The Media Circus

There is a show out there that takes place on a series of enormous stages under the glare of blindingly bright lights. These stages are filled with performers, illusionists, buffoons, tricksters, tramps, whores, and a varied assortment of other motley characters. Almost all of them wear makeup of some kind to further the act and to add to the glamour of their illustrious craft. They display dazzling images that instill a sense of danger and disbelief to anyone who watches. They produce a seemingly endless stream of marionettes that dance and jerk about wildly, their strings manipulated by unseen hands. They contrive spectacles that amaze and astound those with simple minds, while generating controversy for those who have the ability to think for themselves.

And through it all, these harlequins, performers and illusionists smile broadly with their arms outstretched to the audience and say, “Trust us! Believe in us! We do all of this for you!”

Now you might think that perhaps this show is some kind of Marti Gras, but it takes place far more often than that. It is in fact a circus…a Media Circus, to be exact.

The term “media circus” has been used to describe the frenzy that occurs when a large group of journalists and news crews come together to cover a certain story or event. What I put forth is that the media is a circus. The news you see is always a media circus…the worst show on earth.

Before I begin, I have two disclaimers. One, like everything else in the world there are exceptions to the rule. What I am about to say applies to a large number of media personnel and journalists, but not to every single one. I know this. There are some good apples here and there, but it only takes one apple to spoil a bunch. –And the media is full of bad apples. The second disclaimer is that I love the real three-ringed circus and I have nothing but respect for the performers and acrobats who perform daring feats that few others can do. I would rather watch a daring young man on a flying trapeze than watch twenty-two football players on a tuft of grass any day.

I also want to clarify what I mean when I say “the media”. Media usually refers to everything from TV to radio to movies to books. What I am talking about here is the news media. Time Magazine, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Newsweek, The New York Times…these are examples of what constitutes the media I’m talking about. It’s true that there are many novels, books and TV shows that make political statements and assumptions about the way things are in America and around the world, but it is the news media that claims to be the caretaker of truth. When you turn on the evening news or pick up a newspaper you are supposed to be getting facts and information, but that’s not what you get.

We’ve been told time and time again that we need to be informed. We’ve been told that we need to be up-to-date on the current events in the world and know what’s happening in our country and in our communities. We need to be on the cutting edge, riding in the fast lane on the information highway. We need to form opinions about everything from politics to civil rights issues. We need to be involved and knowledgeable so that we can function well in society and generate conversation.

Where do we hear this from? The media. How can we possibly achieve all the goals mentioned above? The media. Convenient, isn’t it?

The bottom line is that almost all news is nothing but entertainment. The media tries to make it seem like you have to be in the know, that you have to tune in and find out what’s going on. Sometimes they make it seem like you’re missing out if you don’t watch and read what they say, while at other times they’ll flat out call you an irresponsible citizen for ignoring them; you’re taking your rights for granted, failing to exercise all the freedoms you are entitled to in this great yet somehow horrible nation you live in.

But ask yourself, how did your life change when you heard about Hurricane Katrina? How does knowing the American troop death toll make a difference in your day-to-day life? Does knowing that the CIA is “torturing” terrorists on some island do anything to alter your routine? Unless you are directly involved, those events mean absolutely nothing to you—and the catch is, if you are involved, you already know those things.

For example, I work in an industry that uses a lot of PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride). As it happens, many of America’s PVC factories were in New Orleans and were consequently wiped out during the hurricane. The media didn’t say one thing about PVC. It exaggerated the death toll on a daily basis and it made everyone down there seem like crazed wild beasts but it didn’t tell me that PVC was going to jump up in price because production was going to go down. –I found that little fact out from my boss because information like that directly concerned him.

If one of your friends or family members lost their life in Iraq, you didn’t need the news media to tell you that—you found out from another source. If you had business or personal interests in New Orleans, you most likely would have found out without any kind of press. And if you had no business or relations down there, why the heck should you care?

