Don’t doubt that for a second, however we had four kids — 1962, 64, 66 and 67** — only things on our single 13” black & white TV with channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 (tell me if I forgot one) were cartoons and a really great line up of comedy shows which even the kids could watch!
** full disclosure: when we had 3 in diapers, we used a diaper service. No disposables invented yet! But we couldn’t have afforded them anyway!
Don’t remember the year we got color TV, but believe it was a 19” Sony!!
so you're saying you watched no news for roughly 20 years but you're now commenting on the events of that time that you weren't paying attention to?
Over the past 60 year time span, in no particular order, we here in America survived the Newark riots and the destruction of our cities, murders of an American president as well as numerous other public figures, multiple long lasting wrenching wars, sans a victory, homelessness, unregulated immigration, drug addiction among our children, summers of rioting and pillaging of our cities across our country, random shootings, a pandemic and isolation which we still don’t understand how it came about, and too many technological advances (?) to count in our lives. Throw in political vengeance, and you have what we have today. Mixed into this mayhem was raising four children, career pursuits, and enduring the inevitable sicknesses and deaths of parents, siblings, close family (child), friends, and husband of 63 years.
Living into your 90s isn’t easy, but my seven grandkids and two greatgrands are the rewards.
Edited to add: the attacks on American soil….9/11/01
Over the past 60 year time span, in no particular order, we here in America survived the Newark riots and the destruction of our cities, murders of an American president as well as numerous other public figures, multiple long lasting wrenching wars, sans a victory, homelessness, unregulated immigration, drug addiction among our children, summers of rioting and pillaging of our cities across our country, random shootings, a pandemic and isolation which we still don’t understand how it came about, and too many technological advances (?) to count in our lives. Throw in political vengeance, and you have what we have today. Mixed into this mayhem was raising four children, career pursuits, and enduring the inevitable sicknesses and deaths of parents, siblings, close family (child), friends, and husband of 63 years.
Living into your 90s isn’t easy, but my seven grandkids and two greatgrands are the rewards.
I'm sad for you that you have such a focus on the negative. I'm old enough to have pretty vivid memories of most of what you're writing about. But I also have many memories of positive and beautiful events.
The past 60 years have also brought us tremendous joy.
Over the past 60 year time span, in no particular order, we here in America survived the Newark riots and the destruction of our cities, murders of an American president as well as numerous other public figures, multiple long lasting wrenching wars, sans a victory, homelessness, unregulated immigration, drug addiction among our children, summers of rioting and pillaging of our cities across our country, random shootings, a pandemic and isolation which we still don’t understand how it came about, and too many technological advances (?) to count in our lives. Throw in political vengeance, and you have what we have today. Mixed into this mayhem was raising four children, career pursuits, and enduring the inevitable sicknesses and deaths of parents, siblings, close family (child), friends, and husband of 63 years.
Living into your 90s isn’t easy, but my seven grandkids and two greatgrands are the rewards.
Hate to say this, but...
Everything you describe above is the fault of the people you voted for after the age of 25. I hope your grands and great grands are happier than you are.
BTW, Has there been any follow up on the Nashville shooter that you have come across? Story seems to have just dropped out of sight.
the Bud Light reactions are some of the dumbest things I've seen in years. Since the right wing snowflakes were trashing their Keurigs and setting fire to their Nikes at least.
BTW, Has there been any follow up on the Nashville shooter that you have come across? Story seems to have just dropped out of sight.
After the shooting, there was a protest in the Legislature about the lack of gun control in Tennessee. Two of the protesters were expelled from their State House seats as a result. Their districts quickly restored them to their seats. Coverage of the story has been seen around.
After the shooting, there was a protest in the Legislature about the lack of gun control in Tennessee. Two of the protesters were expelled from their State House seats as a result. Their districts quickly restored them to their seats. Coverage of the story has been seen around.
she won’t see that on Fox News and newsmax. She’s excused.
BTW, Has there been any follow up on the Nashville shooter that you have come across? Story seems to have just dropped out of sight.
Are you referring to the mention that the Nashville shooter used male pronouns? Are you inferring that that had something to do with the shooting?
Worse was the complaint that the shooter had pronouns on his LinkedIn page, which is now standard until you opt out or change them. I have pronouns on mine I never added, but they’re my pronouns so it doesn’t bother me. I deliberately put them in my twitter bio, though.
