In recent months, it seems that left-leaning media sources are engaged in a secret contest to see who can publish the most outrageously absurd opinion and stay in business.
We’ve had Russian conspiracy after Russian conspiracy practically assaulting our eyes and ears ever since the democrats got to licking their wounds on November 9th. There were calls to have Julian Assange extradited or assassinated due to his publishing of Hillary Clinton campaign emails via his whistleblower website Wikileaks. Just this week, we were forced to endure yet another predictable round of calls for the impeachment of Donald Trump for an act that everyone involved has said was routine.
It’s nonsense. All of it. It’s a simple game of quantity. The more absurd headlines the left can cram down your throat, the more absurd you’ll believe that the Trump presidency is. It doesn’t matter whether or not the content supports the headline at all; the left is literally just bombarding us with bizarre, conceptual ideas in an attempt to smother us.
That’s why it comes as no surprise that ultra-liberal, elitist magazine The New Yorker recently surmised that the American Revolution was possibly a mistake.
“An article by long-time staff writer Adam Gopnik says America might have been better off as a ‘social-democratic commonwealth’ much like Canada, which is still technically a constitutional monarchy under Queen Elizabeth II.
“’And what if [the American Revolution] was a mistake from the start?’ He asks. ‘The Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the creation of the United States of America—what if all this was a terrible idea, and what if the injustices and madness of American life since then have occurred not in spite of the virtues of the Founding Fathers but because of them?’
“’The Revolution, this argument might run, was a needless and brutal bit of slaveholders’ panic mixed with Enlightenment argle-bargle, producing a country that was always marked for violence and disruption and demagogy.’
“In other words, Gopnik suggests we ignore all the good aspects of American history, including individual drive and innovation, to instead focus entirely on the bad because ‘muh globalism.’”
Make no mistake, the doom and gloom of The New Yorker’s theory is a direct assault on Donald Trump. It’s as if the liberal rag is saying unto the American people, “this would never have happened if we weren’t a country”.
Right. And if I had wheels, I’d be a wagon.
This is the sort of asinine “journalism” that passes for classy, elitist snobbery on the left. These “big ideas” and “wild concepts” are meant to bolster the high brow attitude that The New Yorker words extremely hard to exude. By upping the ante on their own pontification and posh posturing, the magazine tends to emit a stench of elitism that no other magazine can.
More examples to come...
We are far from seeing the worst of it yet. There will be major rioting all summer.
In other words, SPECULATIVE BULLSHIT. What a way to be a journalist. But when that's all you've got after almost a year (and with a good chunk of that being under the control of the master speculative bullshit artist of all time, Barack Obama), then I guess you go with that.
What is different is that there used to be more "diversity" in the news. There used to be good conservative newspapers and good liberal newspapers. They had to be good because they were in competition with each other. These days a few large corporations own most local news papers and TV and Radio stations. Generally speaking, they no longer represent the opinions/positions of the local population. They represent whatever the corporate headquarters wants them to represent. There is a definite lack of competition in the main stream news business compared to what it was say in 1960 or even 1990...Here in St. Louis there used to be 3 or 4 daily papers. Now there is one.
