choice, the prognazis would rather force an entire store to close its doors, firing personnel and leaving the community of which they are a part – they would rather destroy a business – than allow people to make individual choices with their wallets.
Those who forget history and all that…
Or maybe they remember, which makes their actions all the more disturbing.
PS: If this unhinged fuckstick really keeps his promise of snipping off his schlong in response to us building a wall, I’ll personally contribute money for that venture and will spend my vacation laying bricks! Anything to keep these freaks from reproducing!
First off, a little introduction is in order. Recently, the esteemed Nicki Kenyon invited me to contribute to The Liberty Zone. I can only say that she is my sister from another mother in many respects, especially the ah… extensive use of colorful language. I go by a few names, but Thales will suffice for the moment. Why Thales? Well, the original Thales of Miletus used his comparatively advanced knowledge of astronomy to correctly predict the scale of the olive oil harvest, and profited handsomely from the whole affair. He and his fellow Ionians believed that their prosperity resulted from their own initiative and endeavors.
If this was a properly Progressive blog, with all the usual trigger warnings for special snowflakes, any post of mine would require several pages of pointless consent forms to read. Of course, her readers don’t give a flying fuck. Special snowflake disease does infect the Right wing from time-to-time, but never in such numbers as it afflicts the Left. So with that being said… let’s head to the topic at hand.
Everybody can be hypocritical at times. We often fail to live up to our own standards. Indeed, if you’re a Christian, this concept is already very axiomatic. Everybody fucks up. Everybody sins. But the Left takes hypocrisy to new heights. Rather than admit they have failed to live up to their standards, they double down on the delusion.
Love Trumps Hate, you see. But it’s okay to torture a poor disabled man on a livestream. No big deal. Why, the four perps were just angry at the racist-sexist-homophobic Trump. Their home lives were troubled, or some such festering bullshit excuse pulled out of some Progressive proctological disaster’s ass-mouth. It’s like when they tried to cast the Orlando club shooter as some kind of conservative, because he was a Muslim who hated gay people. Everything that happens, they say, is our fault. Even if it’s someone on their team who did the deed.
They don’t just fail to live up to their standards from time-to-time, they openly and obnoxiously flout their own standards, and then have the utter, unmitigated gall to tell us that we need to live up to their standards perfectly, flawlessly, and 100% of the time. It’s a uniquely idiotic and malicious form of doublethink. Orwell would be proud.
They’d call Trump a dumpster fire (the jury is still out on this – we must give our new President time to impress or disappoint us), while at the same time literally lighting trash cans on fire to protest his election:
But the most fascinating thing about this may be just how readily and obnoxiously the news media not only covers this stupidity, but deliberately tries to inflame it. We all know they weren’t fans of Trump. Of course, they hate anybody who isn’t a Democrat, and a fair number of people who are, but they did seem to reserve a special loathing for him. My operating theory is that Trump is regarded as a heretic from their own celebrity class. And we all know that in history the most intense hatred is often reserved for the heretic, the one who leaves the ideological plantation on his own. Whatever the reason, however, their hate for him has caused them to reveal their idiocy and intolerance in full public view.
Madonna, of course, is put up as a shining beacon of hopey-changey vaginatude. As if the crusty old hag who offered her bloated and disease-infested reproductive organs as a reward for casting a Hillary vote has anything to say worth listening to. But this was a consistent feature in the campaign, too, where has-been celebrities were trotted out periodically to ritualistically display their devotion to the Clintons. I don’t know how Hillary expected that would appeal to a factory worker in the Rust Belt, but hey, I’m obviously not as smart as the pollsters.
When they didn’t get their way, it was time to throw a temper tantrum. It was like a Maoist struggle session, where the star of the show was a Trump effigy. The journalists, of course, ate this up.
Just look at how intensely interested they are in lighting trash on fire. They should have stuck a burning faggot up Madonna’s ass. That is a trashcan fire I’d be interested in watching. Hell, the Secret Service could even claim it was in the interests of protecting our new President, since she was up there making ridiculous threats and stating how she wanted to blow up the White House.
