Authored by William Robert Barber
Today’s unfolding events are delivered to us consumers of information by means concurrent and distinct. These events are disproportionately varied in accord to and discordant from ideological determinatives. In the midst of an aroused 24/7 profit motivated media focused on populating eyeballs to their particular venue, the titillation evoked by the written word has displaced the reporters’ essential: Who? What? Where? When? Why?
Reporters are novelists. When a story is analyzed as “worthy” by the reportage, but the supportive facts prove weak, even distorted, reporters dig deep to justify (within the purview of statutorily compliant deception) a joint-venture of opportuneness with contrivance and — voilà, the “worthy” story is saved.
The perfect example is this contrivance of Russia conspiring with the Trump campaign acolytes to secure Trump’s presidency: There is not a shred of evidence to sustain that charge, nonetheless the Democrats press on simply for the negative effect of such misinformation on the Trump presidency. Of course if our president could stop tweeting nonsense and stupid that might stop him from aiding and abetting his democratic enemies; of course that is obviously asking way-too-much of my president.
Seemingly, promoted by the televised drama of daily news followed by Sunday news specials, the pundit is now a celebrity. Their persuasion is a production. The production of a news show is — with notable exceptions — contingent on the network’s political ideal of the “truth.” The news show’s host usually reflects a venerable person espousing a known perspective. In other words, the viewer, embodied with progressive thought, is comforted by knowing there will be no ideological or truth-telling revelations to contradict closely held beliefs as long as they tune in to the NBC brand. If one is a holder of conservative views, the Hannity at FOX will never let them down. Generally, the viewer requires a reinforcement of preordained perspective. If however, a differing or contrary offering is presented, then in the first cause that contrary offering must be profoundly dissected. If upon dissection the differing is found truthful, then that truth must be slowly pieced into acceptance.
Such is the “slings and arrows” of self-governing. It’s a mess. However, remembering the history of this nation’s tussle with self-governance at the least, the Tories are no longer fighting their rebel brethren and the North is not facing the South at Gettysburg.
Yes, the battle over the philosophical interpretive of what’s best for the common good is frustrating. The diverse character and differing appreciative perceptions induced by our nation’s varied social fabric is confusing. The concept of self-reliance is waning in direct proportion to our embrace of a socialistic economic system, and from my personal insight, the often out-and-out counter-cognitive of dealing with those that do not agree with me… imagine that!
Self-governing is chaos seeking a bridle…