My point is that news is no more important than a sitcom. I don’t need to know about Cindy Sheehan’s arrest for yet another protest any more than I need to know if Ross and Rachel are still on a break. Most news is useless, pointless information that is spun by the media to sound important in order to justify it’s own existence.

I know this is a crazy concept, but think about it. What did you change about your life when you heard about the tsunami? What about when you heard about the Duke rape case? Did knowing there were snipers in Virginia help you avoid them, or did it simply lock you down in fear? What news actually helps you or has any impact on your life?

The weather forecast is wrong more often than it’s right, and telling me I’ve got a 65% chance of rain doesn’t really do squat. It’s either going to rain or it isn’t and the weather folks can’t seem to get it right even a day in advance. I would venture to say that traffic reports important and pertinent to my life and plans, as is the local news about school closings, grand openings, job opportunities, sales, and the like.

Not too long ago an article in the local paper here in Fredericksburg caught my eye. It was a small piece on the up-and-coming flag football league here in town. It gave a brief history of how it started a couple years back and talked about how it has grown. It told me where the games took place, who could play and how to register. That was useful news and information. If I had so desired, I could have changed my daily routine and added an activity to my life that I might not otherwise had known existed without the newspaper.

…But that’s the only thing I can think of. Most everything else is trash. Whether or not Bush lied about Iraq is completely irrelevant to my life. What could I do to change anything? The guy isn’t even going to be running in the next election, and I’m not going to call for his impeachment when I know only a small portion of the facts.

To epitomize this point, I’d say that the media should have kept its mouth shut about Watergate. *GasP!* Can I be serious? Watergate? The big news story that represents all that’s right and good in the media? The event that infused the media with its current hubris and lust for blood?

I wasn’t alive during Watergate, but I challenge anyone to say how they or the nation as a whole benefited from knowing about Watergate. Now, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t have been investigated and prosecuted. I’m not saying it wasn’t a big deal and that it wasn’t a sign of some serious corruption. But what did you or your parents do with that information? How was your life improved by knowing about that scandal? Did people suddenly feel a wave of euphoria wash over them as the media inundated them with the latest breaking news? Were the old made young and the dead brought to life because some idiot with a microphone talked about what some guys did at a hotel, and how a guy tried to destroy some tapes?

Yes, “a guy” was the president of the United States—so what? The media calls itself the whistle blower…what the heck good does that do? Are they actually saying that without reporters Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate? Are they saying that the media caught the burglars and made the arrest? Are they claiming that they brought the Senate Watergate Committee together and investigated the facts?

The people that needed to know—the people who investigated and conducted the trials—didn’t get their information from the media. They didn’t run to Walter and say, “Hey, what the heck is going on, ‘cause we have no frigg’in clue?” The only people who learned anything from the media were the people who really had no business knowing and who couldn’t do a thing about it one way or another.

Watergate was only a big deal for the people involved. The consequences didn’t reach to you or your families. It’s just like anything in life. You breaking your leg is news to your family and friends, and it’s a big stink to you, but no one else really cares. Watergate and stories like it are important to the people whose lives are impacted by them—no one else really should care.

And don’t try to give me this bologna about how it changed our outlook on our country and our leaders. Anyone who thinks our presidents’ poop doesn’t stink, or that our nation is the exception to historical follies and human nature is a naïve fool. Watergate as a news story didn’t do a single thing for this country or its citizens. When the whole thing was over, it should have gotten a small blurb in the newspaper saying that Nixon left office because of a scandal that took place and listed some of the details.

“Nixon screwed up. He’s out and someone else is in”. That’s the only bit of copy about Watergate that’s worth anything.

