I've been away from CNN for a long time. So long, in fact, their metamorphosis into infotainment shocked my expectations of CNN. Wolf Blitzer yelled over Rand Paul in the aftermath of Donald Trump's bizarrely demure meeting with Vladimir Putin and the subsequent presser in which Trump continued his fawning supplications, with the headline emblazoned across the bottom of the screen, "Trump throws US Intel Agencies Under the Bus." Thrown under the bus? That was a new phrase I'd encountered at work -- a political declaration when someone eschews responsibility and places blame on another in a given blundered situation.
Where nothing else stuck in my brain like a thorn, that charged statement did. Working with words, I know there are alternatives. "Trump denies US Intel Investigation Conclusions." That would have been a wet noodle thrown over the public's heads. "Trump Supports Russian Conclusions in Election Tampering." Another softball. However, thrown under the bus is a charged metaphor we use in case of betrayals, a dirty-handed, shifty-eyed miscreant, opportunistic scoundrel has just besmirched the good name and intentions of another for some sort of emotional leverage in the workplace playing field.
One of Wolf Blitzer's guests in a later segment took an impassioned stance, having worked for the CIA (which he called The Service, not to be confused with colloquial references to the military in the US), stating that Trump went above and beyond in destroying his trust with the US intelligence community, and he went on to describe conversations with colleagues regarding the matter -- colleagues whose honor he described in glowing terms with all the overseas operations to which they've dedicated their careers.
I would venture to guess those overseas operations involved sending funding and weapons to the Afghans fighting off the great, Red Soviet Scourge -- ultimately to help create the Taliban and al-Qaeda which became such a thorn in their former benefactors' side. I seem to recall something about wanting to destabilise the leadership of Syria. There was that whole thing in the 1950s, when the US wanted to stem the tide of communism, and so fought off North Korean forces funded and supplied by the Soviet Union. That was interference over the direction of a nation's government. Vietnam. Iran-Contra. Those are just off the top of my head.
With all that in mind, I commented on CNN's YouTube page:
"'Throws US Intel Agencies Under the Bus.' What a charged statement, what an emotional phrase, taking a stance when journalism is supposed to be objective. Think about what they're shoving down your throats unnoticed, how you've been programmed."
And this is total truth. It is seen more and more. When allegations of fake Facebook accounts and increasing noise and posts with the specific design of causing unrest came out, every headline I had ever read in the last year flashed through my brain. Entertainment websites conforming everything to matters of unequal pay between sexes, unequal treatment between races, a litany of comments of common people at one another's throats ... American media understands that if it stokes the flames of any one cause, it gets attention, positive or negative. Attention is clicks, clicks put advertisement in readers' view, advertisement views put revenue in the media's pockets in America. There actually is a far greater market in causing unrest from caustic opinion disguised as objective news (and people tune in to be outraged by the lie sometimes) than in being truthful and objective.
A segment of the American public is angry at all of Russia for doing what their own market driven media outlets specialise in. Let me break it down even further. I'll make it a useful metaphor: I have a car to sell you. It is a miracle car. It gets 1,000 miles to the gallon. You need a car ... you need to spend little on fuel ... and I will sell you this car for $100.00 USD -- full seats, air conditioning, spacious, solid. Your need for a car is so great, you don't think critically of the car, but when you see it, you're in love with it, pay the $100.00, and it's yours. I have stolen the car, forged the title, and this car ends up getting six miles to the gallon, but I have your money, I'm long gone. What could have happened differently? I am the great monolith of business. There is no fighting me. If I am this great, powerful entity cutting off your recourse, you could think more critically, realise there are no 1,000 mpg vehicles in existence, mitigate your hot desire for such a good deal with rational thinking. Not the Western media nor any agents -- Eastern or Western -- could divorce you of reason for their own goals if you would think about what's being poured into your eyes and ears.
The Liberal and/or Democratic segment of the population is incensed by the notion of Russian interference in an election that cost them their candidate victory. They are angry at the use of methods of division potentially used by foreign actors, but not when used by their own media sources. The party, the political persuasion, of defending individual character over gender or race or nationality, the ones who know several criminal elements should not defeat one's ability to cross the border and work for a better future, have this response:
Anything presenting with a Slavic/Eastern European name are the Russians, and they're all evil, and if they're on the Internet, they're all Russian bots. The Russians -- a monolith of impurity and evil intent, every single last one, all one thing.
But that brings me to another point ...