To Those 400,000 Climate Change Marchers: Here is how to Make an Even Bigger Impact. VOTE.

The march was impressive by any objective measure: people across the world held similar events, but none approached the size or intensity of the NYC protest. The media kinda-sorta reported on it in a desultory manner (if at all), as usually happens when Lefties do something significant (but let one Teabagger hold up a misspelled sign and it’s “breaking news” for days). So the questions of “what good did it do?” and “what next?” are very important today.

Sadly, because of the Infotainment industry’s biases and the general lack of mainstream political support for the climate change movement, the march itself may or may not have much of an impact at all. If it didn’t make a big impression on the nation, it won’t result in pressure on the politicos. And pressure on politicos was the point of the exercise.

This makes “what next?” an even bigger and better question. And the answer is plain and simple: VOTE. Vote at every election, on every race, every issue, every time.

Voting can make changes that the biggest marches cannot, the more so since politicians assume that you won’t do it. They ignore the electorate and focus on the big-money types who bribe our “public servants”: those bribing bastards ALWAYS participate in politics, because they know it is important.

If those 400,000 marchers would all show up at the polls, the outcome of any number of races in the 2014 election would be changed for the better. Deniers would lose and reality-based candidates would win. Legislation would be written to change the way we pollute.

Marches and civil disobedience are powerful tools to help effect change. But unless we take that same spirit and work ethic to the polls as well, nothing will change. Only when politicos are afraid of being voted out of office will they respond to the will of the people.

March. Then vote. But if you can only do one of the two, vote.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Obama Recently Ordered Military Action. And We Won. You Never Heard About it, Did You?

Yes, that “weak”, “indecisive”, “mom-jeans-wearing” President of ours just ordered a military strike against Middle-Eastern terrorists.  They kicked some Libyan Rebel butt. And the news media kinda sort reported on it. Here is the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/middleeast/libya-oil-tanker.html?_r=0

You’ll notice this went down a week or so ago, when the airwaves were filled with Foxish, Rushish, Rightish bashing-on-the-wimpy-black-Prexy noise; small wonder that this story got minimal coverage. But contrary to the prevailing “wisdom”, our Prexy saw a threat to Libya’s democratically-elected government and ordered a military strike to save said government. Oh, and that is the same Libyan government that “Republicans” accuse Obama of being such a little nancy-boy about (hint: “Benghazi”).

So why didn’t you hear about this? A simple reason: the “news” media is largely controlled by people who hates them some Obama: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6  So, if you heard about this at all, it was a few plaudits to to the SEALS who carried out the attack. In fact, they deserved a lot more and better coverage, as did the rest of the command and control apparatus. And yes, that includes the President, no matter what that great military expert Sarah Palin may have to say about it.

As noted before on this blog, the infotainment machine wouldn’t know real news if it bit them on the ass: http://wp.me/p2jksg-2kb  And this is but another example of that phenomenon. If you’re relying on less than, say, ten or more news sources, you are getting the Mushroom Treatment.

This writer mistrusts the corporate media, so he listens to it, and then checks a load of other sources, including foreign media outlets, and even some of the fringe whacko sites here in the USA. Nothing goes onto this blog without being subjected to the crankiest of analyses: it’s a pity that, say, Fox “News” can’t take the time to do the same.

So, please, Gentle Reader, take a few minutes and stroll around the InterTubes, to see what is going on. That is to say, what ELSE is going on that the bean-counters and Raging Righties in their Tightie Whities don’t want you to know. Today’s example: despite the lies that are being spewed, President Obama is capable of ordering swift, decisive military action (like he also did when he caught Bin Laden).

