A Sound-Bite Society

“Fake news!”

“Fact-check false!”

“Post truth!”

“Alternative facts!”

It doesn’t seem to matter the label, there is a war on what is considered real news. There have been cries that such false news even swayed the election. Facebook and Twitter are making claims of new methods to curb the onslaught. And the bastions of legacy media are madly wringing their hands over threats to their position of being the “Fourth Estate” - a.k.a. “The Protector of the People from Government Overreach”.

Even President Trump recently called CNN “fake news”.

Are we living in an “alternate-truth universe”? Maybe. But I’ll tell you this: this whole thing is the MSM’s (so-called MainStream Media’s) fault. They have performed a Deputy Barney Fife and shot themselves in the foot. Only difference between them and Sheriff Andy Taylor’s number one deputy, was that Barney only had ONE BULLET!

Let me explain.

When you turn on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, or one of the other initialed news networks; or when you see an article from the New York Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, or one of the other print news organizations, you will find yourself exposed to one of two things: news or opinions.

There is a big difference between news and opinions. For starters, when I hear “news” I think that it comes from a journalist, the information and sources have been painstakingly vetted, and that the information being presented consists of facts containing as little bias as humanly possible. Opinion is everything else.

Let’s say you turn on CNN. The person on the screen gives you a headline of something happening in the world. That could very much qualify as news. THEN that person turns to a panel of three guests (a.k.a. “experts”) to discuss that headline. THAT, my dear readers, is NOT news, but opinion. If you add up the amount of broadcast time devoted to providing news versus the amount of time devoted to discussions of the news, you will see that calling the network a news network is very misleading. Actually, there is more time devoted to advertisements than to news.

Now let’s say you open your browser to a news feed, or even go directly to the website of a print news organization. Unless that particular news feed groups the various articles into a section specifically called “Opinion”, you have nothing telling you that what you are reading is actually news or opinion. Oh, you can click on the article, and maybe at the very end of the article it might state that this was an opinion piece, but the majority of people do not read every article they encounter all the way through. Some will read the headline and the small blurb underneath, but most won’t even go that far.

When I see an article that comes from the New York Times, should I automatically assume that what I am being exposed to is legitimate news? The New York Times has both legitimate news AND opinion pieces in the same issue.

We can look at this two ways: either the MSM is incompetent (there is so much content out there that the news and opinion pieces are getting globbed together), or they are intentionally misleading.

Have you ever watched a crime drama where the story goes to trial? Ever hear one of the attorneys make a statement where the other attorney yells, “Objection!” and the judge either says, “Over ruled” or “Sustained”? Sometimes the judge will even say, “Strike that from the record.” Why does this happen? Because that first attorney KNOWS that once that statement is out there, and the jury hears it, it can never be retracted. True or false, they have planted the seed that they hope will produce a crop in their favor.

I think the MSM does the same thing. They bombard us with opinion pieces, with usually a lot of repetition, and when challenged (like President Trump did to CNN) they cry foul: “We are legitimate news organizations and demand said respect.”

As I write this, there is a big brouhaha in my Twitter feed of President Trump initializing a “Muslim Ban”. I turned to a couple of my different news feeds and see more of the same from LEGITIMATE NEWS AGENCIES. Truth? President Trump did NOT initialize a “Muslim Ban”. He initialized a ban on travel to and from seven specific countries. This is for a limited amount of time. JUST LIKE President Obama did in 2011 when he initialized a ban on travel to and from Iraq for a period of six month. No one cried “Muslim Ban” when President Obama did it. There has been so much vitriol from the MSM over President Trump (since even before he was President-Elect Trump) that the sound bites rule the day.

Is there a solution to this? Sure: they could label print articles with “news” or “opinion” at the TOP, and the televised media could display the word “news” or “opinion” during the broadcasts. IF they produce something labeled “news” that turns out to be “opinion”, they should be punished accordingly (for instance, libel and slander laws would apply instead of hiding behind a blanket of “freedom of the press” - just like the rest of us).

Or they could simply change their name to something more appropriate, like “My Humble But Accurate Opinion”.

©Emittravel 2017

Do You Swear to Tell the Truth . . .

A lot of what I write about comes from what seems to overflow from my brain. Currently, it seems that my social media is overcome with something called “fake news", and my brain has just about had enough of it.

Heard of it? It’s a phrase that came about shortly after Hillary Clinton conceded the election (due to the Electoral College - which, to the dismay of those crying over her winning the “popular vote", she actually acknowledges). I’m not exactly sure of the origin of the phrase. Please feel free to comment and give me your suggestions as to where you think the phrase came from. I post all comments - even those I disagree with - as long as they are not spam.

