"Some people just love to morally masturbate in public: they are the ones who oppose any unflattering information in a person's obituary or complain about front-page pictures of someone committing suicide. Graphic pictures of murder victims or undercover investigations compel these souls to complain bitterly to editors abut privacy and fair play, never once questioning whether they actually live in a fair society.'
"The demand for sterilized and happy news adds a layer of protection to fabricators who know how to exploit the situation. . .'
"To get to the truth, privacy will be invaded, authorities will be questioned, images will be raw and audiences will be insulted. It's the only way to shake people out of their slumber..."
from: Don't Believe It! How Lies Become News, Alexandra Kitty, Disinformation Company , New York, 2005. Chapter 17: Being a Savvy News Consumer, pp. 372-373.
"Most people are dead asleep, they can never be awakened. That's why I hate them." Dwid
sapphoq comments:
If nothing offended nobody [an impossible state of affairs imo], the news and the internet [another form of media] would be sterile and unyielding in presenting a false worldview. Investigative reporting would be dead. There would be only one side of every story. Whose side would that be?
Are the people in India really better off because its' government recently blocked some Yahoo content from their computers? Are Internet users going to be better off after the United Nations' conference is held in Tunis, Tunisia of all places ? If the Internet becomes a less wild wooly place-- a place deemed to be non-offensive by the community with the highest "decency standards"-- will we really be better off?
No comments:
Post a Comment