BTW, Has there been any follow up on the Nashville shooter that you have come across? Story seems to have just dropped out of sight.
Are you referring to the mention that the Nashville shooter used male pronouns? Are you inferring that that had something to do with the shooting?
Worse was the complaint that the shooter had pronouns on his LinkedIn page, which is now standard until you opt out or change them. I have pronouns on mine I never added, but they’re my pronouns so it doesn’t bother me. I deliberately put them in my twitter bio, though.
That was the Kentucky shooter. It is, sadly, hard to keep them straight when it's almost a daily occurrence in 'murica.
BTW, Has there been any follow up on the Nashville shooter that you have come across? Story seems to have just dropped out of sight.
Are you referring to the mention that the Nashville shooter used male pronouns? Are you inferring that that had something to do with the shooting?
Worse was the complaint that the shooter had pronouns on his LinkedIn page, which is now standard until you opt out or change them. I have pronouns on mine I never added, but they’re my pronouns so it doesn’t bother me. I deliberately put them in my twitter bio, though.
We really need a scorecard in order to tell our Kentucky mass shooters apart these days. It's not our fault.
The "LinkedIn pronouns" outrage is the Louisville shooter. The "identify as male" outrage is the Nashville shooter.
“an important broader truth about how power and government operate today, and not just when it comes to the media.”
“First, though, let’s address the obvious: these media outlets rely on government cash. This is most egregious in the case of the BBC, with 71% of its total revenue in 2022 coming from the BBC “licence fee,” a tax currently set (by the government) at £159 ($199) a year for every British household. Paying the fee is required by law if you own and watch any TV whatsoever (not just the BBC), including streaming on online services like YouTube. Compliance is zealously enforced, with nearly 1,000 members of the public currently being prosecuted for non-payment of BBC dues per week (more than 118,000 were prosecuted in 2019 alone). Non-payment results in fines of as much as £1,000, and not paying those results in arrest, by agents of the state. There are currently British citizens in prison for not forking over their money to the BBC. About 74% of the British public would prefer not to pay this fee, but have to anyway. This is what is typically known as extortion, or theft. So the BBC is only “publicly funded” in the sense that its funds were taken from the public, forcibly, by the state.
“And while the BBC claims it can operate with nearly three-quarters of its funding coming from the government (whoops, I mean "the public”) and still remain independent in its coverage, this is clearly nonsense. Any organization that relies overwhelming on a patron for its continued financial existence will do what that patron wants. Obviously. And thanks to leaked emails and WhatsApp messages we can peruse a real time record of how the government leveraged this deference during the pandemic, with, for example, an “IMPORTANT ADVISORY” email sent from senior BBC editors to reporters informing them that Downing Street was “asking” if they could please avoid using the word “lockdown” to describe shutting people in up in their homes – and thus only “curbs” and “restrictions” appeared in BBC headlines the next day. This has hardly been limited to pandemic exceptions. As one BBC inside source told The Guardian: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
“The government has no need to tell the BBC what to write, however, merely to politely suggest, or to reach out to “correct” some “misinformation,” and the BBC makes some voluntary editorial changes, independently.
“Canadian media is today another good example of how this works, what with Justin Trudeau’s government having rolled out a budget in 2019 pledging to hand out $600 million in new state subsidies to favored media companies, conveniently doing so just ahead of elections. Those determined to be “Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations,” such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) got massive regulatory subsidies and tax credits; “unqualified” media got to try to compete against this cartel on their own. Understandably, Canadian media outlets therefore have a strong incentive to remain on the government’s good side. Thus when Trudeau wants something, such as to smear his opponents as Nazis, he has no need to do so himself; he need only wonder it aloud – “will no one rid me of these troublesome truckers?” – and his will be done, independently. Trudeau himself has since developed the confidence to quip in public that the media “lets us off the hook for a very good reason, because we paid them $600 million." But interpreting this as anything more than a joke is misinformation, according to fact checking conducted by Canadian state media (sorry: “publicly funded” media).
“So as Musk himself put it to an NPR reporter: “If you really think that the government has no influence on the entity they're funding then you've been marinating in the Kool-Aid for too long.” (NPR unironically described this statement as Musk having “veered into conspiratorial territory.”)