What spurred this post is a movie. Normally, my wife and I go by a list of movies we want to see; made up of movies we own, along with movies that we want to see that were covered on a podcast called “Film Sack", which I call IMDB on steroids and laughing gas. My wife suggested that we go through our movie list alphabetically. Unfortunately, along with the TV shows we are watching, it is taking us quite a bit of time to get through our list. It has been a few years and we’ve only just finally finished the “D"s.

Anywho, the movie that inspired this blog was a movie my wife wanted to watch that was not on our list: “Zootopia". Yeah, and even if it was on the list, can you imagine how far into our retirement it would take to finally get to the “Z"s?

(Note:  We just finished the “D"s of a list of movies over 500 titles long.)

“Zootopia". Have you seen it? If you haven’t, you should. It is not only a fun story, the visuals are so amazing that you’ll sometimes forget that they were done with a computer.

However, about halfway through the film I paused the movie and stated that I was very annoyed with all of the propaganda being shoved down our throats, even in a kids/family movie.

For those of you who’ve watched a lot of Disney films, you are aware that there is usually some type of messaging taking place in the films. And this is not new. Ever watch “Mary Poppins"? (another GREAT film, by the way)

Now, I’m not going to complain about “Zootopia", as it was only the push for this blog article. So, if you haven’t seen it yet, don’t worry: no spoilers from me! (But you should see it! It is really good!)

Getting back to “fake news".

I’ve seen all kinds of crying over Donald Trump winning the election due to “fake news" and that places like Facebook and Twitter need to crack down on “fake news".

Part of the issue is the so-called mainstream media (MSM), and the fact that their integrity, as viewed by the general public, is quickly swirling down the drain of the commode of history. “Real" journalists are actually scared that people don’t think they are trustworthy. And I agree with them. I don’t trust them either.

Some of you will stop reading right after that last statement. I hope you don’t. Let me explain.

I don’t think that your local news at 6 is doing that bad a job. The problem I have is the “talking heads" on the MSM news outlets, especially those on cable. And I think it those outlets that are the issue.

As this is getting a bit longer than I had desired, let me get straight to the point: FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are NOT news channels. They are ENTERTAINMENT channels. They are all owned by entertainment companies. And what do entertainment companies focus on? They focus on ratings and ad revenue. Period. And that is what drives their “news" channels.

To be honest, they are not without news. Each day they give us about 15 minutes of actual news. The rest of the 23 hours and 45 minutes are made up of advertisements and OPINION shows. That’s right. When you are watching Megyn Kelly, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, or any of those other morons, you are NOT getting news. You are getting opinion.

Or, more accurately, “fake news".

You see, the MSM is against “fake news" unless THEY are the ones delivering it. As a matter of fact, they are against ANY kind of news, unless they are the ones delivering it. And that not only goes for the cable news outlets, but also places like the New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR.

So what IS “fake news"? It is any message not preferred by those with the loudest agenda. And that message is repeated over and over and over until people BELIEVE it to be the truth.

Unless it is delivered by the MSM it is “fake news”. Even shtuff from us bloggers.

But again, I don’t claim this to be news. It is just my humble but accurate opinion.

©Emittravel 2016

Does the RNC WANT Me to Vote with the DNC?

Dear Republican National Committee (RNC),

I am writing to you as a registered Independent. My political leanings are as follows: I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This means that I'm okay with most social policies, as long as we are in the black financially and can afford them, and they are consistent with a small, Constitutional government. For most of my voting life, I have voted along with the Republican Party, mainly because they have espoused fiscal responsibility and limited government. But I have to wonder, are you doing everything in your power to get me to vote with the Democrat Party?

First off, the Republican party talks spending cuts and frugality, but its actions are opposite. I was so upset with President George W. "Compassionate Conservative" Bush. Do you know what I heard every time someone said "Compassionate Conservative"? LIBERAL! From what I remember, President Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like. Oh, he threatened to veto each one, but signed each into law. It wasn't until halfway through his second term before he finally did. Often I wanted to mail him a pen, since he never seemed to be able to find his own. Of course, why should I have been upset? After all, you DO know how successful a businessman he was before he became our President, don't you?

And don't get me started with Congress - especially when the Republicans had control!

At least with the Democrats, when they talk spending, they follow through with action. They are reliable if anything.

