WASHINGTON. Is it likely the world will end in 12 years aided by bovine flatulence induced global warming, as foretold by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez? Or is it far more plausible the New York Times will cease to exist in half the time due to it’s plummeting readership, as President Donald Trump predicts?
Let’s just say it’s more likely our planet will see a dramatic expanse in old-growth forests six-years hence thanks to a dramatic drop in demand for newsprint.
That is a far more realistic prognostication than the laughable one suggesting we’ll all asphyxiate due to bovine flatulence in a little more than a decade.
Are lies a good investment?
As the New York Times says in its online prospectus, its ability to continue operating depends on their…
“… reputation and brand strength relative to those of our competitors. Some of our current and potential competitors may have greater resources than we do, which may allow them to compete more effectively than us.”
What could that determining resource be? Credibility, perhaps?
For two years, the Times has proved a willing dupe for the Obama administration, Deep-State hold-overs. US intelligence operatives that have leaked false information to their media contacts, insisting Donald Trump is a double agent working in the service of Moscow. But the long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to validate the outrageous claims of these unnamed sources.
Hoax coverage and its effect
A study by Newsbusters found that from…
“… January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day) through March 21, 2019 (the last night before special counsel Robert Mueller sent his report to the Attorney General), the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts produced a combined 2,284 minutes of ‘collusion’ coverage, most of it (1,909 minutes) following Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017… That’s an average of roughly three minutes a night, every night, for an astonishing 791 days.”
And what is the result of this mostly negative coverage in the aftermath of Mueller’s exoneration of Trump?
According to a poll by Morning Consult,
“The share of voters who said they had ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ confidence in newspapers dropped 15 points… from 53 percent to 38 percent, while confidence in television news dropped from 48 percent to 35 percent.”
Treating us like cattle
New York Times opinion columnist Farhad Manjoo tried to explain his newspaper’s fixation with the Trump/Russia hoax:
“Collusion was a seductive and convenient delusion. For many Americans [read members of the mainstream media], the simple truth that Mr. Trump really had won was too terrible to bear. The ease with which a racist, misogynist, serial con man had slipped past every gatekeeper in American life suggested something deeply sick at the core of our society.”
Did you catch the most important word in the paragraph above? It’s the term “gatekeeper.”
A gatekeeper is defined as one “who has charge of a gate and controls who may pass through it… a manager in a large organization who controls the flow of information, especially to parent and subsidiary companies.”
You see, the Russia collusion hoax was an instrument of retaliation against that discerning and independent-minded segment of the American electorate. A cudgel with which to clobber, as Hillary Clinton described them, “deplorables” for refusing to heed the negative media coverage of Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
As Manjoo notes in the Times,
“The truest horror in Mr. Mueller’s findings is that we did not need Putin to be pulling the strings. We know now that under our shambolic democracy, a man as unfit as Mr. Trump really can legitimately acquire all the terrifying powers of the presidency without being controlled by a foreign puppet master.”
No. That’s the wrong lesson.
The real lesson for our would-be media masters is that free people are in no need of gatekeepers. Trump’s attraction in 2016 was his unwillingness to allow a Democrat-friendly, left-wing media to decide what is legitimate political discourse.
Trump’s GOP primary rivals were rhetorical geldings that spent a good portion of their campaigning denouncing Trump’s rejection of media censorship. That is to say, political correctness.
Their bland, media-approved messaging failed to grab the attention of voting Americans. A foolish habit that eventually cost Republicans control of the US House of Representatives.
Save a forest
Getting back to the most recent scare of global catastrophe, environmental blogger Linda Poppenheimer says making paper “requires trees, hundreds of millions of trees… books, magazines and newspapers” contribute “to destroying forests.”
She has a novel approach that may help save the planet from extinction 12 years from now.
“Do unread newspapers wind up in your recycle bin on a regular basis? Are magazines stacking up on your end table waiting to be read? Perhaps it is a good time to let your subscription expire.”
That is sage advice for environmentally conscious millennials like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Those who should be less anxious over gaseous cows and far more troubled by the stench of lies emanating from the herd of dissembling tree-eaters at the New York Times.
Top Image: Copyright-free image from Creative Commons,
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1005674. Front page of the New York Times.