So the first strike against the media is it is worthless. It’s cheap entertainment. Ooo! Look at the murder that happened 2,000 miles away! Ooo! Look at the water that’s covering some strangers’ yard! Ooo! Look at the bad corporate guys going to jail because they cheated on their taxes! Why the heck should we care? We’re not going to help, all we’re going to do is say, “Whew, I’m glad it’s not me!” and move on. Either that or we’ll stand around the proverbial water-cooler saying, “Did you see what happened down in Texas? Crazy isn’t it? Can you believe that guy got away with it?” Idle chatter. That’s the reward news offers us.

Besides the stuff we don’t need to know about, what about the stuff we shouldn’t know about? The media puts out this lie that we have a right to know. Do we? Do we have a right to know how exactly we’ve stopped terrorist attacks? What happens when our enemies find out?

Just because there are spineless wretches who betray this country and leak secrets about its security and operations to the press doesn’t mean the press has to write about it. Reporters aren’t forced at gunpoint to spray leaks all over the front page of a newspaper. There are reasons for secrets—some good, some bad. Who the heck gave the media the right to determine which is which? How many people have lost their lives because the operation or mission they were on got it’s cover blown when the story broke? How many lives have been ruined because the media decided to make a secret public?

How would you like your life investigated and reported on to the rest of the world? You think it’s great when these politicians, government officials and celebrities get exposed and humiliated, but what if the great media decides you’re of interest? The only reason the world doesn’t know everything about you is because the media doesn’t think enough people would buy their papers or watch their programs just to find out about you. These guys don’t care about your protection or m rights. They say they do. They say they’re helping to keep you safe. But as soon as they can make money off of you, they’ll tear you to pieces in the name of good journalism. And what happens when half the stuff they write about you is out of context or completely fabricated? How are you going to get the truth out? Who is going to believe you?

How can you trust these leeches who obviously have no discretion and lack the ability to keep their mouths shut about anything? Even comments made off the record have mysteriously turned up. Sure it’s illegal, but the damage is done.

Some worthless reporter recorded a coach telling a questionable joke. The joke was bad and it was off the record, but this reporter decided to leak it anyway. He gave it to a radio station that then played the tape. Who here has never told a bad joke? Anyone ever told a Pollock joke? A Jewish joke? I know I have. That’s racism according to these idiots, and they make a big deal out of it. It’s one thing if the guy came out at a press conference and thought the joke was something to be shared with the public. That’s poor judgement. But this coach had no idea he was being recorded, never mind that it would get played on the radio.

And what happened to this bold reporter who exposed a coach saying something that none of us would ever, ever say? Nothing. He got a slap on the wrist. What about the coach? What about his reputation? Nothing can be done about that now. The toothpaste is out of the tube, as the saying goes.

But I digress.

Watching the news is just like watching a reality show. It’s not really reality. It’s a collection of manipulated and faulty data constructed by an agenda and given artificial credibility so it can entertain. Reality shows are so pathetic in terms of plot and interest that if they were marketed as scripted shows they would have tanked a long time ago.

The Blair Witch Project was a low-budget film that made a ton of money when it first came out. It wasn’t because the footage was great—in fact a lot of it was horrible. It wasn’t because the characters were well developed and shared riveting dialogue. It wasn’t because the direction was so amazing or the cinematography was breathtaking. The movie was a success because people believed it was actual footage from a real disaster. They thought the tape was found in an abandoned camera out in the woods, and the footage actually showed what were most likely these kids’ final hours on earth. Once people found out that it was all bogus, the movie quickly lost people’s interest and the sequel wasn’t even good enough to flop.

So too is it with the news. It has to come across as real and accurate so that people will be interested, yet it has to be entertaining. And it is this last requisite that creates a problem that is impossible for the media to solve: credibility.

The media has to sell news. Unless there are stories that can grab a reader’s attention, the paper doesn’t sell. And what grabs people’s attention? Controversy, disaster, misfortune, violence, strife, death, and gossip. So how can we believe anything the media puts out when we know it has to generate money?