Secondly, we recently we had the GOP Primary Debate. As I write this, it is August. Why so early, RNC? Was it to give the media more time to skewer the candidates? The Democrats don't plan on theirs until October. Speaking of media, everybody knows that FOX News is in bed with the RNC, much like CNN is in bed with the DNC. Knowing this, why did you have only FOX News moderate? Was it to make sure only softballs would be tossed to the candidates? And were you honestly surprised that there would be a kerfuffle concerning Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly? The reason most people even tuned in was to watch Trump implode. And who placed him front and center anyways? Now you are trying to distance yourselves from him? C'mon! You know what happens if he decides to run as a third-party candidate: the conservative vote is split and you hand the election over to the Democrats.

I shouldn't be too surprised, after all, the RNC gave us John McCain as a candidate - the "conservative" who spends the majority of his time on the other side of the aisle. If you were so set on running a liberal, why didn't you try for Hillary Clinton?

Face it: the RNC never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And this is one Independent who is seriously considering the opportunity to vote with the DNC.

Sincerely,

18 Electoral Votes in Ohio

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #74

I think I figured out why the United States government wants former CIA employee Edward Snowden, currently living in Russia (a.k.a. "asylum"), to stand trial. It's not that he (only) leaked classified government documents, or that he exposed the NSA's multiple global surveillance programs. I think that the most embarrassing thing that Mr. Snowden did was give credence to the aluminum-foil wearing conspiracy theorists. Before the leaks, the government could get on CNN or FOX, two very credible 24-hour news services (I'm sorry - I couldn't even WRITE that without smirking) and laugh off anything the paranoid "truthers" would say.

You know the old joke: It's not paranoia if they really ARE watching you.

© Emittravel 2015

Yeah, But Should the FOX Say It?

Sometimes known as the "Fourth Estate", the press has a long history of keeping the government in "check" in its role as the ears of the people. So important a role, that it is even referenced in one of the pinnacles of our constitutional rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For one sentence, that statement covers a lot of ground! Unfortunately, with such a sentence, there is a lot of room for interpretation. For instance: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can be taken that Congress shall make no law that respects a religion, one that respects an establishment of religion (like a church building), or one that respects the establishment of a religion (like coming up with a new one, or making a state religion like "The Church of England"). What about the inverse? Can Congress make a law that disrespects one?

Also included is the abridgement of the freedom of speech or of the press. Abridgement means a shortened or condensed form, or a limiting of someone's rights. Cliff Notes are study tools that give a good idea of the first definition. The focus in the amendment is the second definition. We have the right to say what we want. However, we have laws against slander and libel. Slander deals with making false statements against someone. Libel is a false statement against someone that is published. We have freedom to say what we want, even if it offends someone. It's just that that statement cannot be false. You have the right to have an opinion. Heck, the name of this blog is "My Humble But Accurate Opinion". Opinions are views or judgments made, but not necessarily based on facts.

If I say, "The President of the United States dresses in drag and chases neighborhood children," that would be slander. If I published it, that would be libel. But if I say, "The President of the United States has policies that I think are detrimental to the well being of this country," I am giving an opinion. The first is punishable according to the law. The other is protected speech. As a blogger, I have the freedom to give my opinion. Hopefully that also means that I've given my opinion at least a little research background prior to giving it to my readers.

Can I see a show of hands from all of you that hate FOX News? Okay, how about those of you that hate MSNBC? I'm sure you all have your reasons, and I probably will agree with you on them. Here's my point: why are these types of "journalists", members of the "press", allowed to make such outrageous, may I even go far as to call them slanderous, statements and hide under the umbrella of "freedom of the press"?

As I stated above, the press was designed to keep the government in check. It has a responsibility to keep the government honest by holding them accountable to the people (you know, their constituents - a.k.a. "the voters"). But there is a major problem when the press stops reporting the news and just gives us their opinions PORTRAYED as news. There is a major problem when the press buries a story it doesn't like because it goes against their opinions or beliefs as to how the government should be doing things. There is also a major problem when the press reports things that in turn can cause detriment to our armed forces. You know: acts of treason.

What is the difference between a blogger and a journalist when both are simply giving opinions? Do bloggers fall under the same protections of the freedom of the press?

But is it the fault of the press? With the news networks being all owned by the entertainment industry, and ratings and advertising dollars the focus, is it any wonder that they act like they do?

Many are the solutions to fix this. Here's one that I think will help: change the name of the news organizations and make sure they are clear on when they are giving facts versus their opinions.

Change "FOX News" to "FOX News and Opinion".

© Emittravel 2014

Morality? It's Open Season!

