tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post5181127723770347681..comments2024-03-27T08:40:31.785-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: What Happened to News?Clayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-88990301181305231412021-02-01T13:45:40.851-07:002021-02-01T13:45:40.851-07:00TV news was always biased to the Left. FDR made su...TV news was always biased to the Left. FDR made sure the radio networks were on his side when the FCC was created in 1934. <br /><br />"In the public interest" meant in the interest of the FDR administration. This made certain the networks were packed full of Progressives, especially after 4 years of censorship during WWII. <br /><br />The radio networks became the TV networks. The news was not required to make a profit, so it could be as partisan as they thought they could get away with.<br /><br />Walter Cronkite was a communist. We did not find out until after he retired. <br /><br />Your comments about the newspapers are generally correct. <br /><br />We would be much better off with partisan media. What we have is media which is ideologically one-sided partisan, where anyone outside the ideology is pushed to become part of the Borg or to be deplatformed, as in Parler. <br /><br />AS a check on my premise, consider: when was the TV news media ever positive about the Second Amendment? Dean Weingartenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026716292548440054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-28118886536024125852021-02-01T13:15:57.013-07:002021-02-01T13:15:57.013-07:00The Cambridge Five had infiltrated academia and go...The Cambridge Five had infiltrated academia and government in the UK beginning in the 1930's. There is great plausibility that the very same thing happened in even broader scale throughout those same institutions in the U.S. The widespread Marxism throughout U.S. government and private education system did not happen by accident or happenstance. Designs evince a designer.BFRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09446254517738219155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-7331603388653596682021-02-01T08:02:59.019-07:002021-02-01T08:02:59.019-07:00I had a similar thought while watching a video on ...I had a similar thought while watching a video on YouTube, thinking "What is the point of this information being provided as a video?<br /><br />The common denominator is television. Cheap visuals, even if in the form of the top third of an attractive human's body, has something that entices humans to watch rather than read. It's easier to sit and be informed without the effort of reading, which is why TV/video appeals to so many. Low-effort thinkers tune in for information and are uncritical about what is presented, so this in turn rewards propaganda. Better thinkers go with the flow because watching is easier than reading and thinking, but sometimes they stop buying the narrative. <br /><br />Higher thinkers see past the crud and are there for the visuals. TV news (in places like LA where there is a lot of time and money spent on gathering GOOD video—I'm looking at you Vegas and Reno TV news—) provides great images that you can't get in the paper. When it comes to video, great moving pictures showing what happened or the president's speech live from his mouth have immense value.<br /><br />Back to YouTube, I'm watching a well-animated video while some guy narrates about obscure X history thing in quality detail. The visuals are great in a lot of cases of these videos. However, there is a problem I'll get to in a second. Other videos have something great to SAY, but are filled with stock footage or a man/woman standing there reading a script. <br /><br />Yes, sometimes it's nice to have a "personality" deliver information to you like an in-person lecture, but most of the time the good looking guy or woman with nice cleavage is there to supply the visuals. It's a distraction; the neat animations of ancient Rome don't tell me anything visual, it's so my eyes pay attention. Stock video is the same thing; here eyes, see something, engage eyes and ears.<br /><br />What I'm getting at is most of the videos on YouTube are like much of the news where there is a boring video of a police car parked funny in the road, not the bloody crime scene. The video portion does not convey information, it is merely a way to engage the eyes while your ears listen to the actual information transmission. <br /><br />How did we get information before TV/YouTube? Radio/first person telling or READING. If you turned off the video or the TV news, how much info would you be missing? We did just fine for decades with radio and AM news talk does good today. Podcasts are great, but again, these are the modern-day substitute for reading. <br /><br />In earlier days, news would be delivered through the paper. These YouTube videos would be essays in magazines or books. Which sucks for people like me who would otherwise be churning out much more writing. Much of the visual stuff is a total waste and way to catch our attention. So in order to succeed, TV/YouTube is the way to go when reading is a heck of a lot faster. nevadacarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16737530139399358069noreply@blogger.com