|Smooth: To cause to appear less harsh or severe than is the case.|
An example of news as raw data: The Russian ambassador has been assassinated, and a plane full of Russian patriots has been blown out of the sky.
People's reaction tends to be "as if" there will now be war rather than "that" we are already at War: almost more appropriate to make-believe than to belief. Because this War, a War that neither US citizens nor their allies, really consider to be a War at all, is a War that has been defined (by the very Nation that declared it) to be a World War, because the fine distinctions that may be made between a Global War and a World War are simply too subtle for me to discern. The word "Global", however, was decided upon for a specific purpose: to disguise the frightful dimensions and generations-long ramifications of the Bush administration's economic stimulus plan of declaring War on the entire World.
And the Global War on Terror has neither been won nor declared to be over.
Which shines a light on why a very well-known fact, a fact familiar to journalists more than in any other profession, but one that is never mentioned, least of all by the NYT:
In War the first casualty is the Truth.
The second is your soul, but no one really cares about losing that, certainly not the NYT.
This quote is anything but new, and in fact dates all the way back to the Greek dramatist, Aeschylus.
No one know this better than our embedded media, which is what the western media has been for more than a decade now, which is what gave rise to alternative reporting on the internet in the first place. And is what made Jon Stewart, a comedic hack of mediocre talent, carried by a lowly rated cable TV station, Comedy Central, a highly praised place in the News firmament for reporting what he unabashedly referred to as Fake News since it didn't jive with the Real news being propagated by the rest of the media.
Because Jon lifted the curtain to show how the Ministry of Truth operates as an echo chamber such that he could show clips of the various MSM outlets, not only covering the exact same stories, but having their "analysts" all using the exact same phrases. The US may be the "Indispensable" nation it claims to be, but it is still a nation, and it's a nation at War, and nations at war do not honor the truth, they honor whatever version of the truth is good for morale, and will therefore allow continuation of hostilities. It is historically called propaganda, and it is all the American public is fed unless they take the time and effort to investigate themselves, and the tool most used for that investigation is the good ole internet.
Case in point:
Today, the NYT reported on "Advertising's Moral Struggle". Yes that's right, this "news" source is declaring that "the marketing industry is facing a moral quandary". The advertising industry! The industry wholly dedicated to deception, false representation and conniving chicanery to entice readers to spend hard-earned dollars on what they most decidedly do NOT need, and use seductive imagery, flattering depictions and the stoking of envy as the tools of their trade, and NYT is publishing as NEWS, no less, that that same Advertising Industry is in a moral quandary.
Advertising is the Karl Rove of industry, it not only eschews morality, but brags about its lack of it, as that is its strength. Like the ratings agencies, you pay them and they will make up the most beautifully adorned lies to blanket your product with, and have no compunction whatsoever, as to what effect falling for their lies will have on your intended victims' health or well-being. How soon we forget beer and liquor ads, never mind the star of Advertising's power: Cigarette ads. Lies. Cancer. Emphysema. Shortened life span: All portrayed by the moral advertising industry as being instead, a source of popularity, pleasure, sheer spasmodic, mad joy. And all for under a dollar! Whooohoooo!
|Alive with pleasure ... Dead from Cancer.|
Remember Joe Camel?
Joe Camel was emblematic of what were the insidious, underhanded marketing gimmicks by which cigarettes (any product, the truth be told) are sold in America, using slick, colorful presentations of a grinning cartoon animal churlishly intended to appeal specifically to children to entice them to take up smoking. (This verbiage is right out of the referenced article in the NYT itself).
In other words, to deceive children in order to get them addicted to a product known by government, industry, and advertisers alike, that would destroy their health and eventually lead to their premature death. Cigarettes, not marijuana, was THE gateway drug. People smoked as though they were paid to, like it was their part-time job. All thanks to the advertising industry, the industry that the NYT, reports as news, is in a moral quandary "because it bankrolls sites that are toxic to society".
How do they drudge these items up and then present them to the public as news? Well, naturally, to pretend that advertising, their only source of revenue, is a legitimate source of information. One that actually ponders the negative results their activities might have on the citizenry. LoL!!
So keep that in mind when you read the NYT: they are embedded propagandists intent on selling their paper using any scheme that they can come up with to push products that are not only harmful, but deadly, onto a public they have convinced they exist to serve its interests. It doesn't; it has an agenda:
"By and large, talented reporters scramble to match stories with what internally is often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line."
This is what happens even to a newspaper with the prestige of the NYT when it becomes a tool for the propaganda of a War-mongering elite, to which they then become beholden. Garbled news is Goebbeled news, no matter how lofty your intentions. After all, Subarus may be made with Love (LIARS!!), but they still spew death with every mile driven. That's about as "toxic to society" as you can get, and I can assure you they experience not a jot of moral quandary whatsoever ... and never have.