It’s the same principle as a salesman working on commission. Sure, he’d like to be honest, he’d like to have integrity. But when he needs money, honesty goes out the window. Do you believe everything a salesman tells you, knowing that he is biased? He only gets paid when he makes a sale, so isn’t he going to tell you whatever you want to hear in order to make that happen? Again, he might not want to, but when it comes to going without dinner or fudging the facts a bit, he’s going to fudge the facts.

If the media doesn’t entertain it goes under. If it can’t grab your attention everyday, it dies. These guys have to sell the news and they can’t do it if there’s nothing to sell. I think journalists should be called ‘construction workers’ because every day they have to make mountains out of a molehills.

I spoke with a friend of mine who was a cop for 32 years. He said, “Never trust anyone who buys ink in 55 gallon drums”. He went on to say that he got burned many times by the newspaper when it took what he said and twisted it out of context. The media isn’t made up of noble, moralistic people. These are people who thrive off the misery of others.

I used to listen to a sports radio show, and the commentators were complaining because there was no controversy. They said, “Well everyone’s getting along great…which I guess is good for them but its’ really bad for us.” The media goes bye-bye if everyone gets along. They are instigators—they ask questions that they hope will ignite some kind of fire. They stir up trouble where there isn’t any and don’t care what the consequences are as long as they get a story.

Not only is the media’s credibility shot by their need to manufacture news, it also suffers from blatant bias. I have witnessed several instances where the media took a statement or a set of facts and manipulated them to say something completely different. The media is comprised of people with their own beliefs and agendas and so they generate stories that agree with them. It is no secret that most of the news you hear has a political and social bias. If you can’t see it, I’m afraid nothing I can say is going to make it obvious to you. Most of the times the bias is overt—one side will get its voice heard a lot more than the other side, or there will simply be a greater number of negative stories about a particular person or point-of-view.

But sometimes the bias is subtle. For example, note the difference between, “He looked very concerned”, and “He looked very worried”. They both essentially say the same thing, but I would much rather be reported as looking “concerned” than “worried”. Concern shows strength…it’s more of a mental thing. I’m mulling over the problem. I’m not disregarding it, but I’m staying cool under the pressure. “Worried” makes it sound like I’m an emotional wreck. It makes me sound cowardly and timid with my eyes frantically darting about the room in anxiety. When the media likes an issue or politician, it uses subtle choices in diction to portray him, her or it in a positive way.

Every person has an opinion. Every person has a preference. The media is comprised of people—people who are taught to find their own voice, to not compromise their principles, and to seek out “truth”. Therefore, the “truth” is going to be what these people want it to be—what matches their voice and their principles. Of course they won’t admit to this. They are completely objective with no agenda. They have no personal opinions about anything, and if they do those opinions don’t factor at all into what they write.

The media insults our intelligence. Maybe they honestly think they cover it up well enough, or maybe they can’t even see it for themselves. But most of the time the headline itself gives it away, and anyone with any kind of a memory will find that the same stories have the same angles over and over again.

As I said, I have actually heard the truth get twisted by the media on several occasions. I have heard the media completely butcher the truth on several more occasions, and they only apologize for it half the time. Why should they? Who is keeping them honest? Unless you sue them (and what chance do you have against the lawyers they can hire and the influence they have in the justice system) they don’t care if you know they’re liars or not.

So not only is the news pointless, it’s also distorted and false a good portion of the time. How great is the hypocrisy of the media! They decry politicians for their lies and deceit while they themselves are guilty of it in far greater measure! So if we can’t even trust the meaningless drivel the media puts out…what is the point? What good does it do?

The answer is none. In fact, the media is one of the most destructive forces in this country.

Not long ago, three lacrosse players at Duke University were charged with rape by a stripper. She pointed them out in a lineup and said they were the ones who molested and raped her during a party. As it turned out, none of the boys did anything to her. A DNA test revealed that not only were the three boys innocent, but that the stripper had sexual contact with guys who weren’t even at the lacrosse party!

The stripper changed her story several times, especially when it was revealed that there was concrete video evidence that one of the guys she identified wasn’t even in the house during the alleged rape.

