I realize that this complaint has been aired many times before, but this election cycle things have moved from bad to worse to a point where the news agencies actually defy belief. I still watch TV news, but as little as possible. I read Washington Post headlines, mostly out of desperation, in the hopes that they will one day return to the reporting that made them justly famous. I don't watch CNN--it's not on my TV subscription. I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC (hereinafter called "the news"). I read their stories on their sites from time to time, so I know what they say.
Today, all of these news agencies are actually editorial agencies. There is no news. Instead of news, there is what might be called "newsivism" (news-activism). Whatever the cause of the day, the newspeople are there to celebrate it, whether it's transgenderism, gay liberals marching, or "black lives matter" folks looting to somehow prove that they are helping their communities by their "activism." The news not only reports these things, it speaks of them in hushed tones, as if these people make up all the nation, and the nation is not being "heard."
Frankly, I've never seen or heard anything more ridiculous. The news ignores facts, makes up stories that they know are not true, biases everything the way they want, and generally tries to create a world that doesn't exist.
For example, here in San Diego, reporting about Mexican gangs is just about nonexistent, yet their influence is huge. Nobody discusses the effect of these gangs on sex trafficking, or their societal influence. Instead, we see pictures of mothers holding babies, and crying about how they might get deported--and that is all. Nothing about the huge mess we face in society due to Federal and State inaction.
Regarding the mess in Ferguson, Missouri, I happen to have listened to the statements by the county prosecutor about what happened when Michael Brown attacked Darren Wilson. The entire (it was more than a half hour) series of statements, which were based on the investigations conducted at the scene were reasoned, carefully set out, and obviously true, including the evidence that Mr. Brown had tried to wrest Officer Wilson's gun from him, and was killed AFTER he did this.
So what did the news do? They ran statements from the mother, the father, the family, which all said that "Mike was a good boy..." A good boy, it happens who had just committed a strongarm robbery against someone about half his size, and who was walking down the street with a companion who was with him when he committed the robbery. Which story did the news run? Obviously, the one about the poor family of "Michael Brown," who claimed that he was a "gentle giant" (who apparently roughed up smaller people at will). The news essentially concealed the real story, which was that a thug resisted arrest from a much smaller police officer, who fatally shot him when the thug charged him, intending to take him down and very possibly kill him. Had "Mike Brown" been white, the story would have been treated differently, for sure. Now, two years later, the Browns' "story" has been altered so much that the evil white cop shot the poor defenseless black teenager for no reason, and that has to stop. Well, it is true that something MUST stop. Perhaps it's biased reporting.
In another, and really unbelievable set of stories, I think Donald Trump must be the most misquoted man in America. Yes, he sometimes misspeaks, but it so happens that I listened to the news tell me many of the things he said. Problem is, I also listened to HIM. He did not say those things as the news told me. He said different things. Things that made sense (to me), but the news altered his statements substantially so that he appeared to have said something else, which didn't make sense. The so-called "Muslim ban" is one of the best examples of this. To this day, the Washington Post and New York Times insist that Mr. Trump is applying a religious test to see if people can be admitted here. Nonsense. He stated from the beginning that there must be a mechanism in place to see who we admit from Muslim countries. That makes absolute sense, yet the news says, "don't do that?" Why? Is it because they think he might win the election? Are they trying to alter history in favor of a candidate they like better? It's hard to come to any other conclusion.
Why does the news do this? The only conclusion I can come to is that the news doesn't care about truth any longer, if they ever did.
The news is like the false prophets in the Bible, who say what they say in order to maintain or change society in the direction they want it to go. Every story is an editorial, and not one story that I've recently read is unbiased. That's fine if you put your bias out where everyone can see it, but if your reporting is supposed to be the truth, or "fair and balanced," as some would have us believe, then you must use the opportunities afforded a free press to report the truth, and forget about what YOU want. Truth is pretty easy to find, if you look. Stories that are not reporting, those are opinions. Disguising opinions as news is wrong. Period.
Today, all of these news agencies are actually editorial agencies. There is no news. Instead of news, there is what might be called "newsivism" (news-activism). Whatever the cause of the day, the newspeople are there to celebrate it, whether it's transgenderism, gay liberals marching, or "black lives matter" folks looting to somehow prove that they are helping their communities by their "activism." The news not only reports these things, it speaks of them in hushed tones, as if these people make up all the nation, and the nation is not being "heard."
Frankly, I've never seen or heard anything more ridiculous. The news ignores facts, makes up stories that they know are not true, biases everything the way they want, and generally tries to create a world that doesn't exist.
For example, here in San Diego, reporting about Mexican gangs is just about nonexistent, yet their influence is huge. Nobody discusses the effect of these gangs on sex trafficking, or their societal influence. Instead, we see pictures of mothers holding babies, and crying about how they might get deported--and that is all. Nothing about the huge mess we face in society due to Federal and State inaction.
Regarding the mess in Ferguson, Missouri, I happen to have listened to the statements by the county prosecutor about what happened when Michael Brown attacked Darren Wilson. The entire (it was more than a half hour) series of statements, which were based on the investigations conducted at the scene were reasoned, carefully set out, and obviously true, including the evidence that Mr. Brown had tried to wrest Officer Wilson's gun from him, and was killed AFTER he did this.
So what did the news do? They ran statements from the mother, the father, the family, which all said that "Mike was a good boy..." A good boy, it happens who had just committed a strongarm robbery against someone about half his size, and who was walking down the street with a companion who was with him when he committed the robbery. Which story did the news run? Obviously, the one about the poor family of "Michael Brown," who claimed that he was a "gentle giant" (who apparently roughed up smaller people at will). The news essentially concealed the real story, which was that a thug resisted arrest from a much smaller police officer, who fatally shot him when the thug charged him, intending to take him down and very possibly kill him. Had "Mike Brown" been white, the story would have been treated differently, for sure. Now, two years later, the Browns' "story" has been altered so much that the evil white cop shot the poor defenseless black teenager for no reason, and that has to stop. Well, it is true that something MUST stop. Perhaps it's biased reporting.
In another, and really unbelievable set of stories, I think Donald Trump must be the most misquoted man in America. Yes, he sometimes misspeaks, but it so happens that I listened to the news tell me many of the things he said. Problem is, I also listened to HIM. He did not say those things as the news told me. He said different things. Things that made sense (to me), but the news altered his statements substantially so that he appeared to have said something else, which didn't make sense. The so-called "Muslim ban" is one of the best examples of this. To this day, the Washington Post and New York Times insist that Mr. Trump is applying a religious test to see if people can be admitted here. Nonsense. He stated from the beginning that there must be a mechanism in place to see who we admit from Muslim countries. That makes absolute sense, yet the news says, "don't do that?" Why? Is it because they think he might win the election? Are they trying to alter history in favor of a candidate they like better? It's hard to come to any other conclusion.
Why does the news do this? The only conclusion I can come to is that the news doesn't care about truth any longer, if they ever did.
The news is like the false prophets in the Bible, who say what they say in order to maintain or change society in the direction they want it to go. Every story is an editorial, and not one story that I've recently read is unbiased. That's fine if you put your bias out where everyone can see it, but if your reporting is supposed to be the truth, or "fair and balanced," as some would have us believe, then you must use the opportunities afforded a free press to report the truth, and forget about what YOU want. Truth is pretty easy to find, if you look. Stories that are not reporting, those are opinions. Disguising opinions as news is wrong. Period.
