Thursday, August 16, 2018

The enemies of the people? Yes.

National press and media are complaining today, in a bunch of coordinated editorials, about being thought of (or rather exposed) as the enemies of the people.

Is it a truthful accusation?

Well, here are just a few examples of times they have been the enemies of the people:

  • When they helped Bush 2 promote the "weapons of mass destruction" lie and got a lot of people killed.
  • When they did everything they could to push Hilary Clinton on the v*ters.
  • Every time they use the words "gun violence", "common sense gun laws", "reasonable restrictions", "assault rifle", or any of the other terms which make anti-gun bigotry seem mainstream.
  • When they promote the words of government extremists (Paul Krugman comes immediately to mind) as if they are reasonable people who have something of value to contribute to "public discourse".
  • When they encourage support or pay raises for government employees.
  • Any and every time they push a "tax" increase, for any reason.

  • Every time they breathlessly promote socialized health care or "Universal Basic Income".

And there are so many more.

These are times they did things harmful to life, liberty, and property.

So, yeah. The national press (and similar media) are the enemies of the people. Enemies of individual rights and liberty. Their whining just shows how out of touch they truly are.

But they could change.

If they would start reporting the news, without a political slant, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they could leave their wish to enslave us all at home, instead of bringing it to work and putting it in the pages of their papers, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they would stop trying so hard to create death and destruction to give their news "color", they could stop being the enemy of the people.

Report what happened, don't analyze it, and leave the editorializing on the opinion page. And STOP being the enemies of the people, and maybe people will stop thinking of you that way.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. It's impossible to report news without a political slant. First, one's politics dictates which stories to report on. Second, there is no neutral viewpoint possible, as this post shows. You stated the facts as you interpret what actually are facts. To the people who wrote the other articles, these facts are literally unthinkable and invisible to many of them. Third, when reporting a given story, you have to choose which facts are relevant.

    Jim Henshaw

    1. So the honest thing to do would be for all news outlets to plainly state their bias. Just like I do.

  2. With all respect Jim, I don't entirely agree with you about the impossibility of reporting news without a political slant.. Reporting POLITICAL news without a political slan, well, yes, that is impossible. Agreed. However, just reporting the facts on news and events can be done without political bias and opinion being part of the piece. I'd like to say that's the way things used to be, but it was never that way in the media-infotainment complex, unfortunately. However, it is possible, just not tried by this bunch of treasonous, seditious, info-thugs who laughingly call themselves reporters, and took Journalism because it was an easy A.

    I've seen less biased reporting in the After Action Report of a shave-tail butterbar trying to cover his backside after screwing up a simple op.

    For everything OTHER than politics I would agree with Kent here, leave the opinion and and the analysis and the agenda on the opinion page, and stop using loaded, slanted words in the articles. Oh , and don't ever speculate. A lack of data does not excuse creating fantasies in one's imagination and then passing them off as analysis.

    Regarding Politics, though, I think you're right, there is no way to report on politics without bias.

    Right or wrong, there's my two centicreds.


  3. Oh, an addendum.

    If someone is choosing which stories to cover based on their political ideology, they are not reporting the news, they are controlling the news.

    If someone is bringing any kind of viewpoint other than just the facts, they are not reporting the news, they are editorialising.

    If someone is choosing which facts are relevant, they are not reporting the news, they are controlling the news and propagandising.

    If someone is "interpreting" the facts, they are not reporting the facts, they are controlling the news.

    I realised I had not directly addressed any of the reasons why I disagree with you Jim, so I thought I should do you the courtesy of so doing.


  4. Hi Shinseiko,

    I must respectfully disagree. What you call controlling the news, political or otherwise, can be done by someone who thinks themselves as being impartial and unbiased in their reporting.

    Let's take an example. A pretty young white girl gets kidnapped in Chicago, and the same week the usual dozen or so young black men get murdered. Which gets covered? If both,do the young black men get more than twelve times the coverage, as befits a much more serious crime done more often?

    Jim Henshaw

  5. As far as your example goes, report all of it, who cares which identity tribe gets more coverage! If the paper, or segment, or website isn't big enough, expand it. Practical reality these days is, news is gotten from and disseminated via the 'Net. There is no real size limit; not in comparison to paper, or broadcast.

    If someone is choosing what to publish or report on the basis of which racial group (a collectivist idea) gets more coverage, that is biased thinking, and erroneous thinking.

    Collectivism can and has been shown by history, to be a counter-productive, wasteful, and destructive force.

    Facts and events speak for themselves, anything beyond that scope sounds like "The 'science' of climate change is settled!" Science is never settled, and facts do not change no matter how hard we may wish them to. There is such a thing as objective truth, regardless of ideology or politics. Unbiased journalism means reporting those facts, that objective truth, without benefit of interpretive dance, and letting the chips fall where they may.

    The collectivists, those Hive Minded psuedo-intellectuals among us are aware that words have meanings. Unfortunately they are also aware that changing those meanings, redefining words, means they can change the narrative. Equally unfortunate, this impairs the ability of people to communicate meaningfully about anything, because this redefinition leads to the silly idea that everyone has their own subjective truth, a concept that used to be known as perception. This counteracts the foundation of rational thought, that there is only one real, objective truth to reality.

    Disclaimer: No, I am not an objectivist, I have never read any of Ayn Rand's work, and have little interest in doing so, and don't know the first thing about Objectivism.

    I am an ethical anarchist and an ethical atheist, who makes her decisions based on facts and evidence, in accordance with the NAP. Science took us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings, feelings take us to Religious Revival meetings, or drug habits in mommy's basement.

    Yes, propaganda, controlled news, et cetera can be accomplished by someone who 'thinks' or more likely 'feels' they are being impartial and unbiased. This does not change the fact that they are still being biased. They simply don't have the self-respect, or intellectual honesty, either one, to admit that they are in fact, biased. None of this changes what I said previously regarding the idea of truly unbiased reporting.

    Anyway, it looks to me as if we may still disagree, which is fine. Boring world if we all agreed.