What’s News?

Who do you trust for your news?                                                                 

In days gone by, you had paragons of integrity reporting the facts, without coloring or filtering it.

Brinkley, Cronkite, Reasoner, Jennings, and you must insert Barbara Walters in that group. At least her earlier reporting before she started making mini-movies for 60 Minutes and then her own specials. She won big when she elicited tears for the cameras. But to be able to get to that stage in her career, she had to be tougher than nails and tougher than the old boy network of a profession she chose.

We are all better because of her.

Who do you trust for your news?

Speaking momentarily as a misogynistic pig, I would watch Robin Meade read a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or even a “to do” list. The sexiest thing about Robin Meade is her laugh. Here is this absolutely gorgeous woman and when she laughs, she laughs from the belly and she does it on air. But what she does only approximates telling the news. There are stories about animals, kids, rescues, and I love them all. But I am positive it is not what Edward Murrow had in mind about news reporting.

I hear “don’t listen to this or that station because they are only reporting one side of the story.”

Supposedly, Democrats favor CNN while Republicans trust Fox News much more. Perhaps all new stories need to be filmed only, with no narrative. Then the viewer could see the images on the screen, filter what they see with what they know, or think they know, further distill them thru their own bias, prejudices, and ignorance, and then decide for themselves what the news is. What a utopian view. I think of the craziest shit sometimes.

Blame Granddaddy Purp OG Kush for that one.

My undergraduate degree is in Communications and I really enjoyed when we got to Public Relations and how to “spin” people, places, and events. It is all just based on the wants and needs of the individuals. People will believe what they want to hear, but it is much more effective and sustainable if you frame and communicate the message correctly.

Defunding the police.

Whoever came up with that terminology was not a bright person.

 In a time where both parties are carrying guns to a knife fight, might you at least have someone on the staff who would raise their hand and ask: “Won’t people get upset with taking funds away from the police at this time of turmoil?”

I know I would.

I don’t know; call me crazy.

So the Democrats come back with “No, it doesn’t really mean defunding, just reassigning and re-prioritizing the police system to improve efficiency and to let the police police.

This is just the kind of crap the Republicans are waiting to pounce on.


I am neither Republican nor Democrat but say what the fuck what you mean. That is weak shit coming back with a “No, but…” defense. It is also another contributing factor to the distrust people (including myself) have in the whole political process.

I judge presidencies by how they affect me and my wife financially.


To me, the rest (politics) is just rhetoric and I have to be way more stoned than I am now for that to be interesting on this fine Monday morning.

Stay well.

Published by maddogg09

I am an unmotivated genius with an extreme love for anything that moves the emotional needles of our lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: