Polarizing London mayor Sadiq Khan is lauded as a hero by British media, while the country faces a rising epidemic of knife crimes in the aftermath of unfeasible self-defense restrictions.
With inevitability slicing through the marine layer off Long Island with the blatant brash sentiment and emblematic posturing of Gatsby’s green light at the end of Daisy’s dock, transcending time and purveying the unnavigable hazards of the American dream, the leadership of traditional media has failed on multiple levels to effectively respond to the obvious threat posed by the internet. And they are woefully incompetent of closing the deal, with the average lifespan doubling that of the tragically slain, and highly motivated motivated Jay Gatsby. The eclectic and pseudo-intellectual quirky pool of major newspaper editors simply outwitted themselves into believing that centuries of news recorded by the innovation of the robust printing press could never be replaced by a cubicle of eggheads and their digital creations proliferating from Silicon Valley and up and down the west coast.
The backlash from the ineptitude and remaining competitive within the internet marketplace manifests itself in a perpetual arrogance resulting in content released on what were thought to be trusted news brands, and the subsequent collusion between opinion and fact. What furthers the insufferable and reprehensible directives of some the behemoth dinosaurs of the dwindling print empire and organizations such as the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, is to introduce propaganda into mainstream stories in a lame attempt to infuse readership and ad sales and compromising the integrity of the once steadfast institution of journalism.
Donning kitsch sweater vests that align more naturally with the motif of the crafted wooden interior of a collectibles club trading in the rarefied air of adorning My Little Pony figurines, or Queen Elizabeth collector’s plates, the disarming underwhelming figures embracing the contrarian as an accomplishment continue to egregiously publish editorials that are subversively worded and categorized as news. The smarmy and sneaky cloak and dagger move to mislead the public is one thing, but to completely disregard the entire set of journalistic standards, a stringent list of requirements based on trust and integrity, is akin to a surgeon purposefully botching a crucial medical procedure in bizarro world for the sake of personal gains, while executing a misdirect to forward a political cause.
In the most recent of transgression featuring all the tact and class of an AAU youth basketball coach influencing the recruiting process and lining their pockets in poaching the talents of the city’s playgrounds, the aforementioned Guardian media group deserves special commendation for a searingly inconclusive puff piece focusing on the influence of techie disruptive elements swaying the election process. The news organization based in London, historically resonates with Labor party voters, and in the last decade the newspaper and radio holdings of the company have elicited complete support of Liberal Democrat candidates.
Apparently, the prominence of the F***book- Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the prevalence of poli-bots infiltrating all social media platforms, the fruits of their chaotic labor clearly in the passe rear view mirror of a self-driving vehicle hurtling down the highway to an uncertain future, were all inconsequential components in an obviously slanted oped pawned off as news. The author of the subjective article had the audacity to conclude that the infestation of “conservative fake news” sites are a major reason that the 2020 election will probably yield unsatisfactory results for a percentage of voters, and not the existence of the mismanaged social digital communities and practicing sloppy security practices with the privacy of end users at stake. In fact, the giants of the social media world, F***book and Twitter, are mentioned by name exactly one time each in the incredulous “fake news” story, appearing in a quote from a supposed expert on the subject of digital content polluting election results. Not even the bastard stepchild of the enormous conglomerate of Alphabet, Inc. is discussed, as trending news feeds that predominately favor democratic candidates and content is construed to be irrelevant by the folks at the London based news center.
The editorial weaves a narrative about the slow death of hyper local news syndicates, and while berating and throwing a tantrum that transcends the pot calling the kettle black, the rhetoric seeping from the Guardian complex berates conservative mid-level organizations for the demise of specific proximal news, as well as the degradation of political opinions, and not the closest and most obvious answer that the proverbial 5-year-old niece or nephew could identify.
Denial is just a river in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, and the putrid echoes from three years ago desperately casting allegations of Russian involvement or shadowy right wing groups creating viral bots still ping pongs around the nation and surprisingly from across the pond, where UK leftists are projecting their own serious policy issues on how citizens in the US should work, act, play, and vote. Cognitive dissonance aside, the unsettling trend of journalists passing the buck in the eternal blame game is laughable at best, and historically hilarious at the most ingrained and sordid levels of personified deviousness. But the business model of producing sketchy and lively content works. According to a Nieman Lab report, the news entity actually made a profit in 2018, revenue driven by a selection of hard hitting series such as “Broken Capitalism”, evidence that corporate leadership is willing to sell out objectiveness and fact, for the tabloid environment spawned in the retro days by the unforgettable Hard Copy thirty minutes of sensationalism goodness. The younger generations approve, “If it’s boring and correct, we are ignoring it, and swiping elsewhere.”
This editorial powered by Duckduckgo.com