Horses and Bayonets

I find it mind-boggling how many people get their political analysis from CNN without ever actually viewing the footage or reading any of the transcripts on whatever this media outlet’s incomparably inept journalists comment on. I don't take anyone's opinion on politics at face value, especially views that are held by CNN correspondents.

The reporters at CNN might pretend to meticulously scrutinise the presidential debate, and make shrewd, snippy notes of their observations, but then they sit on their glittery soundstage and deliberate for hours and hours and hours about the most inane drivel and discuss, at great length, just how stupendously amazing and sparkly the democratic candidate was, regardless of how that candidate performed.

This is called left wing bias and most of the media are guilty as charged. Spin it until it fits their narrative, which is to keep democrats in power in the White House.  No-one knows why the majority of the mainstream media are left wing.  It's all just a big mystery.

They want Barack Obama to stay in the top job, and they want Mitt Romney to go far, far away, and take his pesky logic, common sense and economic credentials with him. How the hell is a bungling incumbent president supposed to maintain the top gig if there is someone who is actually qualified for the job challenging him?

CNN are always, always, always on the Democrat's side, and they spend the rest of their time demonising Republicans.  This doesn’t change.  Ever.  They don't do balance.  There is no neutrality and there never will be.  If you are neutral at CNN you will be fired by the network by the end of the day.

But who cares, you say.  Well it matters, because there are a lot of people out there who only tune into  this stupid media outlet during election time and don't appreciate how the media influence the public agenda. And let's be clear; CNN tell you what to think. So don't let them hoodwink you; read the transcript and watch the debate for yourself.  Think for yourself.  CNN have an agenda and they want you to buy into it and vote appropriately.

And despite endless harping on about wanting the truth from their presidential candidates, many of the electorate really don't care that much about fact checking, and just take Obama’s side for reasons I cannot fathom.

Exhibit A. During the last Presidential Debate, incumbent Barack Obama mocked his opponent, Mitt Romney:

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed."

This 'horses and bayonets' exchange generated 105,000 tweets per minute on the debate hashtag. Why do people take Obama's word at face value, but think Mitt Romney lies through his teeth? This drives me crazy, because it's a fallacy. We know that Obama either was either fairly liberal with the truth in regards to this exchange, or, as Commander-in-Chief, he is hopelessly out of touch with the Defence Forces. How do we know this?

It turns out the marines use bayonets quite a bit, and horses are used to get around Afghanistan, as they are one of the easiest forms of transportation. I guess Obama's not as in touch with his military as he likes to proclaim. Although focusing on such a trivial point shows that Obama was a little desperate as he tried to deflect attention from the deaths in Benghazi in the foreign policy debate and any kind of questions whatsoever to do with the economy.

The news, as it happens. Sometimes.

I decided a long time ago that the least irritating method of attaining my ‘news’ is to avoid all of the mainstream media's interpretations of what’s going on in the world.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t actually get any news updates, it just means that I find out what’s news - and the details of any significant events - by reading news blogs online, particularly the comments section, where people argue with each other about this and that, which enables the reader to get an overall picture of what is actually occurring, and are able to come to their own conclusions, without the typical news censoring and agenda setting.

The mainstream media tell you want they want you to know, in line with their particular ideology (ie. George Bush sucks, let’s only print bad things about him. Or, more likely, Barack Obama is left wing, like our news outlet, and therefore we simply must find a way to give viewers the impression that he is the messiah, even though he is hopelessly incompetent).  I'm pretty sure news bosses sit around and say to each other, 'we want this guy to stay in power, what sort of web of lies would work in this segment/column?'

Like it or hate it, this is how most media outlets operate, as much as they bang on about how they report the news as it happens, without bias. Without bias, my arse.  I write of my disdain for the mainstream news stations because I am currently watching Channel Ten’s evening bulletin. Seriously.

Whenever I watch a commercial new bulletin I always feel like I'm the third wheel on a date between the two anchors that will probably result in them going back to her house for coffee after the weather, which always follows an inspiring and brave story of a blind Indian orphan with a tumour or something.

Please stop flirting incessantly when you're reporting on suicide bombers in Afghanistan. I know it happens all the time in those deranged countries, but your batting eyelids and sideways smirks when the cameras are rolling are a little tacky and fairly annoying.  We all know that you're not real journalists, but have some self-respect.

The commercial news stations’ format and choice of stories entertains me a fair bit. I love how the ‘breaking news’ always conveniently occurs just after the main stories of the day or just before the program wraps up. Who knew that motorway-congesting car crashes, bogan-fuelled armed robberies, natural disasters and murders occurred in such a timely fashion, to fit in perfectly snug with the tight news schedule.

Just watched the segment on the slightly delusional British woman who claims women hate her because she is Angelina Jolie-esque beautiful. The gist of the entirely uninteresting and unnewsworthy story is that this woman lamented – on a British national morning show – that her outrageous beauty is why women hate her, and now everyone does actually hate her, which she believes proves her point.

As it turns out, she has not only not been hit with the pretty stick, but I believe the scorn women have expressed in her direction en masse is possibly due to the fact that she is a tad on the arrogant side, in the way that Hitler was a tad on the ruthless side.  While I don’t care about any of it, and I do love watching a good catfight between catty, fighty women as much as you do, it does bother me a bit that the media continue to exploit people with psychological disorders for a good story.