The girl was full of crap and told malicious lies that have permanently tarnished the reputations and lives of those three players. The coach got fired, the lacrosse season got canceled, and the players were kicked out of school.

Riots broke out, incited by the mindless mob who vehemently declared it to be a race crime since the boys were white and the girl was black. Unfortunately there are far too many ignorant, bitter, hateful people in this country who are just waiting for an excuse and someone to blame. They have no morality, no intelligence and no interest in the truth. They want violence and they want blood.

How did these people find out about this case? Our friends in the media.

Rush Limbaugh refers to the media as “the drive-by media” because they drive up, spray bullets into the crowd, report the mayhem, then drive off again to do it elsewhere, leaving a mess behind.

Whether you like the man or not, that is exactly what the media does. They tacked on the term “allegedly” when talking about the boys’ crimes but that doesn’t mean jack-squat anymore. The media uses the term “allegedly” even when a car-thief gets arrested after a high-speed chase that was caught on video. “Allegedly” is nothing but a CYA term. If it was really “alleged”, a responsible media wouldn’t report the story until it found out if anything really happened. After all, there are cases of rape not happening every day. That’s not news. Heck, I didn’t rape someone. Should my name and face be all over the news for three months because of it?

The fact that an irresponsible stripper accused some guys of raping her isn’t a story by any stretch of the imagination. It might make a great novel or movie, but it’s not news. Why? Because nothing has been proven. For all the media knew, the event never took place! The real news would have been the verdict after the trial. Again, I’d argue that for you and me the story is nothing but worthless entertainment, but if there had to be some kind of reporting done, it should have been on what did happen, not what “allegedly” happened.

The media isn’t dumb. It knew very well what would happen when it put that story out. It knew the chaos it would cause. Race has always been a big seller in the news and so it was here. Controversy, ruined lives, deceit, disaster, violence. It was everything the media needed. They protected the identity of the girl, even after it was proven she was a liar…but the boys…they were sacrificed for the story. Innocent college students got smeared by an irresponsible and reckless press that decided the rest of the world had a right to know about an accusation.

The story was reported as if the event actually took place. If you read it, you didn’t get a sense of doubt as to whether or not these guys did it, you just wondered why it was taking so long to convict them. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, they were guilty because someone else said so.

In the end it was most likely a political stunt that the media was more than happy to help out with. They didn’t apologize for the way they reported the story, or that they reported it at all. They were directly and solely responsible for screwing those players over, and they simply moved on.

Blood suckers. Vile, contemptible blood suckers.

I already brought up the point that the media is eager to print leaks. Leaks are a nice way of saying, “Someone betrayed trust to blab about something they didn’t agree with”. Leaks are what traitors give out to hamstring their country and their opponents. Can you trust a traitor? Can you trust a tattle tale? How do we know the leaks are real? When a media that is notorious for lies and slander puts out “secret” information, how can you trust it?

Do you actually think the government can’t shut up the media if it really wants to? What can the media do? It’s not invincible. It’s not some kind of invisible presence that can’t be harmed. The media is flesh and blood. It can’t pass laws, it can’t prosecute and it can’t condemn. What is it going to do if one of its reporters gets killed because he went too far?

There may be some leaks that do some good, but none that I can think of. The leak about the wire-taps on terrorists didn’t do anything except spread unjustified fear that every American was under surveillance and had no privacy. It was a program that we didn’t need to know about and one that was actually helping us spy on terrorists until it was compromised by some jackal and then printed by a reporter desperate for a story.

I could go on and on. For some reason we have been inundated with leaks in the past few years. Again, no one forces the media to report these leaks. The media decides that we have the right to know (oh, and it may increase circulation and sales) and makes it so. And then it protects the source so that it can keep doing it!

