Every good propagandist will tell you the first pillar of a leftist state is distortion. Take an event and twist it into something that has a thread of truth and fill it with bias until the cup runneth over. This is effective for a time, but when there is pushback, the propagandist must move to the second pillar of the state: silence. Perhaps this is why editorial boards across the country gathered yesterday for their lattes and croissants so they could tease out the consequences of not carrying an address to the nation by the president of the United States.
The methodology goes something like this: ignore, shut-down, don’t air. The bottom line here is not to give President Trump a forum to make his case about the Wall to the American public. This is not Theoretical Journalism 102. This is the reality. Here’s Mika Brzezinski making this very argument on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
“And the networks have a decision to make. Do they want to run the promise of more lies, more misleading statistics, more twisting of reality, mindless confrontation, all for the sake of defending Trump’s dark, twisted fantasy of a wall on the Mexican border to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, except in the most fevered swamps of American politics — do they want to do that for ratings?
“Like they’ve done with other presidents in other times, the networks should refuse to turn over the airwaves to Donald Trump tonight for what they know, objectively, to be a steady stream of lies. Maybe that will stop him from debasing yet another one of our historic, solemn and cherished presidential traditions. They shouldn’t run it, not on the main networks.
“’You know, it’s a powerful argument, Mika, and I think a lot of people probably agree with you,’ Brzezinski’s co-host and husband Joe Scarborough said.”
A powerful argument? Why thank you, Joe. Your lovely bride appears to you to be a master polemicist and perhaps a future gatekeeper. Why make up your mind when you can have the brilliance of, say, a Mika Brzezinski deciding for you what is and isn’t worth hearing?
You just have to thank God for people like L. Brent Bozell and the several necessary tentacles of the Media Research Center for tracking these freaks of nature who are debating — live on television – whether their network should carry a presidential address. Here’s a snippet from Don Lemon:
“But let’s talk about news because you talked about the President’s address that we’re going to carry. It’s tough, and this is, I think, maybe the first time — I would imagine. Listen, I haven’t been in news for that long, almost 30 years, but not that long. That network presidents and executives have to wonder should they carry it live, should they do a live fact-check. How do you handle this because you’re giving the president of the United States — which he should be given the bully pulpit, he owns it. But you’re giving him the opportunity to speak to the United States unfettered—to speak to the people of the United States and this President has a problem with the truth. So, what do you do?”
My, the many quandaries of our masters. Heavy is the head of one who wears the crown, thus the Twitter lamentations of CNN’s Brian Stelter:
TV exec texts: "He calls us fake news all the time, but needs access to airwaves… If we give him the time, he'll deliver a fact-free screed without rebuttal. And if we don't give him the time, he'll call every network partisan. So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't."
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 7, 2019
Notice the phrase “if we give him the time.” There is the crux of the leftist journalistic problem. Unlike broadcast outlets, who must apply for a government license to operate, cable outlets move about the cabin unfettered by such restraints. CNN may have no public duty or trust, but last I looked a huge percentage of people still receive their news from broadcast television and radio. Since broadcast organizations are licensed to operate and are permitted access by the Federal Communication Commission — they don’t own the air.
But for cable outlets, their will is the power of God on their channel. However, there is one teeny-weeny problem that cable outlets have that socialist propagandists don’t: They must make money. Even if there is collusion by all the cable news outlets (which I would not rule out in the future) not to run a presidential address, people will still have a broadcast network to click on. All those folk pushing their remote buttons to another channel is a media entity’s worst nightmare.
Perhaps the leftists in the legacy newsrooms across this country would be wise to remember the many powers of the federal government – and who holds them. Their wanting to shut down a presidential address from the Oval Office regarding an issue of national security is both sickening and alarming, but the silver lining is that it will ultimately not be effective or financially beneficial for their leftist Kingdoms.