In recent history, New York made gay marriage legal. This prompted much conversation in the Facebook realm, with sides taken and arguments for and against made.

For me, I was on the side that disagreed with New York's move. Not necessarily from a legal standpoint, though I disagree with the way it was done, but more from a moral standpoint.

My argument was that if you openly acknowledge specific immorality as "normal", logically, you open up the floodgates to permit all immorality as "normal". That point was fought with various points, but it didn't deter my argument. But why not? If you say homosexuality is normal, why not things like pedophilia, or wining and dining Rover with hopes for some romp at the end of the night?

Ted Turner is famous for stating that all you have to do is push the line, and after awhile it becomes the new normal. You push the line again and THAT becomes the new normal. Remember when the word "damn" was not permitted on television because it was considered vulgar? Heck, I remember when commercials would whisper "toilet paper" . . . Yeah, I'm showing my age . . .

One point that was made to me was that children and Rover are not willing participants and therefore victims. There is not victimization with homosexuality. There are plenty of victims in homosexuality, but this article is not a treatise on that. This article is to state that I was right! Yup. I'm tooting my own horn here folks! My Humble But Accurate Opinion was heavy on the Accurate! And here is my reason why:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/after-hhs-says-children-are-sexual-beings-psychologists-push-to-decriminalize-pedophilia/

In case the link stops working (which is why I rarely use them in my blog), I am quoting the article in it's entirety:

In a push that seeks to sexualize young children while condoning homosexual “experimentation” among teens, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is offering up pearls of wisdom to parents on the sexuality of children.  But if that were not disturbing enough, this comes at a time when a group of psychologists are allegedly pushing for the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The HHS information, located on a “Questions and Answers About Sex” link on the “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section of the government website even describes children and infants as “sexual beings.”

The site also includes information on sexual experimentation, including homosexuality.

Under the section “When Do Kids Start Becoming Curious About Sex?” the answer notes that infants and toddlers are curious about their own bodies. CNSNews adds:

“Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings,” the Q&A Web page says. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

As for masturbation and “what sort of ‘sexual’ behavior do young kids exhibit?” the page says, “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities. Victims of sexual abuse sometimes become preoccupied with self-stimulation.”

A link at the bottom of the Q&A page, entitled “Sexual Attraction and Orientation,” includes information on sexual experimentation, including homosexuality.

“Thinking sexually about both the same sex and the opposite sex is quite common as teens sort through their emerging sexual feelings,” the page says. “This type of imagining about people of the same or opposite sex doesn’t necessarily mean that a person fits into a particular type of sexual orientation.”

“Some teens may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality,” the page reads. “These experiences, by themselves, do not necessarily mean that a teen is gay or straight.” 

While much of the information provided does raise questions about HHS’ motivation, Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council, pointed out HHS did clarify that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

While he considers the promotion of abstinence to be a good thing, Sprigg also believes the federal government has no place weighing in on the sexuality of infants and young children:

“The idea that ‘children are human beings and therefore sexual beings’ is one of the most destructive myths of the sexual revolution,” Sprigg told CNSNews.com. “To a large extent, this myth may be traced to the ‘research’ conducted by Alfred Kinsey, including the infamous ‘Children of Table 34’ experiments, which involved the deliberate sexual abuse of children as young as 6 months old under ‘experimental’ conditions.”

“The fact that young children are aware that their bodies include genitalia hardly makes them ‘sexual beings,’ and it is improper (and potentially dangerous) to treat them as such before puberty,” he said.

 Which makes the following Fox News report all the more troubling. According to Shannon Bream, a group of mental health professionals, dubbed “B4U-ACT,” are arguing that pedophiles are simply misunderstood and therefore, should not be criminalized.

A partial statement by the group reads:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.” 

B4U-ACT’s aim is allegedly to create “tolerance” for people who are sexually attracted to children. Are members of the psychiatric community now attempting to treat pedophilia in the same way they would alcoholism or depression? If so, this could likely increase the danger pedophiles present to children across the country.

This means the floodgates have been opened as predicted. It's open season on morality. If you argue one form of immorality is normal, you CANNOT discriminate against any other form. And this is just one example. I guarantee you there will be more! And if you are in prison for child pornography, don't worry! You will soon have a legal argument for false imprisonment. You can't punish someone for what is "normal".

And before you comment that homosexuality doesn't fit this argument, remember that at one time it was defined as a mental illness by the psychiatric community. The very psychiatric community that wants to now decriminalize pedophilia.

Stick that in your diversity pipe and smoke it!

© Emittravel 2011