It’s all good until someone you know or care about is hurt by a leak. We’ve already seen that reporters have no problem leaking events that occur during a grand jury even though they are forbidden to do so. What happens when you or I are in a grand jury and a reporter decides to leak something that was said or done in there that makes us look like criminals when we are not? Who will defend us? How will the wrong be righted? Certainly not by the media.

The media destroys lives. Destroyed lives make good stories, and who knows? Maybe one of those lacrosse boys might commit suicide from grief and despair in a couple of years and then the whole thing can be brought back up and dramatized again.

That brings up yet another strike on the media: it is redundant.

I took a journalism class in college and I learned about the inverted pyramid style of writing. You write a lead that tells the who, what, when, and where. Then you put all the important facts in the next two to three sentences. You do this because apparently the average reader doesn’t have the attention span to read the whole article, so you put the crucial information up front so the reader doesn’t have to search for the point before moving on. …Conveniently, that leaves out any chance they have of putting it in context and seeing a different truth than the one you’re putting forth.

So what this means is that all the new information takes up the first few sentences and the rest of the story is just meaningless details. For any story that lasts more than a day, it also means that you only get small tidbits of new information before having the same crap drilled into your head from the day before. The same is true of television.

The story breaks and then reporters spend hours analyzing it and talking about it until a little development occurs. Then they latch onto that, reanalyzing the whole situation before tacking on the new development. And on it goes. In one hour you might get twenty seconds of actual fact. The rest of it is speculation and interviews with “experts” who slowly shape the facts in the direction they want it to go. They have to entertain an audience and hold its attention and they have to achieve their agenda, so they report some facts and omit others. When they get one good solid fact that agrees with what they want, they repeat it over and over again.

Oftentimes to get that one fact, reporters will ask the same questions again and again. Have you ever seen an interview or press conference where it seems like the reporters were getting agitated and simply kept asking the same question in a different way? It genuinely offends and infuriates them to think that anyone would have the audacity to say “no comment” or “I don’t want to talk about that”. They’ll tear into a person if they get the answer they were fishing for, and they bash the person if they don’t give them the answer they were fishing for.

“Well he was very stand-offish…obviously has something to hide. Why else wouldn’t he answer my simple question?”

I’ve noticed that every ‘simple question’ they ask has a severe slant to it.

“Sir, most people would say that you’ve made a big mistake. How are you going to correct it? Do you feel bad?” The question has a faulty premise built into it: that the interviewee made a big mistake. It’s like the media tells someone, “Okay, here’s what we’re going to say you did regardless of whether or not it’s the truth. So based on what we’re going to report, are you going to defend yourself or apologize for it?” If the interviewee says, “No, I think it was the right decision,” then another reporter will get up and say, “But your popularity is down. Doesn’t that tell you there’s a problem that needs correcting?”

Same freak’in question, different way of phrasing it. Journalists have a one-track mind and they don’t care if they piss someone off to get what they want. In fact, if they can get the interviewee visibly angry or upset, they can use that to their advantage as well. They can report that the person is a zealot or firebrand, easily brought to anger by a few simple little questions. The media is a trap for anyone unfortunate enough to be out of their favor or against their agenda.

Not only do individual reporters repeat themselves, most all the news stations and newspapers echo each other as well. You get almost the exact same story with some details changed. Oftentimes those details are actually important to the story, so you begin to wonder just who has the “truth”. Anything that might be considered newsworthy could be listed on one piece of paper (sans editorials and opinions) and would take up all of five minutes of air time. But the media must justify its existence and its lengthy time on the airwaves, so it drags it all out until it has become a big ball of redundancy. Not all news is new news.

Perhaps one of the most damaging strikes against the media is that it’s just plain inaccurate. “Some experts say…” “Many people believe…” “Many would argue that…”

Have you ever noticed how often the media uses terms like that? Who are these experts? Why do they have credibility over other experts who disagree? Who are these people? What number constitutes “many”? How many people have you talked to in order to justify saying “many would argue”? Have many argued? These gross generalizations give artificial weight to statements and construct an illusion of authority.