“NPR also relies on government funding, though less so than their British and Canadian comrades. While NPR is loudly claiming it only receives about 1% of its money from the government, this downplays the reality by referring only the national-level organization and not to NPR’s local and affiliate radio stations, which do much of the actual work (and which then send a portion of their revenue upward). Those stations are far more reliant on government funding:
Public Radio Station Revenues (FY20):
Source: NPR
“Funnily enough, NPR in the past hasn’t been shy at all about stating (over and over again) how utterly it relies on government funding. “Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR,” it still declares on its own website (bold in the original). “The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.”
“But all this may actually obscure the more fundamental issue, which that there is in fact no clear distinction at all to be made between the state and all those “non-government” organizations (like NPR) dedicated to furthering the same agenda as the state while operating in parallel to it.
“Anyone with enough experience abroad in the developing world may have heard the term “GONGO” before. A GONGO is a “Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization.” GONGOs are set up by governments to advance their interests “independently” through “civil society,” though typically no one in the more honestly corrupt parts of the world really pretends they are actually very independent. While often taking on flourishing lives of their own after their birth, such NGOs can help accomplish various missions helpful to the state, in all kinds of ways.
“The “censorship-industrial complex” exposed by the “Twitter Files” is a telling example of this utility. When Washington’s permanent administrative state, including federal government agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department, set out after 2017 to protect the American public from ever voting the wrong way again by systematically filtering their access to information, they couldn’t do this all by themselves. So instead they adopted a “whole-of-society approach” to the “War on Disinformation” and set up a thick network connecting technology and media companies, universities, and NGOs, such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy. Many of these outfits were in turn funded by the same group of aligned “philanthropic” foundations, such as the Knight Foundation and the Open Society Foundation. (The 20% of NPR funding coming from “Foundations” and “Colleges and Universities” should also take on new meaning in this context.) As a DHS memo first made public by the journalist Lee Fang described it, the explicit strategy was to use third-party nonprofits as a “clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda” due to their being formally independent “civil society” organizations.
“But focusing only on funding in fact actually only obscures the deeper problem here. Even if NPR or the BBC took no government money whatsoever they might in reality still be aptly described as “state-affiliated.”
“The People’s Republic of China operates through what is known as a “dual track” regime system. Officials are appointed to occupy positions in the Chinese national state. But parallel to the formal state hierarchy is an entire shadow edifice of positions within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) system. Every ranking official must also be a Party member in good standing, every state position has what is essentially a corresponding Party position, and often the same individual occupies both positions. For example Xi Jinping is both President of China and General Secretary of the CCP. In every case the Party position out-commands the state position. In many cases Party members hold Party positions that have no corresponding state position but nonetheless exercise tremendous power over affairs of state. Although political parties other than the CCP are tolerated, even deliberately cultivated, committed members of these parties are not allowed to occupy any positions of real power. The Party has also simultaneously set up a vast network of social organizations and other GONGOs that operate beyond the state. There is a Party cell in every major organization and corporation. In China, coordinating all these “opposition” parties and “civil society” institutions is known as “united front work.” Ideological directives distributed just within the Party system can thus seamlessly set the agenda for the whole national state. The PRC therefore cannot be described only as a “state”; it is a “party-state.”
“I would argue that at this point the United States, Canada, and Britain can also be effectively described as party-states. This structure isn’t as obvious only because it hasn’t (yet) been formalized.
“A single informal, oligarchic party dominates all of these countries. Transcending formal political party affiliations, this Party consists of the same class of managerial elites, united by their possession of essentially identical ideological education, core philosophical beliefs, cultural norms, material interests, and incentives. This is the Party of managerial technocracy, and every member – regardless of whether they occupy a formal government position or not – possesses a shared interest in seeing the further expansion of managerial control, of democratic power being progressively elevated out of the hands of the unwashed public and redistributed to a technocratic “expert” class (themselves). [1] The more centralized bureaucracy, the more power of “experts” to gatekeep what is and is not “True,” the more top-down administration of every aspect of life that is imposed on the public, the more the relative power and prestige of all of these Party elites grows, whether they are political bureaucrats, academics, non-profit “activists,” or journalists. In fact even their specific national citizenship is not especially significant, since the Party transcends borders (which may be part of why we now have international meetings of “Media Ministers”). All that they need to do is uphold the continued and undivided rule of the Party.