That would be news.
Unfortunately, we are still stuck in a world where this intense hypocrisy and blatant doublethink is still a thing. And the idiocy shows no signs of abating. Indeed, in the wake of inauguration, the idiocy continues with this women’s march, which Nicki has already covered in-depth.
The only thing I might add, is that our intrepid Leftists are disgusting litter bugs. I remember attending a few Tea Party protests, and it was remarkable how clean and responsible the attendees were. Trash bags were distributed, most people took their signs home and disposed of them on their own. The rest used the provided bags and made cleanup easy and simple. For a bunch of supposed environment-hating rednecks, we sure did clean up after ourselves.
The Earth-friendly environuts? Not so much. Observe:
If there is a better metaphor for the failure of Progressive politics, I can’t think of it presently. They are children, screaming that life isn’t fair, because they didn’t get their way. And, quite frankly, we ought to treat them as such until they grow up and and stop acting like spoiled little brats.
Stay classy, leftards. Stay classy. A video went viral the other day of a mother – or I should say egg donor – from Houston recording herself tossing her little boy out of the house for “voting for Trump.” In school. In a mock election.
The video shows the mother’s reaction to learning her young son voted for president-elect Donald Trump in a mock election held at his elementary school.
“Since you voted for Trump, you can get your sh*t and get out. Uh uh, the suitcase is packed by the door.” the woman says at the beginning of the video.
In the video, she repeatedly tells her son to take his suitcase and get out of the house. The child is clearly terrified and crying, pleading with his mother to let him stay.
Once outside the home, the woman made the boy hold a sign saying, “My mom kicked me out because I voted for Donald Trump.” As he walks down the sidewalk, the woman says, “Bye, Donald Trump lover.”
Later in the video, the woman asks her child why he voted for Trump to which he replies because he sees Trump a lot on TV.
I will tell you the video is horrifying to me as a parent and as a human being. The little boy is terrified. He’s weeping and pleading as this pernicious cunt tells her 8-year-old child to get his “shit” and “get out.” The child’s tears are heartbreaking and his hysterical, frightened wails are literally making me shudder.
She forces him out and hands him a sign that said “My mom kicked me out because I voted for Donald Trump.” As he walks down the sidewalk, the woman says, “Bye, Donald Trump lover.” The little lonely form cries out for his mom as she walks away from him, and then dejectedly falls to the pavement, as another little boy, who I assume is his brother, weeps uncontrollably as this pestilential excuse for a human being walks away.
This is abuse, folks, plain and simple. This is intentional trauma inflicted upon an innocent child, who says he simply voted for Trump because he saw him on TV.
And yet, according to the story linked above, the “authorities,” who jump on parents and take children away for simply allowing their kids to walk home from the playground alone, refuse to do anything about this blatant, repulsive depravity!
The “authorities” come running any time a gun is even mentioned about being in the house by a “concerned” (read: nosy) neighbor. “Suspected” abuse from an anonymous source is enough to bring child protective services to the door. Running late from an errand, leaving your kids outside for a while? That’s cause to have them taken away!
And yet, detectives who investigated the case claim the woman told them she was just joking and that she was sorry about the video.
A joke? What kind of heartless, cold, callous cock goblin could think of playing a joke so traumatic and cruel on an 8-year-old child? Who could think this is funny?
Yeah, I’m sure she’s sorry. Now that the video has gone viral, and the police came a knockin’ at her door! Now, she’s sorry?
She wasn’t sorry watching her terrorized little boy scream in terror at the top of his lungs?
She wasn’t sorry seeing his defeated, dejected form collapse on the sidewalk?
She wasn’t sorry, hearing his brother wail in dismay as they walked away from her weeping boy?
No, she’s only sorry about the video. She apparently not sorry for bullying and intimidating her own child.
And while I’m not normally someone who would send child protective services to anyone’s door, to me this is a clear case of emotional abuse. This noxious sack of anal ooze shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a child, and yet, the police merely shrugged and claimed the kid looks to be “in good shape.”
