It’s journalism that’s about bad journalism. Or something.
Is anybody else completely fatigued by the bombardment of the modern, clearly biased style of journalism – you know, the kind that practically shames the reader for not being as sensitive to innocuous topics like the high-and-mighty author is? Too often have I read something that assumes that the reader adheres to some vague form of morality or interest in the arcane, all for the purpose of making their story “socially relevant”.
Or perhaps it’s that you, too, have noticed a trend in critics who only seem to give glowing reviews to anything that is mediocre, but nothing that you ever like.
I think it’s all too obvious now that virtually everybody involved in any kind of popular media is a paid shill for international globalist, corporatist interests that are proxy subsidiaries for the Rockefellers and the Rothschild banking dynasty.
…Or more than likely, I’m way off-base with that assertion. But something’s going on, and somebody must get to the bottom of this. That somebody will not be me, it’ll be someone who reads heady books and does things like “research”. No, instead I’ll just be finding articles and stories that defy logic, and they will be presented to you in a more palatable fashion.
As we’ve seen, so many things published for our consumption either totally lack revision, seek to push an agenda down our throats or are full of lies. Some publications take it a step further and run with dubious nonsense or employ staff with questionable backgrounds. Even though there clearly are very bright people in the industry of strong moral character with journalistic integrity, overall it must be systematically flimsy; case in point, look at how easily Milo Yiannopoulos gamed them and made a name for himself.
Now, I’m no fan of his and I don’t think he’s particularly brilliant, but he was smart enough to play the media like a fiddle. Through attacking a left wing ideological sacred cow like feminism and referring to Donald Trump as “Daddy”, Milo tricked nearly every major outlet you could name into giving him free publicity. How did they respond to him? Why, by accusing him of being a white supremacist Nazi.
…Well, of course! What else would you call an openly homosexual Jewish guy who often expresses his fondness for black men?
Missed the mark on that one, didn’t they? They’re failing with flying colours when dealing with Trump, too: he’s one of the most controversial presidents in history, he inspires some of the most intense hatred in America’s citizens, and they haven’t gotten one thing to stick to him.
But, hey, who am I to argue with such brilliance?