#the 24 hour news cycle and sensationalism

[ecle-c-tic]

I fucking hate seeing the news on my nonsense website

[navree]

i tonya is always a movie i'm gonna be annoyed exists, not cuz i dislike it (it's fine, its' not great but it's adequate and it has its moments) but because i have a vision in my head of a movie about that whole mess that is never gonna come to fruition because there's already been a major motion picture about it

[mariacallous]

Now that the Democratic National Convention is over, the next major battleground in the 2024 election is the media.

The Harris-Walz campaign needs to be ready.

Although former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has struggled to respond to the new Democratic ticket, Republicans will likely get in line with a unified media strategy. The message they will seek to promote is that Democrats are running the most radical, leftist candidates in U.S. history.

In recent elections, Democrats have had difficulty with the new turbocharged, fast-moving and unfiltered media landscape. In 2016, Trump beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, harping on the investigation into her emails. In 2020, President Joe Biden defeated Trump, but under unusual pandemic circumstances that put much of the conventional campaign processes on hold. As campaign conditions returned to normal this year, things did not go as well for Biden. One televised debate, noted New York Times columnist James Poniewozik, brought his candidacy to an end: “There was simply a horrendous TV outing—less than two hours that changed history.” But even before Biden stepped onstage, his poll numbers were lagging after a conservative media onslaught about his age and alleged corruption.

To sustain the energy that boosted Vice President Kamala Harris through the convention in Chicago, Harris’s campaign needs to devise an effective media strategy tailored to the current era. To do so, her team should look back to 1992, when then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s savvy war room figured out how Democrats could thrive in another new age—of cable television, investigative journalism, and state-of-the-art political advertising. While the news media has evolved significantly in terms of form and content since Clinton won the presidency, Harris will need to achieve a mastery similar to that of Clinton’s historic campaign team.

The early 1990s seem like simpler times. In January 1994, NBC Today Show’s Bryant Gumbel asked his cohost Katie Couric: “What is the internet anyway?” Email was a novelty. Surfing was done in the ocean. Cable news played by the traditional rules of objective reporting. Smartphones were in development, and cell phones remained a luxury. Social media meant going to the movies with friends.

Yet the 1992 presidential campaign—which pitted Clinton, then-incumbent President George H.W. Bush, and independent candidate Ross Perot against each other in a race for the White House—took place across a media landscape that had changed dramatically since the 1960s. Cable had created a 24-hour news cycle where stories came out quickly. These stations, as well as the increasingly popular one-hour network news zine-style shows (Nightline, for example), depended on a healthy audience share for their livelihood, in contrast to the public service ethos of the half-hour nightly news programs from earlier times. This shift meant that sensationalism became a hot commodity. Investigative journalism born from Watergate had given rise to a generation of reporters who were constantly on the hunt for wrongdoing. Moreover, conservative talk radio had exploded after the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the fairness doctrine in 1987. Syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh commanded between millions of listeners on over 600 stations. Daily tabloid newspapers and comedic shows, too, were having a greater impact on politics.

And in advertising, the “Morning in America” campaign that helped then-incumbent President Ronald Reagan win reelection in 1984 set a new standard for sophisticated production techniques. Television spots became like short films, capable of seducing and devastating all at once.

Starting with the 1980 election, and as a party felt to be on the outs from the mainstream culture, the GOP saw an opportunity to shape the national conversation through an aggressive media strategy that defined the way the public perceived its opponents and itself. As they built a new conservative majority, Republicans made huge investments which very often paid off.

In 1980 and 1984, Reagan’s campaign team managed its message to transform the one-time conservative extremist into the nation’s savior. Then, in 1988, Bush pulled together one of the most brutal campaigns of modern history under the direction of South Carolina campaign consultant Lee Atwater. Atwater tore down all the guardrails as to what was permissible, institutionalizing an anything-goes philosophy. Playing on themes of patriotism, religious nationalism, and a racial backlash, Bush and Atwater redefined the promising Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis—an intelligent technocratic reformer—into a heartless left-wing radical who looked terrible in a tank.