“Therefore the most critical prerequisite for an individual to hold a position of power in this system is that they absolutely must be a Party member in good standing. Those cadres who conceal heretical views, who dissent, who stray from the “Party line,” are all potential class traitors who must be immediately identified and ruthlessly corrected or purged (as the likes of Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and even Musk have found). Relentlessly policing the Party ranks is even more important than suppressing the masses, since deplorable plebs aren’t likely to sneak their way into positions of institutional power that are reserved for Party members. Party unity is paramount because the Party has power.”
“When media like NPR want to claim “editorial independence” from state power they inevitably point to their reporters having relentlessly challenged the Trump administration. But this ignores the signal fact of American politics since 2016: Donald Trump was elected to the nation’s highest office, but was not a Party member in good standing. All the power of the Party instantly revolted against this intrusion, causing of the all-consuming elite freak-out that ensued, has yet to subside, and will not subside until a similar oversight is deemed structurally impossible.
“In such a closed party-state system very little direct coordination is necessary. Typically no editor has to be called up and told what to say. The pressure of ideological conformity easily serves this role.[2] Even the most minute changes in what constitutes correct opinion quickly ripple out from the Party center and are incorporated into the repertoire of every cadre as each instantly repositions themselves to match the consensus Party line. General theoretical concepts (“masks work [now]”) or strategic goals (“lockdowns good, dissent should be criminalized”) are seamlessly incorporated into Party praxis (implementation and practice) without question. Frank the FBI agent and Joanna the journalist are programmed to each react the same way to the same narrative stimulus and repeat the same slogans, because each wants to avoid being shamed and to advance in status within the de facto Party hierarchy of their respective organizations. All Party institutions therefore move in sync as a united front. This is how the censorship industrial-complex coordinates what it censors. And it’s what generates the relentless tide of bewildering, bizarre propaganda and gaslighting that NPR and the BBC are now so famous for.
“In this context whether or not NPR or the BBC is directly funded or managed by the state is largely irrelevant. These institutions are at this point entirely staffed by Party members, or people desperately pretending to be Party members. They have the same broader interests as the other organs of the Party, including those of the state. And so, like all Party institutions, they function in full alignment with the objectives of the state, and will never substantially challenge it. In the end NPR and the BBC are really not all that much more independent than Xinhua. They are Party-State media.”
In this context whether or not NPR or the BBC is directly funded or managed by the state is largely irrelevant. These institutions are at this point entirely staffed by Party members, or people desperately pretending to be Party members. They have the same broader interests as the other organs of the Party, including those of the state. And so, like all Party institutions, they function in full alignment with the objectives of the state, and will never substantially challenge it. In the end NPR and the BBC are really not all that much more independent than Xinhua. They are Party-State media.
What's the purpose of posting this excerpt from this article from that propagandist? Their point is logically flawed, by the way.
[Edited to add] I originally posted this before the already long post I responded to was edited to add more material, although the explanation I asked about still isn't there as of this writing.
“an important broader truth about how power and government operate today, and not just when it comes to the media.”
“First, though, let’s address the obvious: these media outlets rely on government cash. This is most egregious in the case of the BBC, with 71% of its total revenue in 2022 coming from the BBC “licence fee,” a tax currently set (by the government) at £159 ($199) a year for every British household. Paying the fee is required by law if you own and watch any TV whatsoever (not just the BBC), including streaming on online services like YouTube. Compliance is zealously enforced, with nearly 1,000 members of the public currently being prosecuted for non-payment of BBC dues per week (more than 118,000 were prosecuted in 2019 alone). Non-payment results in fines of as much as £1,000, and not paying those results in arrest, by agents of the state. There are currently British citizens in prison for not forking over their money to the BBC. About 74% of the British public would prefer not to pay this fee, but have to anyway. This is what is typically known as extortion, or theft. So the BBC is only “publicly funded” in the sense that its funds were taken from the public, forcibly, by the state.
