(06-15-2023, 03:58 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Lot of batshit crazy roaming the world these days. Now, not only is this "Fox" woman batshit crazy, but she claims to be famous, too? Who in the hell is she?
And the guy in Tennessee - "Starbuck" I think he calls himself. Who in the hell names themselves after a character on a cheesy '70 sci-fi TV show? So, not only is he batshit crazy too, but also not very damned original!
Those two sound like a match made on heaven to me! Maybe they'll invite me to the wedding... on second thought, don't. I don't suffer batshit crazy all that well, and that is almost a certain overdose of it!
Pertaining to the same moniker, here's a piece of an article that also enjoys the little word-game that Journalists
often use. It may seem a coincidence and in many cases, it is. But with most stories designed to upset, annoy
and generally aggravate the reader/listener, they often utilise 'trigger'-words to enhance their narratives.
Quote:Starbucks ordered to pay $25m to ex-employee in racial discrimination caseBBC:
'...The incident occurred at a Starbucks branch in Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square in 2018, when one of two
black men waiting in the shop was reportedly denied permission to use the toilet because he had not bought
anything...'
The key to the above report was the word 'Rittenhouse'. not that a white person was discriminated against by
a coffee company. I know this seems a little thin, but using certain words and phrases can amplify a story in
the hopes it adds and often distracts, to the overall perception of what would naturally be purveyed.
Just think about it for a moment, something happened in a coffee shop five years ago that has no relevance to
anyone who wasn't involved in the incident. Yet here it is in a BBC article five years later only because it holds
the tired racial aspect and the envy-trigger of the amount of money.
Rittenhouse = Kyle Rittenhouse, a white male who was absolved of accusations that went against a particular
favoured culture. But the recipe for this narrative requires certain undeniable ingredients and to hide such
evocative terms, numbers via statistics is a fine way to show the reader/viewer that research was undertaken.
The reality is that for some time now, the mainstream media have gotten to the stage where indicative low
statistical concerns are blatantly displayed and the poor potency of these deficient numbers is ignored due
to the MSM's need to push a certain narrative.
The actual story may be obscure and only relevant to a small number of potential customers. But with a touch
of word-smithing and the usual expressions of size (huge is a favourite), an account that favours an agenda
can be inflated enough that it may convince a reader/listener that the story is important.
Quote:More women on UK boards but number of female bosses flatlinesThe Guardian:
'...UK businesses have improved female representation on their boards, research shows, but two-fifths of FTSE
100 firms still do not have a woman in one of their top four executive roles...'
Quote:Damning report finds one in ten schoolchildren 'want to change their gender or have already done so'Daily Mail:
*Almost a third of teenagers are being taught that 'a woman can have a penis'
Quote:‘Review culture’ is on the rise, yet only one in ten feed back on health services.Health Watch:
'People are nearly four times more likely to share their thoughts on a dinner out or takeaway than on NHS
services, according to a new survey. New research highlights how widespread the culture of reviewing products
and services is now in England. When polled, 84% of adults said they would likely leave a review if they had
a positive or negative experience...'
There's plenty of others, but in all of the 'news' stories, the MSM never state the obvious:
NINE out of ten are not effected by this article, would normally have no interest in this article that doesn't concern
them or any of the nine are even quoted after they'd been allegedly surveyed!
The embedded process in many of the mainstream media is deliver 'bad' news, disheartening news... information
that doesn't make the customer feel good. Anger demands the target of this type of manipulation to focus on the
object that caused such annoyance and that means there's a chance a reader/viewer may stick around for more.
This may equate to boosting sales and ratings.
But 'good' news -what has been branded 'Man-Bites-Dog' stories were and are deliberately left to the end of a
TV news report on television and may get a nod below the fold in the newspaper environment. You see, if you
feel good about the world around you, may bugger-off and do something enjoyable before the commercials
arrive or ask the paper-boy to not toss today's paper at your door or... even worse.
Turn off the TV and internet and then go outside!!
News hasn't been news for a long time... if ever!
Read The TV Guide, yer' don't need a TV.