In 1992, from its perch in Little Rock, Arkansas, Clinton’s inner circle was determined not to repeat these experiences. It had been hardened during the primaries when its candidate barely survived a sex scandal involving Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers. James “the Ragin’ Cajun” Carville had guided Clinton through the crisis and emerged as the central figure behind the “comeback kid.” In a scene captured in the 1993 documentary The War Room, which provides the best look into this critical campaign, Carville warned his staff that Democrats needed to step up or conservatives such as Fox News chairman Roger Ailes would destroy them. With Carville leading the way, Clinton’s war room also included George Stephanopoulos (communications), Paul Begala (chief strategist), Stanley Greenberg (polling), and Mandy Grunwald (advertising).

Several principles guided Carville’s army. Speed was essential. In the cable era, sitting out of stories was no longer an option. Being patient could leave a candidate in the dust. The war room deployed a rapid response style that left no charge unanswered for long and aimed to provide counterarguments before allegations could set in the public mind. When reporters raised an accusation, Clinton’s team rejected the claims with resolve and force. At the same time, whenever Carville and Stephanopoulos got hold of any potentially damaging information about Bush or Perot, they released it to the media immediately rather than trying to think up the best spin.

Tired of the defensive and despondent outlook of Democrats following the political bloodbath in 1988, Clinton’s war room insisted that Democrats needed to play offense. “Why can’t we attack George Bush?” the documentary shows Carville asking his team. The film portrays an effort that fizzled as the team tried to stir a story about Bush having campaign material made overseas rather than in the United States. Nor was it shy about ripping into the weaknesses of Bush’s record.

In doing so, the Clinton war room also elevated clarity into an artform. Carville’s team grasped how long and complicated arguments did not fly in an age of soundbites. They famously drew on a board: “the economy, stupid.” There were two other punchy slogans to guide them: “Change versus more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” That reminder to staffers was also an example of how to convey a message with simplicity. According to the Los Angeles Times, the crew in Little Rock “share[d] a belief in the primacy of ‘the message’ as the driving force in a presidential campaign, downplaying the importance of such traditional political tools as precinct organizations, registration drives and Election Day turnout efforts.”

The team also worked to sell the message through the realm of popular culture, traditionally dismissed as undignified. Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and MTV, in People, and more. The campaign blitzed talk show hosts with information that made Bush look like an out-of-touch well-to-do who only cared about foreign policy while constantly reminding them of Clinton’s humble origins.

In November 1992, Clinton won with 370 Electoral College votes. Four years later, he defeated Sen. Robert Dole and was reelected.

Subsequent Democrats could not replicate his success. In 2000 and 2004, respectively, Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry failed to be as effective on the media stage. Decorated Vietnam veteran Kerry, for instance, was shell-shocked when then-incumbent President George W. Bush’s campaign tagged him as a flip-flopping politician and an independent group invented the concept of “swift-boating” by throwing out false accusations to discredit his military record. Political consultant Chris LaCivita, who is currently co-managing Trump’s campaign, was one of the people who produced the spot for the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” smear campaign.

Barack Obama reset Democratic campaign strategy in 2008. David Axelrod and his band of campaign operatives updated Carville’s model, demonstrating how effective use of social media tools such as Facebook, well-produced television spots with Reagan-like narratives, and not responding to the daily noise from the internet and cable television could provide a recipe for victory. Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were no match.

Of course, the media campaign was a complement, not an alternative, to an aggressive turnout strategy that focused on driving up total votes in all 50 states.

The media challenges in 2024 have expanded again, even as the old ones remain relevant. One of the most grueling challenges facing Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be to survive the onslaught of disinformation, deepfakes, and openly partisan news that will hit them from all sides in the months to come. The recent hack by Iran, which Trump claims targeted his campaign, is a reminder that foreign interference will also be a problem.

Harris also needs to compete successfully in what New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has called the “attention field.” News moves at a fast speed and those who consume political news tend to move on very quickly. Attention spans are not easy to maintain. An effective campaign has to figure out how to keep the media focused on its candidate and message for substantial periods of time.

