Category Archives: Media Lies

The Media Controls the [SO-CALLED] ‘Crisis’


The Media Controls the ‘Crisis’

The President, Congress, state governors and epidemiologists may argue about coronavirus policies, but the people driving matters are without constitutional authority or expertise of any kind — the mainstream media and its social media accelerant.  No matter what the President and his experts want to do, or even his congressional and gubernatorial rivals, the media largely dictates the extent of public cooperation or panic, which is true power.

From the get-go, at least in the West, and especially in the United States, the coronavirus pandemic has been more a media event than anything else.  Coronavirus is a serious international public health concern, but the weight of evidence currently suggests that it is also not an unusually dangerous one

Moreover, it might have been a manageable public health concern had national and international authorities more quickly focused restrictions on China, in particular by limiting international travel.  President Trump attempted to do this initially, which led widespread media claims that this would hinder efforts to fight the Chinese outbreak.  Now, mainstream media outlets blame Trump for failing to adequately impose the ban. 

Had proper isolation been imposed upon China — difficult in part because of that regime’s disinformation and outright lies–more countries could have shifted their domestic efforts to protect the limited population groups vulnerable to the virus.  That combined with extra—and if necessary massive — support for hospitals and other facilities in stricken areas, could have obviated dramatic “mitigation” efforts.

Instead, the media—internationally and in the United States—quickly derailed the any hope of isolating China.  Once the virus arrived on American shores, it greatly exaggerated the virus’s likely morbidity and mortality.  To be sure, there were epidemiological models to support various “worst case” scenarios.  However, from the start, some experts advised caution against overreaction, suggesting that the dire predictions were overwrought.  Those people were right.

In theory, an objective media might have probed these disparities, but instead it simply latched onto the most dramatic and destructive ideations, dismissing anything else.  Then — with social media platforms adding heat — it stoked public hysteria to such an extent that governmental authorities were forced to take draconian public measures whether they wanted to or not. 

The “mitigation” restrictions now imposed upon most Americans raise serious constitutional concerns as government (at both the state and federal levels) expand its authority to impinge in unprecedented ways on constitutional rights, in particular of assembly and religion

But it’s important to recognize that while government at both the federal and state levels instituted this new authoritarianism, it did not instigate the takeover.  That was mostly the media. 

The media’s power is enormous, and unmitigated by constitutional checks and balances.  And it’s in the service of a party — the Democrats — not the government or the people.  Yet the media’s actions are entirely legal, and constitutionally protected, making it effectively unstoppable.  The founding fathers in their wisdom anticipated all manner of shenanigans that could undermine republican government, but it’s probably safe to say they did not see this one coming.

Underlying all the media generated hysteria over COVID-19 is the determination to undermine and if possible unseat President Trump, part and parcel of a campaign that’s been ongoing for three years. If bringing the country to its knees is the price of removing Trump, the media and their Democrat patrons are all in.

Will the American people put up with it?  Some analysts question how much restriction on their economic well-being and liberties the American people can take. 

Unfortunately, so far the answer appears to be however much the talking heads on morning talk shows, the evening news and late night decide.  They’ve largely convinced people that the virus is a serious threat, that sitting at home and playing video games is heroism, and agitating to go back to work is traitorous.  As long as people have ample food, cable connections, Wi-Fi, and hoarded toilet paper, subsidized by their employers or state and federal governments, most seem willing to go along with this socially economically catastrophic shutdown, perhaps indefinitely.     

Regardless of the epidemiological science or governmental initiatives, the “crisis” probably won’t end until the media itself starts running out of money, or has or gotten what it wants.  Television networks already have billions in secured ad revenue, but it won’t last forever if businesses are shut down.    As for what the media wants, that’s the crippling of Trump and the elevation of a hero to defeat him. 

Whether Trump’s been crippled remains to be seen, but the longer the “crisis” goes on the better the odds of that.  And the Democrats and media may have found their champion in Andrew Cuomo, who is now fairly ceaselessly being promoted.  Not coincidentally, the Washington Post and New York Times have decided after years of hesitation to report weakly substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct by Joe Biden.   

Even if Trump survives and the country rebounds, the media and Democrats can do it again.   Diseases (most far worse than coronavirus) arise regularly. It’s just that previously they were not promoted as public crises. Now they will be.  The media has the ability to effectively hamstring the country whenever it wants in service of its social and political ends.  

The post The Media Controls the [SO-CALLED] ‘Crisis’ appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

A love letter to Hillary Clinton reveals the ipse dixit world in which Progressives live

Ipse dixit” is one of the more charming Latin phrases you’ll find in legal writing. It translates to “he himself has said it.” (As an aside, Gilbert & Sullivan aficionado’s may recognize that little phrase from H.M.S. Pinafore.)  What the phrase means is that the author asserts as authority the fact that he is asserting something as authority. Another way to describe this type of argument is “boot-strapping.” The best way to understand what I’m talking about, though, is to read the incredible love letter that Caroline Siede has written to Hillary Clinton over at Boing-Boing: “To find Hillary Clinton likable, we must learn to view women as complex beings.”

As the title indicates, Siede’s premise is a simple one: Those who don’t like Hillary Clinton are guilty of sexism. Women are complex. Both men and unenlightened women hate complex women. Therefore, because Hillary is a woman, men and unenlightened women hate Hillary. QED.

You can take Siede’s analysis for whatever you think it’s worth. What I found more interesting was what I discovered when I followed up on her innumerable hyperlinks. The hyperlinks, of course, are meant to imply that every statement Siede makes is factually valid. In fact, though, following the hyperlinks more often than not led to people saying “this fact is true because I say it’s true.” I’ve dealt with lawyers who write legal briefs like that. You’ll find a hundred case citations in the brief, none of which are on point. They exist merely to lend heft to an otherwise invalid argument.

To illustrate my point, let me take just the first two paragraphs from Siede’s love letter to Hillary and to all misunderstood, complex women everywhere, and then walk you through the hyperlinks:

Whether you realize it or not, you’ve spent your entire life being trained to empathize with white men. From Odysseus to Walter White, Hamlet to Bruce Wayne, James Bond to the vast majority of biopic protagonists, our art consistently makes the argument that imperfect, even outright villainous, men have an innate core of humanity. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Good art should teach us to empathize with complex people. The problem comes not from the existence of these stories about white men, but from thelack of stories about everyone else.

That’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot during this increasingly insane presidential election season. Particularly as I try to wrap my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton is on one hand the most qualified human being to ever run for president of the United States, and, on the other, one of the most disliked presidential candidates of all time. In fact, Donald Trump is the only candidate who is more disliked than Clinton. And he’s not only overtly racist, sexist, and Islamophobic, but also unfit and unprepared for office. How can these two fundamentally dissimilar politicians possibly be considered bedfellows when it comes to popular opinion?

And here’s a breakdown of the hyperlinked items in the above two paragraphs:

To read more, please go here.