Wednesday, October 17, 2012

No "News"

I don’t know anything about the etymology of the word “news,” but I would think it must having something to do with information that is “new.” If that is the case can we conclude that after something is announced once it is no longer news? Apparently it does matter to anyone involved in what we consider to be news as presented in radio and television. It is true that eventually every news item eventually plays itself out and disappears, but why does it take so long? How much longer do you think we will have to hear about the latest debate where it seems to be agreed by most “newspersons” (outside of Fox which does not really deal with news) that President Obama won the debate. Some say he won it overwhelmingly, others that he won but only marginally. I side with the overwhelmingly crowd as I think he made Romney look like the spoiled bully he seems to be and left him with egg on his face.

Anyway, I am certain this bit of news has been reported over and over again at least all day long and as far as I am concerned is no longer news at all.

Related to this mindless repetition of the same story on all major channels is the apparent belief there is no news anywhere worthy of reporting. This cannot be because it is not necessarily new, it doesn’t seem to exist whether it is new or not. I guess that nowhere in the world did anything happen that might be considered as worthy of being treated as news as long as the non-news of the debate rages on. This is really pretty stupid. I guess it is related to the fact the news organizations no longer spend money on reporters when they can all get the news from AP. There are rare exceptions to this, and there are some fine foreign correspondents, but they do not seem to compete with all the non-news that we are given to believe is actually news. I think it is fair to say that our present news is for the most part not news and is basically pathetic.

I swear the current Republican Party seems to inhabit a fantasyland all their own, a land where reality hs no place. Where Obama clearly won the debate, for them, he didn’t really win at all, or Romney would have won if it had not been for the evil Candy Crowley. When the polls don’t go their way it’s because the polls are fixed. Obama is not really President because he is some kind of “other.” Obama is trying to turn America into a socialist country, he is going to take our guns away, he is a rabid abortionist, and on and on, one ridiculous conspiracy or absolute falsehood after another. They seem to live in a kind of childhood of make-believe, as if they have never grown up.

This is, I guess, reflected in the polls that still claim the race for the Presidency is essentially a dead heat between Romney and Obama. I find this literally impossible to believe but perhaps it is true. If it is true I conclude that half of the voting population of the United States would like to elect a known, chronic liar as their President, or a man who represents the one percent of the most greedy and selfish individuals that have managed to monopolize power and refuse to give it up no matter what, people who believe their own interests far outweigh those of their country, or do not believe a Black man should occupy the White House. I do not like this image of so many of my countrymen but to me that is what the polls must represent.

Based on what I take to be the facts of the matter, about the Black and Latino votes, the Women’s vote, the votes of the young and the elderly, and so on, I conclude that Obama should win in a landslide. But of course this is what I thought about the chances of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and was so wrong. Either the facts are wrong, or I am misreading them, or I am so far out of step with my fellow Americans as to be living in my own fantasyland. Perhaps I need a good psychiatrist, but, alas, that is just another oxymoron.

No wonder Americans hate politics when, year in and year out, they hear politicians make promises that won't come true because they don't even mean them - campaign fantasies that win elections but don't get nations moving again.

Bill Clinton

No comments: