Today's commentary is brought to you by the letter R.
In particular, the letter R as in "rhetorical".
When used in association with the word "question", rhetorical meaning "asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than elicit information".
In other words, the "rhetorical question" is on a mission to inspire cogent conversation, motivate erudite exchanges, generate dynamic debate....
...and/or just stir shit up.
The "rhetorical question" is, as a rule, not, meanwhile, looking for a particular answer.
Particularly.
Which isn't to say that there aren't a lot of people out there in TV/radio/social media land ready, willing and inevitably destined to provide a specific answer.
As for myself, I think we all know where this is headed.
And it would be a surprise to many , if not most, if not all, if I were not expected to plop a big ol' dollop of specific answer right there in the soup bowl of back and forth.
Yeah. About that. Anticipate a surprise.
Question found posted on Facebook a day or so ago.
"Mainstream media....what won't they do?"
Predictably, given the current snarling pack of Rhodes Scholars that Donald has unleashed into our national backyard, the first few unasked for answers to the supposedly rhetorical question asked were, again, predictably, well...predictable.
"They won't be fair and moderate....is that the right answer?"
"Tell the truth". One assumes the writer, there, literally answered the question meaning, of course, that the mainstream media won't tell the truth because the question was phrased as a negative inquiry.
Here's a still hot and still trending go-to rambunctious retort, not able to knock "Lock Her Up" out of the top slot on our hit parade, but still common and catchy as all giddy up.
"Enemy of the people".
This one causes the beginnings of one of those brain freeze ice cream headaches because everybody from about the second grade on up knows exactly what this particular articulate weaver of words means. But since said commenter is answering a question, "what won't they do?", one could make the case that said commenter is actually defending the mainstream media.
"Enemy of the people" is what mainstream media "won't do".
See? It's all so confusing.
And not just a little of one of my personal favorite common visitors to the day in, day out...irony.
Seventy kabillion different ways to communicate with each other at this time in the history of mankind and we comprehend less, understand less, even know less than we ever have in the history of mankind.
But back to business. Or let us return to rhetorical, as the case may be.
The clog in the pipe of comprehension isn't the question being asked.
It's the lack of comprehension that inspired the question in the first place.
And that lack of comprehension is entirely about a lack of understanding.
As in understanding just exactly what "mainstream media" is at this time in the history of mankind.
And, more critically to our point this time around, what mainstream media isn't.
And although it's a lot catchier, at this point, for me to offer up "what it is, is what it is" in a whimsical stoner voice, clarity is only to be found by easin' on down, easin' on down the road of what it isn't.
It isn't journalism.
And, only because my Spidey sense is pretty attuned to those moments when the already riled up crowd senses an opportunity to go all lynch mob and shit, let me tinkle on any attempt to light a fuse here.
I'm not trashing, denigrating or dissing mainstream media for not being journalism.
I'm just splainin' what all this is about, Alfie.
What it's all about is that it's no longer about what it used to be about.
Journalism--the activity of profession of writing for newspapers, magazines or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.
Most of the feces flung in the direction of "media" in the year of our Lord, 2019, is frustratedly flung by people over the age of, say, 45.
Which isn't to say that those younger than mid-forties don't chime in with their own hip and groovy brand of "enemy of the people"-ing, but I'm gonna condescend a little here and offer that a lot of that feces flinging is more a matter of monkey see, monkey do than it is a show of any original thought.
Think of those folks as the ones yelling "yeah! YEAH!" in the mob as the guy with the rope in his hand does the preaching about stringing, and/or locking, her or him or them up.
Best performance by a lynch mob member in a supporting role, so to speak.
But older folks are more inclined to understand, even resent, the result of several decades of evolution in what is now referred to as media. Because when it comes to being dissatisfied with "what it is", they understandably compare and contrast with "what it was."
Journalism. The acquisition of factual information and reporting of said factual information in an unbiased, agenda-less format.
Put simply. Here's what happened today.
Not here's what happened and what we think it means and what you should think it means and what you should do about it based on what we think it means and, accordingly, what you should do about it.
Don't mistake any of this of having a "good old days" candy coating. Newspapers, and then radio, and eventually television all had their own little outlet for offering up opinion along with, or as opposed to, simple factual information. And they were free to express those opinions in the format known as "editorial".
That's where the term "op/ed" comes from. As in "op/ed" page. The page of the newspaper on which you would find the opinions of the editor. And/or other columnists or contributors who wanted to speak a piece.
But it was one page. And everyone reading the newspaper knew the page when they saw it and read it.
And they knew, or, at least, assumed that the rest of the newspaper, newscast, etc held true to the basic value system of journalism. Factual reporting. Period. End of sentence.
Or "-30-" as it was known in the olden days.
In print journalism, starting at a time when stories were written out in longhand, X marked the end of a sentence, XX marked the end of a paragraph and...the end of the story?
XXX or in Roman numerals....30.
Come for the uncommon commentary. Stay for the fun facts to know and tell.
Here's the quick, breaking news headline regarding the olden days.
They're over.
Done.
XXX.
And much, not all, lynch mobbers, calm down, much of what is defined and/or described as "mainstream media" bears little or no resemblance to journalism and has little or nothing to do, necessarily, with empirical reporting of factual information.
The bubble in the fuel line, though, isn't so much what media is.
It's what too many people believe media is supposed to be. Or, more to the point, what they somehow expect it to be.
If Charles Dickens were around today to write on the matter, he might whimsically title the work "Unreasonable Expectations".
None of this is by way of defending the offenders who fill our newspapers, TV programs, radio shows, news websites, social media pages, ad nauseum with anything and everything except empirical reporting of factual information.
But, and now it fits like an OJ glove, "it is what it is."
Criticize, even hate, the snake for biting you.
But don't bitch because you believed it to be a bunny.
If you're among those who are yelling "yeah! YEAH!" when questions like "mainstream media, what won't they do?" come along, here's some things that, by now, you should already know but, apparently do not.
Media is not in the business of providing factual information.
Media is in the business of selling product.
And by product, yes, I mean face creams, hand creams, ice cream, Cialis, Viagra and whatever they can get you to pay, supposedly, next to nothing for at Deal Dash.Com.
Not to mention the kind of true love that can only be found amidst the hay bales and cow pies.
That's right. You don't have to be lonely. At Farmers Only.com.
The three major network and one Public Broadcasting news paradigm in television, for example, is now fully qualified for display next to The Spirit of St. Louis and John Glenn's space capsule at the Smithsonian.
In their place, a whole lotta "news" outlets shoveling out a whole lotta whatever it is they're shoveling with pretty much one goal in mind.
To keep you turning on, tuning in and watching/listening/being pitched to as long as possible.
If they happen to stumble and actually provide you "news you can use", well, hell, even a broken clock, ya know?
Talk radio. Here's something to talk about.
Old saying in the music radio biz.
Radio stations don't play commercials between songs.
They play songs between commercials.
Talk radio is simply following the new schematic.
The longer some punk ass grandstanding Fox News wanna be can spew stupidity and keep you from touching that radio dial, the better the chances that you're going to hear about that great deal at Trailer City.
Free genuine, simulated chrome hitch with every purchase of a thousand dollars or more.
And that doesn't even begin to bring our impish Internet irritants into the mix.
They're not there to provide you, first and foremost, with factual information.
They're there to get you to click on whatever it is they want you to click on.
Nod's as good as a wink. Clicks as good as cash.
Again, none of this is meant to defend or endorse, per se. And neither is it intended to paint all journalists with the broad brush.
There are conscientious, dedicated, committed, educated, insightful and, yes, patriotic people working in the field of journalism who still hold true to that value system mentioned earlier. Who believe that the free press and the proper implementation of it, are not only beneficial to a democracy, they are, in fact, essential.
The Washington Post hits the target dead center with their masthead.
"Democracy Dies In Darkness".
But along with everything else that "is what it is" and "ain't what it used to be", add this.
Picking up a newspaper or watching/listening to news television or talk radio, or clicking on or to and/or around any news outlet with the phrase "dot com" at the end of its title and letting that determine what you think you know about an incident or an issue is a luxury you simply can't afford anymore.
Once upon a time, in a republic for which it stands, you could, in fact, read the morning headlines, or get your daily dose of whazzup from Chet and David or Walter or, later, even Jane or Joan or Bryant and you were relatively, key word relatively, safe in letting the information they imparted to you give you the confidence one needs to feel well, and correctly, informed.
Again, put simply. You could let others do the work of finding factual information.
And trust me when I tell you that, at this age of my life, having grown up listening and watching and reading Chet and David and Walter and Woodward and Bernstein that I totally get that not being able to rely on, depend on, well, hell, let's just get to the XXX of this, want to?.....not being able to just trust what I'm being told is factual information as opposed to one agenda or another is very old and very hard habit to break.
But when it comes to news not so much necessarily being the news anymore?
It's not exactly new information that we're not necessarily getting the news.
Donald does enjoy his little bumper sticker catchphrase creations but "fake news" has been around longer than the sorry attempt to make America great again.
And, at the heart of it all, there's this.
When somebody tells you that what they're selling you is a blueberry pie but everything from it's appearance to its aroma tells you that it's a cow pie, it's understandable that you would not be happy about being hustled.
But to ask, even rhetorically, "blueberry pie makers.....what shit won't they put in those things?" makes you sound more than just a little out of touch. More than just a little gullible. And not just a little lazy.
Yeah, I'm right there with you. I miss the days when you could see the words Mrs. Smith's Blueberry Pie on the box and count on it.
But for some time now, I've been a lot more careful about taking Mrs. Smith's word for it.
And whenever necessary, I do the due diligence of seeking another pie supplier. Until I find what I'm looking for.
And something I can actually swallow.
Earlier, I said that hearing what today's topic was would have many naturally assuming.
The question was rhetorical. But, you know me, I've always got an answer.
Not today.
Today, I'm answering the rhetorical question. With a question.
His question.....
Mainstream media...what won't they do?
My question...
When are you going to realize it's not Mrs. Smith's job to make sure you get blueberries?
Because Mrs. Smith doesn't give a damn if you get blueberries or not.
As long as you buy what she's selling.
No comments:
Post a Comment