Saturday, February 15, 2020
Friday, February 14, 2020
What in News is Fake?
We don't have much use for Donald Trump. His personal style is totally reprehensible. However, he has piqued our attention to the topic of Fake News. It is not that news agencies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) lie about what they report. They just choose WHAT they report. If a news item does not line up with their agenda, it gets ignored.
For example, consider the recent Senate Impeachment trial. We just happened to listen to PBS when the Trump defense team was giving its arguments. Remarkably, they referred to and quoted specific legal precedents, while the prosecution ignored those facts.
Then we heard the Burisma evidence relative to Hunter Biden. I didn't take any legal scholar or genius to recognize a completely obvious conflict of interest and apparent under-the-table bribe. However, that evening, none of the MSM bother to comment on what we heard.
No way Hunter Biden was qualified to serve on the Board of Directors of Burisma with an annual payment of over a million dollars. It wasn't much different than Hillary Clinton accepting $675,000 for a speech. Both situations were clearly payoffs. But, the Democrats claim charges of corruption in both situations were debunked. What does that mean?
Weren't both situations clear and obvious payoffs, bribes? Or is the argument that such payoffs have been established as legal? Is a political opponent not are permitted to engage in investigation of such underhanded activity for obvious corruption?
My guess is that such under-the-table dealing is common practice in politics and woe be to anyone who tries to disrupt the gravy train.
So the problem is not just the misrepresentation of the facts by the MSM, but the intentional ignoring of those facts that don't support "the official agenda." Trump's tweets are distracting and raw, but he has found a way to bypass the MSM censors.
With the upcoming election that task is not just to identify the lies, but also to point out the ignored truths.
For example, consider the recent Senate Impeachment trial. We just happened to listen to PBS when the Trump defense team was giving its arguments. Remarkably, they referred to and quoted specific legal precedents, while the prosecution ignored those facts.
Then we heard the Burisma evidence relative to Hunter Biden. I didn't take any legal scholar or genius to recognize a completely obvious conflict of interest and apparent under-the-table bribe. However, that evening, none of the MSM bother to comment on what we heard.
No way Hunter Biden was qualified to serve on the Board of Directors of Burisma with an annual payment of over a million dollars. It wasn't much different than Hillary Clinton accepting $675,000 for a speech. Both situations were clearly payoffs. But, the Democrats claim charges of corruption in both situations were debunked. What does that mean?
Weren't both situations clear and obvious payoffs, bribes? Or is the argument that such payoffs have been established as legal? Is a political opponent not are permitted to engage in investigation of such underhanded activity for obvious corruption?
My guess is that such under-the-table dealing is common practice in politics and woe be to anyone who tries to disrupt the gravy train.
So the problem is not just the misrepresentation of the facts by the MSM, but the intentional ignoring of those facts that don't support "the official agenda." Trump's tweets are distracting and raw, but he has found a way to bypass the MSM censors.
With the upcoming election that task is not just to identify the lies, but also to point out the ignored truths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)