You can bet that if there was a report of an unsecured gun in the house – no matter how inaccurate – those kids would be foster care by now! But in this case, emotionally terrorizing a little boy doesn’t add up to child abuse, according to the “authorities.”
What kind of message is this “mother” sending to her child? Certainly not that he’s free in this country to make his own choice about whom he would like to see in a leadership position! Certainly not that he can be honest about that choice!
In this case, an apology is just not enough.
I’ve made the decision recently that I’m not voting for President this year. For the first time in my adult life, I do not feel any of the candidates deserve my vote. I know one of them will be President, but that does not mean I have to participate in the process that puts that person in the White House. It doesn’t mean I have to contribute to the clown show. Let it go on without me.
That said, I’d like to remind folks of something. The vast majority of issues that Americans wring their hands about, the President can’t do anything about – and shouldn’t – not without Congress. New taxes? Congress. Gun control legislation? Congress. Budget? Congress. Police abuses? None of his business. Marriage equality? How is that the job of the President?
You know what the President can do something about? You know what his primary function is? Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Also, he can make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Supreme Court justices, and his Cabinet members.
National security and foreign policy. Those are the biggies.
So here’s what you have as your choices.
One of them, despite having been a classification authority as SECSTATE and having a daily PDB, claims she couldn’t figure out that (C) is a classification portion marking. Either that, or she hopes that most people are stupid enough to believe that. Either way, it’s unacceptable. She is also much more hawkish, and has no problem involving the US in foreign conflicts. Not good.
The second one doesn’t understand how our biggest and most important alliance works, thinks he can force military commanders to murder civilian family members of terrorists (hint: he can’t, because members of the military have an obligation to disobey illegal orders), and has so little understanding of macroeconomics and foreign policy, that he thinks he can use a trade deficit to pay for a wall and trade wars to bring jobs back to the United States.
The third one can’t name a foreign leader he admires. Actually he can’t name a foreign leader at all. And sorry, libertarians, but this meme is beyond stupid. Just because he may not like or admire any foreign leader doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility of knowing who they are and understanding global issues and the world leaders who are a part of them.
One is bought and paid for by the Russians, the other one is bought and paid for by the Saudis, and the third one doesn’t know enough to be bought.
Two want to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights without due process. (See: the alleged terror watchlist on which nearly half the people have no terrorist ties whatsoever, but both candidates want to use to forbid citizens to purchase guns.) The third chose a running mate who compared an AR-15 to a weapon of mass destruction.
In other words, you can pick your poison with this election. And each of them would be poison in slightly different ways, but poison nonetheless.
This is why Trump’s latest “scandal” doesn’t surprise me. Ultimately, it has very little to do with being President – other than the fact that the world would see this country elect a boorish, tasteless, gaudy shitbag. I already knew he’s a dick. I already knew he is a classless bag of . This is no shock, and I don’t know why everyone is clutching their pearls at the conversation between Trump and Billy Bush (whoever that is) over a decade ago about women and how he acts around them. This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone.
There’s a case to be made that this is locker room talk. This is how guys banter among one another. I’ve hung out with enough infantry guys to not let that bother me. He’s disrespectful. We already knew that.
But here’s what does bother me. I can’t tell whether he’s just bragging like a teenager going through puberty about his sexual conquests, or whether he’s actually assaulted women.
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
What he’s saying there is that he randomly sticks his mouth on women and grabs them by the genitals, because dammit the bitch wants it. Because he’s rich. And he’s a star. He doesn’t ask them. He just grabs their crotch. Right?
Is he just bragging here about being so YUGELY famous, or did he actually grab women by their crotches and assume he could because he’s rich and famous?
If he did, that’s called sexual assault, boys and girls. And that makes him a sexual predator.
That does bother me.
And no. “But Bill Clinton sexually assaulted XX amount of women” will not mitigate this.