Between now and Election Day, Harris will be facing an opponent who has proven to be effective at working the media. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an instinctive feel for the rhythm and dynamics of the news cycle. As president, he capitalized on the interconnected relationship between social media, cable news, online newspapers, and podcasts to dominate the national conversation and harden perceptions about opponents. He handled televised debates like a reality show, using body movements, facial expressions, controversial comments, and vicious insults. Most recently, he capitalized on an attempted assassination, standing up with blood dripping down his ear, surrounded by U.S. Secret Service agents, defiantly pumping his fist in the air and yelling: “Fight! Fight! Fight!” It was as if he could see how the event looked on a television screen.

Thus far, Harris’s team has been extremely effective on this playing field. It has staged the rollout methodically to generate good feeling, excitement, and constant media attention. Harris’s memes have caught fire on social media. Harris appears to have selected Walz as her running mate in part because of how adroit he has proven to be in this playing field despite being 60 years old. By uttering one word, “weird,” Walz remade the messaging of his entire party. When Republicans lobbed their initial attacks against Walz’s military record, the social media army hit back hard, although some commentators believe it needs to hit back harder.

The fight is only beginning. Democrats should not fool themselves into thinking Trump will simply lay down his gloves and walk away. When backed into a corner, Trump traditionally becomes more brutal.

But as Clinton’s war room demonstrated in the 1992 election, a savvy Democratic campaign updated to suit the modern media environment can take down the fiercest opposition and pave a road that leads to the White House.

[unitedstatesofworld]

Dr. Aaron Wohl Arrested: What Really Happened?

It’s not every day you hear shocking news about a respected professional like Dr. Aaron Wohl arrested. It leaves you with questions, doesn’t it? What could have possibly led to such a turn of events? While details may be sparse, the whispers and rumors surrounding the case are enough to grab attention. This article takes a deep dive into the incident, addressing all the curiosity that may arise.

The Man Behind the Stethoscope: Who is Dr. Aaron Wohl?

Dr. Aaron Wohl isn’t just any doctor. He’s known for his dedication to medicine, having spent years saving lives and building a reputation for excellence in his field. His expertise in emergency care, particularly in life-threatening situations, has made him well-regarded within his community. But what could have gone so wrong to lead to the “Dr. Aaron Wohl arrested” headline splashed across various news outlets?

The Arrest That Shocked Many

When the news broke that Dr. Aaron Wohl had been arrested, it sent shockwaves through the medical world and beyond. Speculation ran wild, with various media outlets trying to piece together the facts. What led to this? Was it a misunderstanding? A lapse in judgment? So many questions, yet so few answers. However, one thing was certain: the “Dr. Aaron Wohl arrested” story was bound to become a talking point for weeks to come.

Unraveling the Mystery: What Do We Know?

As is often the case with high-profile arrests, details were murky at first. Law enforcement remained tight-lipped, and close friends of Dr. Wohl struggled to believe the accusations. It wasn’t long before different theories began circulating. Could it have been related to his work? Or maybe something personal? This lack of clarity only heightened public interest.

Public Reaction: Shock, Confusion, and Speculation

Let’s face it—whenever a well-known figure gets in trouble with the law, it stirs up a mix of emotions in people. With Dr. Aaron Wohl, it wasn’t any different. Patients who trusted him for years were left confused, while colleagues expressed disbelief. Could this arrest tarnish his legacy permanently? It’s hard to say, but public opinion was split between those ready to believe in his innocence and others who were quick to jump to conclusions.

The Legal Side: What’s Next?

When you hear about someone like Dr. Aaron Wohl being arrested, the legal implications quickly come into focus. After all, an arrest doesn’t mean guilt, right? Legal experts were called upon to provide insight into what could happen next. Will there be a trial? What charges might Dr. Wohl face? And if found guilty, what sort of penalties could be on the table? These are all questions we’re eager to get answers to.

Could He Bounce Back?

Now, here’s the million-dollar question: can Dr. Aaron Wohl bounce back from this ordeal? History has shown that some professionals are able to rebuild their reputations after a scandal, while others, well, not so much. It’ll depend on several factors, including the outcome of the legal proceedings and how he handles the aftermath. But one thing’s for sure: it won’t be an easy road.

