The Fever Swamps of The Modern Media

By Rich Kozlovich

An article by Joe Scudder entitled, The Media Is Openly Campaigning against Donald Trump and Admits It, appeared yesterday saying:

To complain of bias against Donald Trump misses the point; they are openly campaigning against him.  Journalists have always been biased but now they are openly admitting that they are campaigning against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton. Even without their admission you would know it was happening. How else can you explain (for example) the made-up “Trump doesn’t like babies” story?

The one thing we should understand.   The media is now and has always been biased, and if it's openly biased....I like that.  

Take MSNBC for instance. We absolutely know they're nothing more that a Vitaphone for the Democratic party and all things left.  I know it, the nation knows it, and the world knows it.   I disagree with virtually everything they say but I don't have to agree or listen to them if I don't want to because I know who they are.  They've finally abandoned the pretense of impartiality they attempted to promote in the past.  They're not like the main stream media (which is becoming harder to define) who continue attempting to present themselves as honest brokers of information when in reality they're: 

• Secret agents for the left! 
• Fellow travelers!
• Undercover functionaries!

He goes on to expose these biases in the article to cover up the truth about leftists saying:

So now they write rationalizations. Hillary is really cozy with dictators but it doesn’t count with journalists. They dislike Trump, therefore, they scrutinize him and dredge up an imagined coziness with dictators, when actually Trump would rather fight ISIS than start WWIII over Assad.

For many years newspapers - and there were far many more than there are today - called themselves after the political party they supported.  They were openly partisan....and I like that!   Let them be open about their biases and I won't have a problem with them.  I may dispute their views, but at least I know who and what they are.  They're open in their hostility.  It's those who treasonously present themselves as honest brokers of knowledge....and I include a great many of the public education and university types in this chorus who bother me.     

Unfortunately today's newspapers and electronic media are not only underhandedly biased and partisan, they're purveyors of lies.  Lies of commission and lies of omission.  There's a reason newspapers are going out of business all over the nation.  There's a reason the main stream media is losing viewership.  The internet has now exposed them for who they are and society has become aware they've been lied to.  And once people realized how they've been lied to - they resent it and act accordingly.  So now they're reading blogs!

I’ve been told no one reads blogs, or at the best, it’s only read by “fringe” people.  I’m not sure I'm able to define “fringe” people, so I have no way of knowing who these “fringe” people are, so I thought it worthwhile to find out exactly who it is that reads blogs.  What kind of people they are, and what do they do.  Or perhaps it’s only bloggers who read other bloggers work.  Since there are 157 million blogs out there, that seems to me to represent a substantial number of people.  Can they all be “fringe” people?

Well, I decided to do some checking up on this.  First of all, let’s consider the issue of quality.  One blogger  asked,  “would you rather have 1,000 Facebook friends or 10 real-life friends? Similarly, the people who visit our site can’t be measured solely on stats.”

Are blog readers the hip, the hopeless and the penniless, or are they older, wealthier and ….here it comes….. are they professionals?  If they belong to the later group that makes them a “distinct, desirable and significant demographic”.  Don't you think?

The writer went on to say; “Blogads surveyed 17,159 blog site visitors during a two-day period in May, inquiring about their age, income, media consumption, online spending habits and political affiliations. The survey learned that 61 percent of blog readers were more than 30 years old and nearly 40 percent of those surveyed have a household income of $90,000 or more. “

“Though one would think the younger generation would be perusing blogs day and night, 30 percent are between 31 and 40, while more than 37 percent are 41 to 60. Only 17 percent of blog readers fall between 25 and 30 years, while a mere 10.3 percent are 19 to 24-years old. The study found that nearly 80 percent of readers are male.”

So what is it that attracts these people?  Especially since we now know – absolutely know –these aren’t “fringe” people. It turns out nearly “80 percent read blogs because they offer news they can't find elsewhere. About 78 percent say blogs give them a better perspective, and about 66 percent say blogs provide them with news faster than other sites or media. The study found that blog readers are media hungry….”

What happens when it’s a big political year?  There's far more traffic and that’s where people are even convinced to donate money. There’s a reason there are so many political ads appearing on blogs.   They can only work if they’re visited – a lot – and by “quality readers”. 

 

“Out of 66.7 percent of respondents who clicked on a blog ad, nearly 40 percent contributed money to a campaign or cause. About 63 percent contributed money online to campaign in the last six months. While 50 percent contributed more than $50, 27 percent gave between $100 and $499”…..and 50 percent have spent more than $50 online for books, 47 percent have spent more than $500 for plane tickets, and 25 percent bought between $100 to $499 worth of electronics on the Internet.”

 

For the record.  I'm totally biased.  I'm biased against socialism in all it's manifestations.  I'm baised against the false history painted by the mainstreammedia and I'm biased against modern education.  I'm biased against those who refuse to follow the facts no matter where they lead.  I'm biased against the logical fallacies persented as legitimate arguments for or against anyone or any issue.  I'm biased against those who refuse to listen to the facts because they don't fit the narrative they want to hear or believe in.  But the left can't exist without lies presented as facts.  Those lies make them feel all warm and fuzzy all over, and worse yet, it gives them a false feeling of selfrighteousness intellectual superiority. 

Fascism and Communism are both forms of socialism, and so too is environmentalism, and all are a modern secular religious movements.  When the real history of the left is painted in truthful colors we find Leftism leaves nothing but devastation in it's wake. 

 

The Black Book of Communism shows leftist governments everywhere in the world perpetrated  terror, torture, famine, mass deportations and massacres to the toon of 100 million deaths of innocent people over a 70 year period.  That's even small potatoes compared to the massive devastation left in the wake of environmentalism, a step child and spear point of  modern socialism, and the numbers continue to mount. 

The media has lived in and have breathed the fumes of the fever swamps of leftism for so long their minds are so confused they're no longer capable of seeing or articulating reality!  And I'm not impressed with many of those who claim to be on the right either.