No, “But Hillary Clinton helped him cover it up” will not make this any more acceptable.
No, “But BENGHAZIIII!” is not an answer.
If he sexually assaulted women, he does not belong in the White House.
It is not acceptable.
I understand men talk all kinds of shit in the locker room. But if he has actually done what he says…
…he belongs in PMITA prison.
Message to readers: Wow, this one is getting a lot of traffic and comments. I tried to do an objective assessment – as much as I am able given my former background as a journalist. I personally believe we never really had an objective media, but when I was a news anchor, I certainly tried to keep my beliefs out of it. It was definitely difficult, given opinions in the news room. Here I tried to cover the issue from every side. It’s interesting to see all the views on this, so please keep the comments going. I’m certainly not afraid of dissent, so if you feel I’m wrong on a point, do tell me. I’d love to see others’ opinions on this.
Some will argue that the media – objective media that reports the news with a keen eye for detail and a respect for the truth – has either been dead a long time, or never existed in the first place. While our Constitution and Bill of Rights strive to protect the freedom of the press, it’s easy to see that the relationships between those in power and those in the media have bred a press that is anything but free and anything but objective.
There are several reasons for this self-censorship in the media.
Access. Exclusive stories. Access to candidates and politicians. Idealism and the desire to promote an agenda. Currying favor with editors. Profit. All play a role in ensuring that what we see and hear in reporting isn’t always the complete truth – or at least twisted in such a manner as to promote a certain view.
Government officials are also complicit in this control of information flow. No, we’re not Russia, where media outlets are funded by the Kremlin and tightly controlled by threats and intimidation. That said, the government does control media outlets’ licensing to do business, as well as their access to policy makers, and we do have some historical precedent that shows our protection of free press hasn’t been as ardent as we like to pretend.
A long time ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and I was working on my Master’s degree in National Security Studies, I took a class called “Media and National Security.” The professor, a former high-ranking Pentagon official, had us read two books: “The Captive Press,” by Ted Galen Carpenter and “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. If you know anything about the authors, you realize that politically, they’re fairly diametrical opposites. Carpenter is more of a libertarian, while Chomsky… well… you know. Nonetheless, they seem to come to similar conclusions when it comes to the press. From the Alien and Sedition Acts, to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, our country’s history shows we haven’t been exactly friendly to adversarial speech and reporting. And today, more than ever, the media is in the pockets of those in power.
While traditional news outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times like to pretend they’re non-partisan in reporting the truth, I can’t imagine a single person who actually believes that crap. No rational human being will claim that Fox News does not skew in favor of the GOP, just as no one with more than two brain cells to rub together will assert that MSNBC is in any way objective and unbiased toward the left.
This phenomenon is even more apparent with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet. It’s pretty amazing to see just how deep in Trump’s pockets Breitbart really is, for instance. After Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski allegedly manhandled tiny little Michelle Fields from Breitbart and proceeded to first lie about it, and then engage in a character assassination campaign, and after Breitbart threw Fields under the bus in a transparent attempt to retain their access to the candidate, four journalists resigned in protest.
Now former Breitbart journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote he was repelled at the level of bias at the “news” outlet.
“Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign,” Schachtel said in a statement first reported by Politico. “I signed my contract to work as a journalist, not as a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network.”
My concern was, and still remains, about how people in power – even potential Presidential administrations – treat the press. Will they cut off access to media outlets not deemed friendly to their policies? Will they bar journalists from interviews and press conferences based on the type of reports they have written?
And subsequently, how will the press treat its own journalists and opponents of an Administration’s policies?
Another report, which CNN apparently ardently denies, points to CNN president Jeff Zucker’s stated strategy to paint anyone who opposes ObamaCare as racist.
“And according to two sources, CNN sources — on the 9 a.m. editorial call, he said all of this bashing of HealthCare.gov and the Obamacare thing was in the end — come on, take a guess — racist. That people are just saying Obama couldn’t build a website because he is black and you know, they hate him. That’s the president of CNN. That’s Jeff Zucker. That’s his guidance to the troops.”