“And while the BBC claims it can operate with nearly three-quarters of its funding coming from the government (whoops, I mean "the public”) and still remain independent in its coverage, this is clearly nonsense. Any organization that relies overwhelming on a patron for its continued financial existence will do what that patron wants. Obviously. And thanks to leaked emails and WhatsApp messages we can peruse a real time record of how the government leveraged this deference during the pandemic, with, for example, an “IMPORTANT ADVISORY” email sent from senior BBC editors to reporters informing them that Downing Street was “asking” if they could please avoid using the word “lockdown” to describe shutting people in up in their homes – and thus only “curbs” and “restrictions” appeared in BBC headlines the next day. This has hardly been limited to pandemic exceptions. As one BBC inside source told The Guardian: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
“The government has no need to tell the BBC what to write, however, merely to politely suggest, or to reach out to “correct” some “misinformation,” and the BBC makes some voluntary editorial changes, independently.
“Canadian media is today another good example of how this works, what with Justin Trudeau’s government having rolled out a budget in 2019 pledging to hand out $600 million in new state subsidies to favored media companies, conveniently doing so just ahead of elections. Those determined to be “Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations,” such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) got massive regulatory subsidies and tax credits; “unqualified” media got to try to compete against this cartel on their own. Understandably, Canadian media outlets therefore have a strong incentive to remain on the government’s good side. Thus when Trudeau wants something, such as to smear his opponents as Nazis, he has no need to do so himself; he need only wonder it aloud – “will no one rid me of these troublesome truckers?” – and his will be done, independently. Trudeau himself has since developed the confidence to quip in public that the media “lets us off the hook for a very good reason, because we paid them $600 million." But interpreting this as anything more than a joke is misinformation, according to fact checking conducted by Canadian state media (sorry: “publicly funded” media).
“So as Musk himself put it to an NPR reporter: “If you really think that the government has no influence on the entity they're funding then you've been marinating in the Kool-Aid for too long.” (NPR unironically described this statement as Musk having “veered into conspiratorial territory.”)
“NPR also relies on government funding, though less so than their British and Canadian comrades. While NPR is loudly claiming it only receives about 1% of its money from the government, this downplays the reality by referring only the national-level organization and not to NPR’s local and affiliate radio stations, which do much of the actual work (and which then send a portion of their revenue upward). Those stations are far more reliant on government funding:
Public Radio Station Revenues (FY20):
Source: NPR
“Funnily enough, NPR in the past hasn’t been shy at all about stating (over and over again) how utterly it relies on government funding. “Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR,” it still declares on its own website (bold in the original). “The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.”
“But all this may actually obscure the more fundamental issue, which that there is in fact no clear distinction at all to be made between the state and all those “non-government” organizations (like NPR) dedicated to furthering the same agenda as the state while operating in parallel to it.
“Anyone with enough experience abroad in the developing world may have heard the term “GONGO” before. A GONGO is a “Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization.” GONGOs are set up by governments to advance their interests “independently” through “civil society,” though typically no one in the more honestly corrupt parts of the world really pretends they are actually very independent. While often taking on flourishing lives of their own after their birth, such NGOs can help accomplish various missions helpful to the state, in all kinds of ways.
“The “censorship-industrial complex” exposed by the “Twitter Files” is a telling example of this utility. When Washington’s permanent administrative state, including federal government agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department, set out after 2017 to protect the American public from ever voting the wrong way again by systematically filtering their access to information, they couldn’t do this all by themselves. So instead they adopted a “whole-of-society approach” to the “War on Disinformation” and set up a thick network connecting technology and media companies, universities, and NGOs, such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy. Many of these outfits were in turn funded by the same group of aligned “philanthropic” foundations, such as the Knight Foundation and the Open Society Foundation. (The 20% of NPR funding coming from “Foundations” and “Colleges and Universities” should also take on new meaning in this context.) As a DHS memo first made public by the journalist Lee Fang described it, the explicit strategy was to use third-party nonprofits as a “clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda” due to their being formally independent “civil society” organizations.
“But focusing only on funding in fact actually only obscures the deeper problem here. Even if NPR or the BBC took no government money whatsoever they might in reality still be aptly described as “state-affiliated.”