Polls are another big one. Polls aren’t news! They are presented as if they reveal the ultimate truth, when in reality it’s a bunch of people reciting what they’ve heard on the news in the past! I don’t care how many people think hemlock is safe to ingest—it’s poison, pure and simple. Polls aren’t facts, they’re opinions. They’re actually gauges to tell the media just how many people are buying the crap that they’re selling.

When Katrina hit, the media reported that there were babies being raped in the stadium, that there was looting and rioting, and that approximately 25,000 people were dead.

No babies were raped, no looting and rioting took place, and about 1,500 people were found dead.

As for things like 911, I would argue that the event itself and its impact made it what it was, not the media. We would have heard about it without any news articles or video footage.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t know about these things, but our knowledge of the events doesn’t make us better people or even more intelligent. My life would be just as successful if I never heard about these things in the news. I don’t need the news at all—and neither do you.

How do I know? Because I’ve gone without the news for the past four years. No radio, no TV, no newspapers. I plan to keep it that way. I used to be oblivious to the news growing up, but I bought into the lies of the media and started lending it my ear. What was the difference? I found that I was gradually becoming more depressed and more frustrated because of how many stupid things people did and said. I was almost constantly pissed off because I had to listen to the politically correct crap coming from the talking heads of the news anchors and commentators. I got fed up with the bias and slants, the inequality and double standards. I found myself having a short temper and disliking people I used to get along with because they had different political and social views than I did.

I don’t like violence and destruction. I don’t like reality shows, and I certainly don’t like money-hungry hypocrites trying to pass off fiction as truth. I don’t stare at car accidents or try to see what happened. It’s none of my business, it doesn’t effect me. As long as the people involved are being taken care of I have no obligations. I can’t do anything for the people in New Orleans. I have enough on my plate that actually has consequences in my life to worry about stuff that doesn’t. I have a family, I have friends, I have a job, and I have commitments to fulfill. The last thing I need is to start getting distracted and filling my time with meaningless drivel at the expense of what is really important.

Since I gave up listening to the media, I’ve been happier, more relaxed, less worried and less aggravated. I’m not missing out on anything. When I vote, I’ll vote based on political affiliation. Such a thing has become taboo, but I have no other option. The media distorts and misrepresents the candidates so badly that I have no idea what they stand for. I want to get educated about what the candidates believe, but I have come to the conclusion that the media is incapable of providing that education. I’ll vote for the person who, by virtue of the party they represent, shares a good portion of my views and beliefs on most issues.

So someone tell me what I’m missing out on. Someone explain to me how being without the news is going to ruin my life or deprive me of joy. Explain to me why it’s so important to be informed, and how I can consider the distorted lies of the media to be information at all. Better yet, explain to me why the vipers in the media shouldn’t be locked up as criminals when they destroy lives by publishing leaks and covering stories that aren’t even confirmed yet. Tell me why these people can assassinate the character and reputation of individuals and then move on to the next flavor of the week without any consequences. Tell me who gave the media the right to tell me what’s right and wrong to say? Who gave them the ability to judge and decide that what I’ve done is reprehensible or sensible? Who can protect us from the media?

“The pen is mightier than the sword”. I believe that saying referred to a time when the pen was a substitute for the sword—when diplomacy and rhetoric took the place of violence and chaos. Unfortunately in this day in this country, the media has turned the pen into a sword, wielding it as a weapon to malign and destroy anything and anyone it chooses. And the media delights in the ensuing carnage and the gruesome aftermath—those things are its bloodline. The media has no desire to see a peaceful world free of suffering and turmoil. It used to be content merely to seek out and record the wickedness of mankind, but now it has taken upon itself to create it.

So come one, come all! Gather around your televisions, radios, and pick your newspaper up off the front stoop. Suspend your disbelief and throw aside reason and common sense. Find a comfortable seat, prop your feet up and enjoy the great Media Circus: The Lamest Show On Earth!