Good one, Mr. President. Way to give the terrorist scumbuckets one in the eye. Even if (or especially if) hardly anyone gives you credit for it.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

How the media covers a Teapublican rally:

Yesterday, we talked about how liberal demonstrations are ignored by the media, even if tens of thousands are present and protesting. Here is a picture of one small part of that crowd, which was NOT covered on major US “news” outlets:

Now we bring you a few photos of Right-Wingnut “events” that WERE covered by that same media. See if you can spot the difference:

Yep, if you are a Teabagger, Birtherbot, Right Wingnut or a “Republican” of any sort, then the media will show up and cover your “rally”, never mind how small or ridiculous it is. But if you are anybody else, sorry, but Bubba’s having gotten a blowjob back in the 90’s or a “celebrity” sighting is far more newsworthy than you are.

Since the right-wingnuts and Teapubs own the media, this may not be surprising. But it remains infuriating.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Why the News Sucks These Days

Mr. Blunt and Cranky grew up in a small American town that was surrounded by farms – hence he grew up with lots of farm kids and has known lots of farmers. When times get tight, they either go under, go deeper into debt, or “diversify their business offerings”. This last usually means “Agritainment”: you know, hay rides, corn mazes, press your own cider, pumpkin-painting, all that sort of thing. It doesn’t typically get in the way of growing/raising food, and helps bring in some much-needed green and folding to keep the farm solvent.

News used to be, at best, a break-even sort of media operation, sometimes even a loss leader that was subsidized by entertainment divisions or tax dodges. It wasn’t expected to make money, and the only “news” outlets that did turn a profit were supermarket-checkout tabloids that really were not considered to be news at all – scandalous entertainment was their line. For quite some time, the serious news outlets looked down their noble honkers at these rags and scoffed at the notion of “for-profit news” as oxymoronic, or even plain moronic.

In the waning days of the 20^th Century, American media (due to regulatory changes and market pressures) started looking to news as a profit center. Away went the stuffy insistence on balance, objectivity, research, depth and all that sort of boring old-timey stuff – going from 2 to 24 hours of news a day meant lots more expense, lots more airtime and lots more advertisements to sell. In order to turn a profit and stay in business, news became “Infotainment”: however, unlike farming, Infotainment DOES typically get in the way of broadcasting news. This frequently means that the quality of news that is delivered suffers.

Why does it suffer? Because ratings now drive content in the quest for ad revenue – revenue is now the primary driver of “news”, because the validity of any and all media operations is now based on profit rather than, well, the value of news items. Turn on any cable news channel, and you will find a large percentage of the time devoted to pundit circle-jerks, special-interest segments, and other fluffy bits of speculation and opinion. You will find a dwindling amount of time spent on the reporting of news, and very little depth when such is reported. This is understandable – a screeching pundit who peddles offensive, sensationalized twaddle gets more buzz and can thus sell more ads at a higher price than some avuncular gent in a suit, calmly reading headlines. Understandable, but disturbing.

I shall up my blunt game here: The value of news is now based solely on advertising revenue instead of the truth and relevance of said news to its audience. No one in profit-based (that is to say, almost all of it) media gives one tufted titmouse if we want or need information – they only care about what information they can make a buck from. And all those “liberal media” or “conservative media” memes: well, as my uncle used to say, they could wash a lot of hogs. If any rational business entity were to lose money on promulgating one viewpoint or another, they’d drop that ideology faster than Gingrich would a sick wife. It’s all about the money, honey.

And who is to blame? Perhaps shadowy Reaganauts, Commies, or evil media barons? Nope. ‘Tis we the consumers who have created this monster. If we all watched non-commercial news for a few days, the for-profit infotainment peddlers would change their products to match, so fast it would make your head swim. By allowing ourselves to be gulled by marketers, we have been complicit in the creation of the current paradigm: one in which a supermarket tabloid or porn magazine can sometimes beat the “serious” news outlets at their own game (really? Hustler and the National Enquirer out-reporting Fox, MSNBC and such? Yes, really).

If THAT doesn’t demonstrate to us the decline of the media and hence the degree of suckage in the news, nothing will.

 

Mr. B & C