“The People’s Republic of China operates through what is known as a “dual track” regime system. Officials are appointed to occupy positions in the Chinese national state. But parallel to the formal state hierarchy is an entire shadow edifice of positions within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) system. Every ranking official must also be a Party member in good standing, every state position has what is essentially a corresponding Party position, and often the same individual occupies both positions. For example Xi Jinping is both President of China and General Secretary of the CCP. In every case the Party position out-commands the state position. In many cases Party members hold Party positions that have no corresponding state position but nonetheless exercise tremendous power over affairs of state. Although political parties other than the CCP are tolerated, even deliberately cultivated, committed members of these parties are not allowed to occupy any positions of real power. The Party has also simultaneously set up a vast network of social organizations and other GONGOs that operate beyond the state. There is a Party cell in every major organization and corporation. In China, coordinating all these “opposition” parties and “civil society” institutions is known as “united front work.” Ideological directives distributed just within the Party system can thus seamlessly set the agenda for the whole national state. The PRC therefore cannot be described only as a “state”; it is a “party-state.”
“I would argue that at this point the United States, Canada, and Britain can also be effectively described as party-states. This structure isn’t as obvious only because it hasn’t (yet) been formalized.
“A single informal, oligarchic party dominates all of these countries. Transcending formal political party affiliations, this Party consists of the same class of managerial elites, united by their possession of essentially identical ideological education, core philosophical beliefs, cultural norms, material interests, and incentives. This is the Party of managerial technocracy, and every member – regardless of whether they occupy a formal government position or not – possesses a shared interest in seeing the further expansion of managerial control, of democratic power being progressively elevated out of the hands of the unwashed public and redistributed to a technocratic “expert” class (themselves). [1] The more centralized bureaucracy, the more power of “experts” to gatekeep what is and is not “True,” the more top-down administration of every aspect of life that is imposed on the public, the more the relative power and prestige of all of these Party elites grows, whether they are political bureaucrats, academics, non-profit “activists,” or journalists. In fact even their specific national citizenship is not especially significant, since the Party transcends borders (which may be part of why we now have international meetings of “Media Ministers”). All that they need to do is uphold the continued and undivided rule of the Party.
“Therefore the most critical prerequisite for an individual to hold a position of power in this system is that they absolutely must be a Party member in good standing. Those cadres who conceal heretical views, who dissent, who stray from the “Party line,” are all potential class traitors who must be immediately identified and ruthlessly corrected or purged (as the likes of Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and even Musk have found). Relentlessly policing the Party ranks is even more important than suppressing the masses, since deplorable plebs aren’t likely to sneak their way into positions of institutional power that are reserved for Party members. Party unity is paramount because the Party has power.”
“When media like NPR want to claim “editorial independence” from state power they inevitably point to their reporters having relentlessly challenged the Trump administration. But this ignores the signal fact of American politics since 2016: Donald Trump was elected to the nation’s highest office, but was not a Party member in good standing. All the power of the Party instantly revolted against this intrusion, causing of the all-consuming elite freak-out that ensued, has yet to subside, and will not subside until a similar oversight is deemed structurally impossible.
“In such a closed party-state system very little direct coordination is necessary. Typically no editor has to be called up and told what to say. The pressure of ideological conformity easily serves this role.[2] Even the most minute changes in what constitutes correct opinion quickly ripple out from the Party center and are incorporated into the repertoire of every cadre as each instantly repositions themselves to match the consensus Party line. General theoretical concepts (“masks work [now]”) or strategic goals (“lockdowns good, dissent should be criminalized”) are seamlessly incorporated into Party praxis (implementation and practice) without question. Frank the FBI agent and Joanna the journalist are programmed to each react the same way to the same narrative stimulus and repeat the same slogans, because each wants to avoid being shamed and to advance in status within the de facto Party hierarchy of their respective organizations. All Party institutions therefore move in sync as a united front. This is how the censorship industrial-complex coordinates what it censors. And it’s what generates the relentless tide of bewildering, bizarre propaganda and gaslighting that NPR and the BBC are now so famous for.
“In this context whether or not NPR or the BBC is directly funded or managed by the state is largely irrelevant. These institutions are at this point entirely staffed by Party members, or people desperately pretending to be Party members. They have the same broader interests as the other organs of the Party, including those of the state. And so, like all Party institutions, they function in full alignment with the objectives of the state, and will never substantially challenge it. In the end NPR and the BBC are really not all that much more independent than Xinhua. They are Party-State media.”
so now we find out you're also getting your lies from liars on Substack, not just from Fox, OANN and Newsmax.
jeebus h. christmas on a cracker, you need to tear yourself away from these sources that are just feeding you lies to satisfy your preconceived prejudices.