The Impact on His Career

Even if Dr. Wohl were to clear his name, the damage might already be done. An arrest can leave a lasting stain on anyone’s career, particularly in the medical field, where trust is everything. Patients may hesitate to seek care from a doctor with a controversial past, and hospitals might think twice before offering him a position. It’s a harsh reality, but such is the fallout from public scandals.

How the Media Plays a Role

The role of the media in cases like this cannot be overstated. Sensationalism sells, and the “Dr. Aaron Wohl arrested” headline has been no exception. News outlets scrambled to cover the story, sometimes prioritizing speed over accuracy. The frenzy only added fuel to the fire, making it difficult for the public to discern what’s true and what’s mere conjecture. In this age of 24-hour news cycles, a person’s reputation can be damaged in a matter of minutes.

What Can We Learn?

It’s easy to get caught up in the drama surrounding high-profile arrests, but it’s important to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Jumping to conclusions, fueled by media speculation, can do more harm than good. In Dr. Aaron Wohl’s case, we still don’t know all the facts. As the legal process unfolds, we might get a clearer picture of what truly happened. Until then, it’s crucial to approach the situation with an open mind.

Conclusion

The arrest of Dr. Aaron Wohl has left many stunned and searching for answers. As the legal process takes its course, more details will likely come to light, providing clarity on what really transpired. But for now, the “Dr. Aaron Wohl arrested” story serves as a reminder of how quickly things can change, even for those who seem untouchable. It also underscores the importance of reserving judgment until all the facts are on the table.

[thorntonkrell-blog-blog]

Cash Swanson was about to sit down to his favorite meal. Cash’s wife, Patti, knew all of his favorites and prepared a new one every night. Prior to Patti, Stafford wasn’t a big eater because he didn’t know how to cook anything that he liked, and everything that he liked cost an arm and a leg if he went out to a diner, so it was mostly hot dogs, hamburgers, tuna fish mixed into macaroni, and lots of Budweiser. He had, in fact, once characterized his diet to a group of horrified acquaintances as “burgers and beer, bitches.”

This was all BP (before Patti), so it was deep twentieth-century stuff. Stafford was a heavy-duty boomer who had gone from peanut gallery to Mouseketeer to card collector to rock and roll to Beatlemania to pothead, acidhead, deadhead, hippie, drummer, road-tripper college guy, professional, sports writer, married guy, father, farmer, gambler, divorcee, remarried guy, (AP) stepfather, grandfather, retiree, and TV addict.

Of all his myriad twentieth-century addictions, TV was the most ferocious, and CNN was rapidly becoming the snarling king of that jungle when he wasn’t watching the Mets or the Yankees or the Knicks.

Cash considered himself a twentieth-century man. He got the delivered fishwrap every day and loved it. Cash had no credit cards; he let Patti take care of all that !*&!@. He didn’t know Twitter from Fakebook, and as he often said, "couldn’t give a rat’s ass less." He didn’t have a cell phone as he appreciated his alone time almost as much as Patti, who loved it.

The news on this day was all about Charlottesville.

Despite his disdain for the 24-hour news cycle and the constant barrage of sensationalism, Cash found himself irresistibly drawn to the screen, compelled to watch what he often opposed.

Cash’s compulsion to tune into CNN was driven by a need to stay informed, even though he was fully aware that the news often left him feeling more disillusioned than enlightened. He saw the network as a snarling beast, reigning over his TV habits with a ferocity that both repelled and fascinated him. The more he watched, the more he felt the tension between wanting to stay connected to the world and wanting to escape its madness.

This dichotomy was particularly evident in his reaction to the news about Charlottesville and the removal of Confederate statues. Cash was conflicted—on one hand, he respected history and understood the significance of figures like Robert E. Lee; on the other, he recognized the toxic use of these symbols in contemporary society. CNN, with its relentless coverage and often polarizing narratives, forced Cash to confront these uncomfortable truths. It was as if the channel was holding a mirror to his own internal conflicts, magnifying his anxieties about the changing world.

The news on this day was all about Charlottesville.

That was quick, Cash thought to himself. I went from being an objective historian to a fascist Nazi just by sitting on my ass.

When he heard they were taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee, Cash wondered, Why bother with Robert E.? The guy is an iconic figure in American history. Why are they taking his ass down?

