Subj : Re: Russia's Endgame
To : Dumas Walker
From : Boraxman
Date : Sun Oct 09 2022 09:46 pm
-=> Dumas Walker wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
> A good point about lack of journalistic access to what is going on on the
> ground. I remember the Gulf War (the first one), and the level of detail in
> the analysis and coverage. All day coverage for days, which was a lot more
> than the 2003 Invasion.
DW> Yes, I also remember that. It was all the time coverage. I had
DW> friends over there so I watched a lot of it. 9/11 and the aftermath
DW> (anthrax letters, the DC shooters) had similar coverage.
> Now, people are talking seriously about being on the verge of WWIII, and its
> not even the top stories. I can go to news.com.au, and the headlines are
abou
> Kanye, a Kardashian, some "racist rant" on a train, some Instragram rubbish,
> and what some woman said on TicTok.
DW> A lot of our "news" is that crap, too. Those shows usually air before
DW> or after the local and network news and are dodgy at best but, yeah,
DW> there is a lot about Kim Kardashian lately and her trouble with the
DW> Securities and Exchange Commission. Going on a
DW> "racist/sexist/xenophobic/anti-alphabet" rant anywhere in public is
DW> also going to get a lot of repeat attention if it gets video recorded
DW> by anyone with a cell phone.
> On our ABC new site, its not much better.
> Articles vying for top spot which are NOT news but merely some journalists
> musings on some pet social issue they want us to care about.
DW> FOX and CNN websites are like that, too. A lot of things that are
DW> opinion pieces that are labeled as news. Others pieces have clickbait
DW> headlines but the story is not really what the headline says it is. I
DW> have not checked what the major over-the-air network news sites are
DW> like in a while.
> So I think it is in part what you said, less information, but also in part
tha
> we have a different breed of journalists who don't know, and don't care, to
> report to us actual news.
DW> I cannot disagree there. They like to report what is going to get eyes
DW> on their website/network/etc., so, a lot of times it is infotainment or
DW> controversial opinion more than "real" news.
I'm shocked, well, I shouldn't be shocked, but I still am, as to how many
articles are quite literally just based on a few tweets or a TikTok.
news.com.au is bad for this. They will find a TikTok video by a woman (its
always a woman, usually white and young), and make a story about it. She might
be surprised by something in Australia, or say something controversial like
Marmite is better than Vegemite and it gets spun into an entire STORY about how
"the internet is divided". The other trick is to say there is a controversy
about something, and the controversy consists of 10 tweets. Fake news.
Literally fake news.
The "racist rants" one are again fake news. The thing is, that journalists say
they need to gatekeep the news, determine what is actually news and what isn't.
But if this is what passes as "news", I don't trust their gatekeeping at all.
There really isn't any news. It's clickbait, and as you said, just opinion
pieces. "Articles" which is just some journalists wanting to make a moral
point. One major story going round Melbourne, is Andrew Thornton. He was the
CEO of a football club, and was basically made to resign after controversy.
The story is still going after one week. The controversy? He attended a
church 10 years ago, where a pastor today takes a more, biblical, stance on
abortion and homosexuality. Thats the story!
