If the press ignores an event, does it exist?

We all know the philosophical question that asks, “If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

The media is trying a variation on this question by asking, “If we completely ignore a fact, so that no one hears about it, does the fact exist?”  The media’s latest experiment with this grand philosophical question is to pretend that the audience in South Carolina wasn’t completely thrilled by Newt’s response to opening questions regarding his ex-wife’s accusations about his behavior during their marriage.

I honestly don’t know whether Newt’s direct challenges to the media mean that he has the “right stuff” to be president.  I just know that his willingness to stand up and fight the Pravda that the American media has become is a very important and necessary step in the new media age.  More Republicans should stop pandering and start speaking truth to media power. It’s time to break this monopoly by showing it the disrespect it deserves.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. gpc31 says

    Years ago I used to roll my eyes when foreigners would tell me how biased the US media was.  I chalked it up to differences in cultural perspective or to low-grade anti-Americanism.  Also, compared to the real Pravda, the our media seemed honest by comparison.  (“Seemed” being the operative word:  too bad I didn’t realize the scope of Soviet disinformation and media infiltration, such as the ground zero – anti Pershing missile campaigns. [Ymarsakar:  I'm tossing you whole filets of red meat -- run with it!])

    Just as a fish doesn’t notice the water, I didn’t notice the pervasive mainstream media bias until its monopoly began to subside.  Thank God for the internet:  I discovered that I could breathe better without gills.  The net is a much better way to deliver the oxygen, for several reasons:

    1) Disintermediation — we don’t need the talking heads to tell us how to think — the web lets you get to the source documents.

    2) Distributed intelligence — reporting on real time events, or connecting experts on widely disparate subjects.

    3) Finally, the net enables the silent majority ala the tea party.  People realize that they aren’t alone and that others share their opinions (the fancy word for this is preference falsification, devised by an economist to explain in part the sudden loss of legitimacy of totalitarian regimes).  I hope that Newt’s confrontations galvanize people.  My guess is that more people watch viral youtube videos than CNN, ABC, and the rest combined. 

    I know that I’m a decade behind the times in stating the obvious, but it still hits me with the force of revelation when I consider how things used to be.
     

  2. JKB says

    I’ve watched this several times but I just noticed.  Newt calls him “John”.  Isn’t that racist?  Or is it only when you use the first name of a black man named “Juan”?  Or is it only when it happens on MLK day?

     

  3. says

    I’m writing this after the huge win for Newt in North Carolina.  My take is that it happened and now the press must realize and acknowledge that it happened.  They are giving all sorts of excuses, counting evangelicals, independents, undecideds and all of that but I have not heard any of them mention the standing O and what it might have meant.  Maybe it has been mentioned but I haven’t seen or heard it on the MSM.
    They are on notice, we are watching and we have our minds open.

  4. Charles Martel says

    In San Francisco this Saturday several thousand people participated in a pro-life march down the city’s main street. There were probably at least 25,000 people, which is several times the size of any leftist march through the city since Nancy Boy of the United States was elected.
     
    The leftist daily rag here covered it with a 4-inch by 4-inch photo and caption on the third page of the Metro section.
     
    The mendacity of the MSM is bare for all to see.

  5. Mike Devx says

    The mainstream media is a decrepit dinosaur that is staggering around, nearly on its last legs.

    Some are claiming that the MSM is more powerful than ever, because they have abandoned all pretense and are speaking more clearly than ever with their true liberal convictions.  That this gives them a power, now, of a type they’ve never exercised.

    I disagree.  It’s true that it is frustrating that most of my family is still getting their news from the MSM and they still, mostly, believe what they hear.  With people such as my family, yes, the MSM is more powerful precisely because the media is EXERCISING more power.

    But at a tremendous cost.

    More and more people are abandoning the MSM, or treating them like the American Pravda they are becoming.  Every year, the MSM loses more people.  More people are saying they do not trust the media.

    Just like the tallest oak that is rotten on the inside, and getting more rotten with every rainstorm, and every passing year, the MSM may appear strong because it has become so strident in its bias.  But just as with that rotten, hollowed oak that looks strong, appearances are deceiving; the crash is going to be tremendous as the MSM finally falls.

    It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.  Snark.
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply