Fake Republicans Join the Fake Narrative

According to MSNBC, Republicans are beginning to cave on gun control. Mostly, these Republicans are the usual collection of reliable cucks who keep their dedicated Journalist Pleasuring Knee Cushions with them at all times. I suspect that this is the press’ usual tactic of creating a false narrative in order to generate a real one. Tell a big enough lie and the lie becomes a reality.

Prior to the start of Donald Trump’s rally in Fredericksburg, Virginia on Saturday, the crowd chanted “Do your job!” at a crew from CNN.

Ah, but you see they are doing their job as they see it.  Many ages ago there were two feeder tracks for reporters.  One, was the stringer that turned into a cub reporter. Who served apprenticeship at the paper, learning the ropes by doing.  They reported what they knew and what they knew was the streets. These were real reporters.

The other feeder track was for patricians whose lives had gone horribly wrong.  They were living the high life sloshing gin slings on the balcony in their evening wear one day and the next they wake up to find out their uncle has blown the entire family fortune on a railroad that went bankrupt.  So just to eat, a friend from college friend sends him out to cover a trial.  After that they were trapped.

Today, journalists are spoiled rich kids whose families can afford to support a useless parasite of a child that is on a unpaid internship.  

They want to change the world and they know they can’t do that by telling the truth.

This is from Larry Corriea:

My favorite example of that last one was from several years ago. Different flood, Tennessee this time. And a river was about to break its banks. About fifty thousand homes were in immediate danger. The news was in the middle of saying which counties needed to run for their lives so as to not drown—


And then, I shit you not, the news flipped to Times Square in New York City, where GASP, somebody left a cooler unattended. COULD IT BE A BOMB?! This is literally down the street from our offices, and Dear God, it could be terrorists! We go now live to where the NYPD has moved people away from this Murder Death Bomb and have called in their Bomb Squad in their big scary Hurt Locker suits. Go ahead NYPD Lieutenant!

Bored looking NYPD cop: “Uh, the bomb guys are gonna go poke it. Don’t worry. There’s no need to panic. It’s probably just a cooler that some tourist forgot, which happens like ten thousand times a day here and at every other tourist spot in the world. Odds are it isn’t terrorism, but we always check to make sure. I don’t even know why you’re filming us.”


And then they covered it for the next forty minutes straight. With the cameras all pointed at this Styrofoam container LIVE because it is going to BLOW any second! And all of these nervous anchors talking about it in hushed tones while I’m thinking, you know, I’ve got friends in Tennessee, I wonder if they’re running in front of a tidal wave right now? And the news was like FUCK SOUTHERNERS CAN’T YOU SEE THERE IS AN UNATTENDED COOLER HERE WHERE WE LIVE?! Oh, wait… And the NYPD confirms it contains sandwiches.

But then fifteen minutes of analysis about the sandwiches later, and experts pontificating on the fear inherent in unattended sandwiches… what were we talking about before all the excitement? Oh… Yeah… And everybody in Tennessee has died. Very tragic. So anyways, let’s see what this movie star wore to some party none of you were invited to—

If you keep these four simple questions in mind you can predict with quite a bit of accuracy how many minutes of airtime a story gets, the size and position of newspaper columns about it, and how prominent it will be on websites.

Let’s say there was a mass shooting.

#1. The media loves it some gun control, so initial reports will be how we have to DO SOMETHING!

#2. If it turns out to be a white boy off his meds, then they’ll continue to cover the hell out of it. But if it turns out to be a Muslim yelling Allah Akbar right after the democrat president told everybody terror is contained or that if you’re worried about Muslim refugees it can only be because you are racist, then the coverage drops.

#3. Did the current GOP candidate for president say something stupid about the event? (pretty good odds of that!) Let’s talk about his stupid comments about the event instead of the actual event.

#4. All this is moot if it took place somewhere the reporters actually give a damn about. Garland, Texas? Ha!

Change the shooting around. Random good guy shoots the bad guy one minute in? Zero coverage. Which is why when I’m arguing against gun control folks, and I bring up Random Good Guy With Guns making a difference, and they proclaim that never happens, and I immediately list off a dozen… They stare at me blankly. Those events never get reported because of the media world view.

Change it around again. A psycho who has glommed onto Black Lives Matters murders a bunch of cops. That’s a tough one for our noble reporters, because they really want to push gun control, but they’ll let it slip after a day or two so they can go back to their regular narrative about racist cops gunning down choir boys who were just standing on the corner minding their own business.

Are there bad cops making bad shoots? Sure. But you wouldn’t ever know how many because the media is too fucking stupid crying wolf about everything, justified or not, to ever actually delve into anything as complicated as Use of Force laws.

These simple questions explain why some terrorist attacks get covered, and others don’t. If they can spin the terrorist attack to be about gun control, then they’ll cover it a lot. But then when the same exact kind of attack happens in a country that has incredibly strict gun control, it’ll be a human interest tragedy story, which will quickly fade from the American news in a day or two. And if it is a Muslim terrorist attack in a 3rd world country (like the vast majority of them are in reality) then it will get absolutely zero coverage, and very few people in America will have a clue what you’re talking about.

Mumbai? Westgate? Blank stares.

These biased jackasses never come anywhere near the truth. It is all about narratives bolstering existing world views. I’ve been involved in a bunch of news stories over the years, and the resulting reports seldom have anything to do with the reality…

I frequently ran into journalistic incompetence when I was in the military.  Their utter ignorance was as breathtaking as their blithe arrogance.  They were experts on every subject.  Just ask them about anything and they would begin by telling you what another journalist they had run into told them about it.  That made them experts.

Remember Elliot Rodger? the Omega Male that went on a rampage because he couldn’t talk to girls?  Within twenty four hours the Washington Post was running a piece on the toxicity of Pick Up culture and how it was responsible of for his mass shooting despite the fact that he was pretty much the exact opposite of a pickup artist.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”― Michael Crichton

2 thoughts on “Fake Republicans Join the Fake Narrative

  1. One of my favorite and rather old examples of these narrative stories is the famous incident from Vietnam where a major said “we had to destroy the village to save it”. While the quote is real the preceding and following sentences where the major explained there was a platoon of American soldiers trapped in the village, and the villages destruction was to save the platoon is not mentioned. He was using the pronoun it to refer to the unit not the village.


    1. It’s similar to the Army guy talking about his concern that there hadn’t been Japanese sabotage yet. If you read the full quote, what he was talking about made sense.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s