Sunday, April 11, 2010

A MeanMesa "Quickie" - How to Create "Truth" Without Really Trying

MeanMesa watches with discouraging fascination when fastidiously unchallenged, neo-con "nobodies" are allowed to just wallow a bit deeper into their interview loungers as they pump forth a seemingly endless flood of carefully crafted half truths and outright lies.

For example, in the week leading up to the final passage of the health insurance reform bill, otherwise marginally credible, Republican Senate and House leaders incessantly prefaced the "half truth" portions of their "interviews" with great, strident "lie portions."  One of their favorites was the constant repetition of the idea that the "American people have spoken, and they don't want this bill."

We can assume that these knuckle dragging Luddites are, at this very moment, ramping up to present similarly deceptive pronouncements for the upcoming debates on banking regulation, cap and trade laws, climate change and every other proposal from the Obama Administration which might stagger down the pike.  For them, both the content of interviews and and unfortunate facts which might lie behind them are mutable substances validated not by the reality all around, but rather, by the political opportunities such deceptions might present.

However, MeanMesa feels that such irresolute comments might need a bit more examination before they are discharged to the waste bin.  Such positions can actually boast such a small demographic support that a dedication of half of all interview broadcast time to such nonsense seems a little suspect.  Of course, there is the obsession of the "pundits-in-charge" that "two sides of every issue" must be presented to "inquiring minds," but even more disturbing in the apparent conviction among the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Anne Sweeney that when television "news" viewers hear that the "American people have spoken, etc."  often enough, they will accept it as fact.

Such statements are not the products of poor communication, confusion or subtle misrepresentation.  They are lies.

Perhaps an additional note is in order here.

Although well informed MeanMesa visitors are already familiar with the Australian fascist, Rupert Murdoch of Fox Network Fame, there may be some understandable confusion with the other name in our complaint, that is, with Anne Sweeney.  Anne Sweeney is actually only the Queen Pretender of the ABC Network.  The actual regent lives far away in the Magic Fairyland Palace of Disneyworld.  The King's name is, of course, His Majesty, Roger Iger, Rex Divinius.

Under His Majesty's leadership ABC has gone to great lengths to promote itself as a trustworthy source of objective coverage in matters of news and current events.  Nonetheless, so far as MeanMesa is concerned, the corporation remains horribly soiled by some of its, uh, embarrassing improprieties in its past.

The Disney Corporation owns the ABC Network.

"Embarrassing improprieties?"  Let's add another example.

Well, frankly, yes.  Such a complaint may seem to be yet another example of MeanMesa careening off the tracks, but ABC, you may recall, very generously and eagerly broadcast a full length "movie" which placed the entire blame for the 9/11 attack squarely on the shoulders of the previous President, Bill Clinton.  Oh, and by the way, there were no commercials in that 2 hour long stink session, either.  The entire tab was "picked up" by Disneyland elves, an undeniable act of  generous largesse and patriotic dedication which completely and utterly vindicated the traditional ideas of "country first," that is,  as they say, "putting your money where your mouth is."

MeanMesa suggests that good parenting practices, at this point, would require a serious scrubbing -- perhaps with a stiff brush and plenty of Comet Cleanser -- for both the money and the mouth.

The wretched "movie" was simply another case of hoping that when something, no matter how unsupported by any facts whatsoever, is repeated often enough or dramatically enough, it will slowly migrate to being credible.

What's the point?

Whether the drooling blather of unchallenged lies in an interview or the "easily inserted" outrage of an entire "movie," the media fraud remains relentlessly committed to the possibility of saturating information challenged voters with this rancid flatulence.  ABC and FOX should not be considered the only defendants in this charge, either.

However, MeanMesa thinks that there might be an even larger point to consider here. 

So, what's the larger point?

The FCC, as it was licensing these parasites, extracted a promise from them to somehow "serve the public interest."  This part of a network's license agreement represented a paltry yet important compensation for "handing over" some section of the public airwaves for their exclusive use.

Beyond this easily neglected responsibility, however, lies one even more fundamental.  The Constitution relegates great protections to what is termed, within it, the freedom of speech and expression.  The question is straightforward.  Are there "duties" associated with those "rights?"

After all, contracts, in this case our Constitution, are structures of agreement with respect to the "rights" and "duties" of the parties.  The networks have rapaciously exploited their "rights" derived from Constitutional protection  for their free expression, but have they accepted even so much as a single iota of responsibility to also perform their "duties" to do so in the public interest?

Quite possibly, within this analytic, these reckless acts of relentlessly and cynically promoting such media fraud are a bit, well,  Un-Constitutional.  In fact, perhaps more than a "bit" Un-Constitutional.  Perhaps, outrageously Un-Constitutional.

Conclusions, conclusions...

The ongoing frenzy of this now well established media fraud is setting a foundation for the end of this Republic.  It represents an incredibly well funded corporate move -- one eagerly funded by some very unpleasant players -- to permanently divide our nation.

Is this just another one of those wandering geriatric rantings about the "Good old days?"  Hardly.  Left unchecked, these corporate "news" moguls seem to be intent on being the authors of the last chapter of the history of American democracy.

God.  What are they thinking?

No comments:

Post a Comment