According to CNN, which is pretty much the truth, He ain’t no hero, Jim. He’s a goddamned racist, terrorist who waged war against the United States. In other words, he was a revolutionary who took a side and lost, as opposed to Washington, who took a side and won.

Then how do we deal with our brothers and sisters from the South who were related to terrorists, which means millions of folks? Do we tear them down too? You better believe if they show their racist, terrorist asses again like they did 150 years ago.

Don’t those assholes know that when they say the pledge of allegiance, they are saluting ONE republic INDIVISIBLE, goddamnit.

The issue with these statues isn’t just about history; it’s about how they’re being used in the present. Folks are using these statues as rallying points to rationalize their hatreds.

Cash didn’t hate anybody. Although, I suppose I hate Nazis. Does this mean I hate Nationalists? Does this mean I hate Socialists? And if I don’t HATE Nationalists and/or Socialists, does this make me a Nazi? I am not a goddamned Nazi.

All because of a statue. All because of a golden calf, y’all. Nobody told me there’d be days like these. Strange days indeed.

Who knows, pretty soon it might be dangerous to watch Gone With the Wind anymore or enjoy The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, maybe even Elvis.

Jeezuz Christ.

“Cash, turn off the TV. Dinner's ready.”

Cash headed for the table. Twenty minutes later, he would be a changed man. A gut full of chicken French kinda takes your mind off of anything other than digestion.

Yet, despite his grumblings, Cash couldn’t bring himself to turn off the TV. There was a part of him that thrived on the outrage, that needed to engage with the very things that disturbed him. It was a peculiar kind of masochism, where the discomfort of watching CNN became a weirdly satisfying ritual. He wasn’t just consuming news; he was grappling with it, wrestling with the implications, and trying to reconcile his own beliefs with the reality being broadcast to him. Cash was a man caught between eras, longing for the simplicity of the 20th century but unable to completely detach from the complexities of the 21st. His attachment to CNN, despite his disdain, was symbolic of this tension—he was a 20th-century man trying to make sense of a 21st-century world, one news segment at a time.

Although he never “served,” he knew enough to say “welcome home” to his brothers who had served in Nam. Stafford thought his “service” was all about doing whatever he could to get us the hell outta there.

All that was behind him now, and what was in front of him was his first serving of Chicken French. Both Cash and Patti knew that there were at least three more helpings available. Cash also knew that he would say no to anything other than the first helping and then go on to helpings two and three, intoxicating himself and pleasing Patti with his suddenly gargantuan appetite.

Cash wasn’t hungry before he caught a whiff of the French. When he saw it in front of him, he was famished as if he hadn’t eaten in weeks, as if last night’s banquet didn’t count.

After dinner, Cash turned CNN, and Wolf Blitzer blitzed him again.

[forthegoodofamerica]

What Does “Honor Vaporized” Reveal About Our Current Political Climate?

Introduction:

“Honor Vaporized,” featured in George Magazine, offers a profound analysis of our current political climate. This blog explores the key insights from the article and their implications. Plus, find out how you can get a free copy of George Magazine by signing up today!

George Magazine’s latest issue features a thought-provoking article titled “Honor Vaporized,” which delves into the state of honor and integrity in today’s political landscape. As the title suggests, the piece explores how these values seem to be disappearing in the face of contemporary political challenges. Let’s unpack the key points from the article and understand what it tells us about our current political climate.

The Decline of Honor in Politics

“Honor Vaporized” argues that honor and integrity, once cornerstones of political life, are increasingly rare in today’s environment. The article highlights several factors contributing to this decline:

Partisan Polarization: Extreme partisan divisions often lead to a win-at-all-costs mentality, where ethical considerations take a backseat.

Media Influence: The 24-hour news cycle and social media amplify sensationalism over substance, pushing politicians to prioritize visibility over virtue.

Public Cynicism: Growing public distrust in political institutions and leaders creates a feedback loop, where politicians feel less compelled to act honorably.

Key Insights from “Honor Vaporized”

Erosion of Trust: The article discusses how the erosion of trust between the public and politicians fuels a cycle of dishonor. As trust diminishes, politicians become less accountable, and dishonorable behavior becomes more prevalent.