Remember Candy Crowley’s dispute of Romney’s contention during a debate with Barack Obama that he failed to call Benghazi a terrorist attack? CNN went on a full defensive of Crowley a few days later, claiming that she was, in fact, correct, and that Romney was mistaken. She claimed the President’s speech at the White House the day after the attack used the term “act of terror,” and she’s technically correct. The problem with Crowley’s twisting of the truth is that the President did not specifically refer to Benghazi as an “act of terror,” but referred to those acts in a general sense in that speech.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
The reference can certainly be left to interpretation here. CNN continued this line later in the year, claiming that the phrase “act of terror” was used repeatedly after the attack, and while they were correct, I will once again point out that the phrase wasn’t used to directly describe the attack on Benghazi. In fact, the Benghazi attack wasn’t described as an act of terrorism until September 19, when NCTC Director Matthew Olson specifically replied to a question by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about the attack. This is according to CNN’s own accounts of the use of the “terrorism” description.
“They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”
So yes, Virginia, there is media bias. It exists on both sides of the political aisle. It permeates every report and what journalists write is just as significant as what they omit, and the words they use are indicative of their biases. More often than not, I wind up having to research every report I read for corroborative information – be it CNN, NBC, New York Times, or any other outlet. I’m lucky, because I can read news in several other languages, so I can also examine how the world outside our borders views our current events and compare those reports to what I see here.
Many people can’t and, frankly, most don’t have time to do so anyway. We are a society that likes everything handed to us at once. Get to the bottom line. Give me the elevator speech (if you were taking the elevator with me, what could you tell me in that time that’s important and relevant?). Give me a five-second soundbite that will tell the story. Give it to me faster and more concisely. It has lead to what I like to call “McNews.” We like our information like we like our fast food – quick, tasty, and on the run.
Unfortunately, that type of information has less substance and actual depth. Most current events are more nuanced than a quick headline, but most people don’t have the time to read or hear it.
That’s partially why Trump is so popular. Most of his supporters don’t understand his policies, how they would be implemented, or what consequences they would bring. He says he will build a “beautiful wall” and force Mexico to pay for it. He blathers something about a $58 billion trade deficit. And his frothing acolytes applaud wildly and believe every word he says without understanding that a trade deficit won’t pay for a wall, and has little to do with government revenues or will, for that matter.
He claims he will force manufacturing back to the United States, and his followers crow with froth-flecked glee without understanding the increase in the price of production that is involved, which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer, consequent reduced profits for the company due to higher prices, and resulting job losses due to said reduced profits. Not to mention the deterioration in foreign relations that results from these trade wars!
He mentions China’s currency devaluation, and doofuses applaud the use of big economic terms, without actually understanding what currency devaluation did to, say, the Chinese economy, causing record capital flight, coupled with the fact that the Chinese can’t seem to control the freefall of the yuan. And while propping up Chinese manufacturing would seem to be a good idea, its causes consequences, including a possible deflationary reaction in the rest of the world, which would make it tough to buy those Chinese products, and according to the Wall Street Journal, “It could also complicate China’s efforts to get the yuan added to a basket of currencies tracked by the International Monetary Fund – efforts aimed at giving the yuan greater acceptance abroad” – something they’ve been trying to accomplish for a while.
No one cares about that. Buzzwords and platitudes rule the day in today’s political environment, and the media seems to be facilitating it and at the same time is being killed by it.
The media is supposed to report facts. It’s supposed to inform us, to help us learn about current events, so that we make intelligent decisions about the kind of government we want.
Instead, it either acts as promotion vehicles for political candidates, or props up political agendas. Few people today can even recognize the difference between reporting and opinion pieces. It takes so long to get to the truth, that many people are simply giving up on trying, and instead become part of Generation Stupid™ casting their votes and promoting their support based on nothing but social media memes and 140 character Tweets.
It certainly appears that the Fourth Estate is dead – for how long is debatable. Question is, what replaces it?