I’m really shocked that people don’t understand how the public service is funded, nor how independently & unbiased media charters (by founding legislation) work let alone how stupid and shallow it is to claim that “party hacks” are staffing various media outlets in countries where voting is anonymous and party membership is undeclared. The BBC is an independent government body, just like our ABC, and our Telstra and I believe their British Telecom. Yesterday I was fortunate to attend and enjoy several hours of amazing personalised self-care services offered to cancer patients in my community, sponsored by my City Council - because the Coucillor in the seat next to mine sponsored the day. (His office is next to the community hall). My massage, mani/pedi, facial, lunch and concert would easily have cost well over $500 but was free to me - and there was also hair-resting, makeup, fashion, wigs & hats/turbans/scarves & accessories, flowers; board games, dancing… So now I have to agree with everything our silly Mayor says?? Or even this Councillor who I wouldn’t even recognise if I met him again?? I have to vote for them forever?? Uh, no - it doesn’t work that way, folks. I accept the hard work, and good intentions, grow healthy, and return the effort into other community works, whether that’s keeping my street clean or helping a neighbour.
I’m really shocked that people don’t understand how the public service is funded, nor how independently & unbiased media charters (by founding legislation) work let alone how stupid and shallow it is to claim that “party hacks” are staffing various media outlets in countries where voting is anonymous and party membership is undeclared. The BBC is an independent government body, just like our ABC, and our Telstra and I believe their British Telecom. Yesterday I was fortunate to attend and enjoy several hours of amazing personalised self-care services offered to cancer patients in my community, sponsored by my City Council - because the Coucillor in the seat next to mine sponsored the day. (His office is next to the community hall). My massage, mani/pedi, facial, lunch and concert would easily have cost well over $500 but was free to me - and there was also hair-resting, makeup, fashion, wigs & hats/turbans/scarves & accessories, flowers; board games, dancing… So now I have to agree with everything our silly Mayor says?? Or even this Councillor who I wouldn’t even recognise if I met him again?? I have to vote for them forever?? Uh, no - it doesn’t work that way, folks. I accept the hard work, and good intentions, grow healthy, and return the effort into other community works, whether that’s keeping my street clean or helping a neighbour.
“The treatment of mass shootings in the media runs in well-worn ruts where, depending on the circumstances, they end up being stories about racism, sexism, or gun control. Nothing else computes.
“Shootings will also disappear from the news cycle more or less rapidly, depending on how helpful they are to a preferred narrative.
“It always seemed inevitable that the coverage of the shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville — a Christian school targeted by a trans shooter — would prove challenging.
“The press covered the kids and staff who were shot and killed, but there was no narrative-building around the shooter and her motives. There were even feints toward declaring “the trans community” — supposedly feeling newly threatened — a de facto casualty of the event.
“Then, in a great revelation that it greeted with excitement and relief, the media found the true victims of the Tennessee shooting and its aftermath: a couple of twentysomething African-American politicians expelled from the Tennessee legislature who could be relied on to repeat all the approved lines about white supremacy and disenfranchisement.
“Through a miraculous transmogrification and an intervening gun-control protest at the state capitol, a story about a trans person attacking a Christian school became a story about racism and how the South will never change.
“Now, everyone could be all-in, without any reservations. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden fully embraced Representatives Jones and Pearson. They were interviewed sympathetically all over the place. There was agonized commentary about what had gone wrong in Tennessee that this terrible fate could have befallen these promising young men.
“Of course, getting expelled was the best thing that could have happened to them, especially given the likelihood that they’d be quickly reinstated.
“Without the expulsion, no one would have heard of them. Now they’ve joined the likes of Stacey Abrams in that exalted status of victims of ersatz racism and nonexistent disenfranchisement. This confers all the moral prestige of being a courageous champion of racial justice without any of the downside of actual oppression.”
It's my understanding news outlets have been trying to downplay any publicity for shooters, as opposed to the victims and circumstances, for some time now.
That's a vile piece of writing. I didn't click the link because I don't even want to know who the hateful racist is who wrote it. That's not an argument or explanation, that's hate speech.
so you're saying you watched no news for roughly 20 years but you're now commenting on the events of that time that you weren't paying attention to?