My actual intent was to find some common ground. It seemed as if you being open about your experiences and I wanted to acknowledge that.

 

Now that is interesting. I did not perceive it as a serious reply.

The best way in which I can think to explain why is by way of an analogy.

One day, Bob decided to start wearing dresses and makeup. He started calling himself Susan, and requested that other people refer to him using feminine pronouns (she / her.)

Of course, there will be some people who praise Susan's bravery, offer her positive reinforcement for expressing her true self, and so on.


But would you say that anything has fundamentally changed about Bob / Susan? Or is Bob basically the same male person as before, only a bit more ridiculous-looking now?


To me, there is more to it than just a name.

 

A rose by any other name would still smell like Bob.

 

Hey, it's Christmas so...

 

 

Actual photo of the legacy media praising the current Congress for doing less to infringe on our liberties than any other session of Congress since the mid 90s (colorized):

 

What an odd thing to say:

 

I’ve known a couple of dementia/Alzheimer’s victims. Self-awareness is not a strength.

BTW - notice that none of us called you on tarring your own network as “legacy media.”

 

That wasn't meant as "tarring," actually.

I've been wrestling with the term "mainstream media" for a while, and I've realized that it no longer has a broadly-accepted meaning.

For people over the age of 60, it's probably still fair to assume that "mainstream" is over-the-air radio & TV, plus cable TV and print (newspapers and news magazines.)

For people younger than 30, I'd posit that those media are near-totally irrelevant. For them, "mainstream" is going to fall somewhere along the TicToc / Instagram / Twitter / Youtube continuum.


So I've decided that I'm going to refer to media types which existed prior to the mass-adoption of the Web as "legacy media."


Now, this does create a question, at least in my mind: What about Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, and that lot? Aren't they just Rush Limbaugh with a different platform?

Well, yes and no. They are definitely singing from the same hymnal as legacy-radio talk show hosts. But there's one substantial difference: Rush Limbaugh still had gatekeepers to contend with. He still had to conform to some basic content rules imposed by the FCC upon all over-the-air broadcast content, as well as the editorial management staffs of all of the stations on which he was carried. General Managers and Program Directors who had a strong incentive (their license) not to stray too far away from verifiable truth in what they broadcast.

Alex Jones in particular did finally **** around hard enough that he found out, but man, it took a *lot* of legal action to make that happen. Guys like Howard Stern and Don Imus knew that they were on a much shorter leash, and it was the rare exception, rather than the rule, that they actually crossed that line which separates plausible speculation from outright insanity.


With the new-media, no such gatekeepers exist.

 

I was just being snarky about tarring, but you have to admit that “legacy” implies a bit more than having and keeping an FCC license.

I actually watched News Nation for a while yesterday afternoon, and found it to be pretty straightforward, if unexciting, coverage of the NO mess. You have to admit that filling the day with news about “we really don’t know what’s up yet” can be pretty tedious.

By comparison, I watched the beginning of NBC News at 6:30, which was basically like Lester belaboring how awful things are to a bunch of superannuated Barry Manilow fans, followed by more people doing the same, for what I assume was the full 30 minutes.
THAT is what I think is the implication of “legacy media,” which you guys don’t seem to be -at least, not yet.

 

Well, that's exactly what the channel was established to do. Provide "boring" factual coverage of actual news, in the tradition of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Of course, back in their days, ratings didn't matter, for there were no ads during a TV newscast. In the early years, the networks ran their news departments as a loss-leader, to generate prestige, to satisfy the public-service requirements of Congress and the FCC, and to be seen as good corporate citizens.

And, in the pursuit of ratings, NN has started to lean in the direction of sensationalism during prime time, with programs like Banfield and Dan Abrams (whom we will soon be rid of.)

Which segues into...

Yellow journalism has always existed.

During the era when the newspaper reigned supreme, it was easy to spot. Large print, sensational headlines, and, rather interestingly, a unique physical format. Yes, that's the reason why 11"x17" printer paper in the US is referred to as the "Tabloid" format; it roughly approximates the dimensions of the tabloid newspapers such as the New York Post and The Sun, as opposed to the broadsheet format of more (ostensibly) reputable publications such as The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times.

There's nothing new about News Nation trying to do "honest" TV news, but there's also nothing new about MSNBC, ABC News and FOX all trying to out-hype one another. It just took CNN launching the short-form, soundbyte-driven "Headline News" format in 1983 to demonstrate that sensationalism and hyperbole could work just as well in the TV format as it had in supermarket tabloids for decades. And when the broadcast networks (which are much more strictly regulated than cable & satellite channels) successfully lobbied the FCC in 1987 to repeal the Fairness Doctrine, then it was game on.

 

 

House speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) pondering his life today:

 

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/fbi-asks...before-they-do










https://babylonbee.com/news/fbi-turn...eward-from-fbi

 

 

Justin Trudeau is expected to announce as early as Monday that he will resign as Liberal Party Leader, three sources said Sunday, as the Prime Minister faces a caucus revolt and dismal public opinion polls that show his party will likely be swept out of power by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives in a landslide victory.

The sources stressed that they don’t know definitely when Mr. Trudeau will announce his plans to leave but said they expect it will happen before a key national caucus meeting on Wednesday. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the sources because they were not authorized to discuss internal party matters.

One of the sources, who spoke recently to the Prime Minister, said Mr. Trudeau realizes he needs to make an announcement before he meets the Liberal caucus so it doesn’t look like he was forced out by his own MPs.

The three sources said they are unsure about what the Liberal Party national executive plans to do to replace Mr. Trudeau as leader. They said it remains unclear whether he will leave immediately or stay on as Prime Minister until a new leader is selected. The Liberal Party national executive, which decides on leadership issues, plans to meet this week, likely after the caucus session.

 

Fun fact:

Monsanto is a biotech company which primarily produces synthetic herbicides such as glyphosate, as well as genetically-modified seeds which are resistant to those herbicides.

Bayer is a pharmaceutical company, which produces a huge variety of drugs, including those used to treat cancers such as Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Occupational exposure to glyphosate appears to cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Bayer owns Monsanto.

 

This is one of the issues that RFK has been concerned about. RFK claims that Round Up (glyphosate) was originally used as a spot weed killer and is now also used as a drying agent on wheat which is bulk sprayed. Obviously we are consuming this in much larger quantities then the original specified use. I have known this for many years. It seems Bayer purchased Monsanto when they started getting sued here in the states. Bayer is a German company.

 

That is public knowledge, confirmed by the food manufacturers themselves. Both wheat and oats.

https://www.agriculture.com/news/bus...wheat-and-oats