I’ve been following politics since the era of JFK, LBJ, and Dick Nixon.  It was an era of social unrest and political turmoil that fractured our country with anti–Vietnam War protests, civil rights demonstrations, and violent attacks on police officers from Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army militants.  Riots broke out every time a police incident involved the death of a black person, and cops were being shot in the back while walking their assigned posts.  The three major news networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, were doing their usual job of reporting the news, albeit with a liberal bias.  Cable networks were in the embryonic stages, hence weren’t part of the national reportage. 

It was a time before 24/7 news coverage permeated our thoughts, projecting every dreadful incident onto our TV screens at all hours of the day and night.  Back then, conscientious people were well informed about issues that concerned them, without having a ringside seat to all the carnage committed by the dregs of society.  News anchors like Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley were held in high esteem, basically because they were recognized faces who brought about 30 minutes of interesting subjects into our otherwise drab routines.  We didn’t think much about agendas and slanted opinions, pretty much because we felt that news is not something that can be distorted.  After all, if storekeeper A shot armed-robber B during a holdup at A’s place of business, how can that be twisted into something racial or political?  Decent, law-abiding people couldn’t care less about the amount of melanin in the skin of the guy who’s threatening their lives or forcefully stealing their property.

All the aforementioned changed when the liberals of the ’60s and ’70s became “progressives” in subsequent decades.  Now, if a person is killed, a woman is raped, or a store is robbed, we the people must be informed of the disparate pigmentation in the skin of all parties involved.  However, when both victim and victimizer have the same epidermal hue, it might only make it to the back page of those divisive rags.  When did journalism become a platform bent on creating racial conflict and hatred throughout the country?

Moreover, why isn’t there more news coverage of the thousands of inner-city inhabitants, mostly innocent blacks, who get slaughtered on the streets each year by black gangsters dealing drugs and terrorizing residents?  I suppose, if it’s only blacks killing blacks, the media won’t be able to dramatize the incidents and use the race card to boost their ratings.  The black-on-black crime, albeit much more prevalent than other racial admixtures, becomes mere statistics to editorial writers who’d rather stir the pot than show concern for the plight of urban dwellers with no one in their corner.

If 33 people are shot in Chicago during a weekend of violence, it’s mentioned once or twice before the news turns to global warming, or recent victories by the LGBT community.  During a saner time in our history, 33 shootings in one city would send shivers of fear and expressions of outrage throughout the nation.  The old journalism maxim that says, “If it bleeds, it leads,” doesn’t stand a chance if the bleeding comes from blacks attacked by other blacks.

The press, AKA the media, is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The reason for said protection is that the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, wanted a powerful entity that would be a bulwark between the government and the people it serves.  It was never intended that the voice of the people would be subverted by a cadre of ruthless oligarchs with the power to suppress the truth and force the most egregious lies into the minds of their readers and viewers.  I’m continually amazed at the colossal mendacity displayed by those who think lies will work if they state them often enough.

A recent example is an interview between Fox News anchor Bret Baier and Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman, a spokesman for the Kamala Harris campaign.  Goldman accused Trump of refusing to debate Harris, claiming that the former president is afraid.  Baier interjected that Trump already accepted three debates, September 4, 10, and 17.  To this, the obviously flustered prevaricator responded with “no, no, no, he had agreed to September 10.”  Baier: “With Biden, who got pushed out!”

Baier went on to state that it was Harris who had been ducking debates.  The look on Goldman’s face was that of a sneaky little weasel who got caught trying to push a deceptive narrative.  Baier, on the other hand, evinced a slight grin of confidence, like that of a courageous journalist who had stood up for the truth.

Pixnio.

Image via Pixnio.