Impact on Governance: A lack of honor and integrity among politicians undermines effective governance. Policies are often influenced by short-term gains and personal interests rather than the common good.

Hope for Change: Despite the bleak picture, “Honor Vaporized” also touches on the potential for renewal. It suggests that increased public engagement and demand for accountability can foster a resurgence of honor in politics.

The Bigger Picture

The insights from “Honor Vaporized” resonate beyond the specifics of political events. They speak to broader societal issues about values, leadership, and the role of the media. Understanding these dynamics can help us navigate the complexities of the current political climate and advocate for a more honorable approach to governance.

Get Your Free Copy of George Magazine

Interested in diving deeper into the insights from “Honor Vaporized”? You can explore this article and many others by getting a free copy of George Magazine’s latest issue. This special offer is available now—sign up to receive your copy!

Click here to get your free copy of George Magazine!

Why You Should Sign Up

Exclusive Content: Access insightful articles like “Honor Vaporized” that offer deep analysis of current issues.

In-Depth Analysis: Enjoy well-researched pieces that provide a comprehensive understanding of contemporary politics and culture.

No Cost: Get this collector’s edition for free—simply sign up and start reading!

“Honor Vaporized” in George Magazine offers a compelling examination of how honor and integrity are being challenged in today’s political climate. By exploring these issues, we can better understand the dynamics at play and advocate for positive change. Don’t miss out on this opportunity to read more—sign up today and get your free copy of George Magazine!

FAQs

1. What is “Honor Vaporized” about?“Honor Vaporized” is an article in George Magazine that explores the decline of honor and integrity in today’s political climate.

2. Why is honor in politics important?Honor and integrity are crucial for effective governance, public trust, and ethical leadership.

3. How can I get a free copy of George Magazine?You can get a free copy by signing up on the George Magazine website. Just provide your email, and we’ll send you the latest issue!

4. What makes George Magazine unique?George Magazine blends politics and pop culture, offering readers insightful and engaging content on a variety of topics.

[unraveling-the-giopolitics]

The Crisis of Journalism: Exploring the Failures of Modern Media

In an era dominated by information overload and rapid dissemination, the failures of journalism have become glaringly apparent. From sensationalism to bias and the propagation of misinformation, the pillars of responsible reporting seem to be crumbling under the weight of commercial interests and the relentless pursuit of clicks. Let's delve into the key factors contributing to the failure of journalism in today's society.

1. Clickbait Culture: In the race for online engagement, many media outlets prioritize sensational headlines over substantive reporting. Clickbait tactics lure readers with exaggerated or misleading claims, sacrificing accuracy and integrity for the sake of web traffic. As a result, meaningful journalism takes a backseat to sensationalist narratives designed to generate clicks and ad revenue.

2. Polarization and Bias: Media outlets increasingly cater to specific ideological or partisan audiences, fueling polarization and reinforcing existing biases. Instead of presenting balanced perspectives, many journalists succumb to the pressures of echo chambers, amplifying divisive rhetoric and deepening societal rifts. This lack of objectivity undermines the credibility of journalism and erodes public trust in the media.

3. Misinformation and Fake News: The proliferation of social media platforms has facilitated the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news. In the absence of rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight, false narratives gain traction, sowing confusion and undermining the public's ability to discern truth from fiction. Journalistic integrity suffers as misinformation spreads unchecked, further eroding trust in the media.

4. Corporate Influence: As media conglomerates consolidate power, journalistic independence is increasingly compromised by corporate interests. Editorial decisions are often influenced by advertisers and corporate stakeholders, leading to self-censorship and the suppression of stories that may be detrimental to business interests. This cozy relationship between media outlets and corporate entities undermines the watchdog role of journalism and impedes accountability.

5. Decline of Investigative Journalism: In an era of shrinking newsroom budgets and layoffs, investigative journalism is on the decline. Resource constraints and the relentless 24-hour news cycle incentivize quick, superficial reporting at the expense of in-depth investigative work. Critical issues are overlooked, and systemic injustices go unchallenged, leaving society uninformed and vulnerable to abuse of power.

Addressing the failures of modern journalism requires a concerted effort to uphold the principles of accuracy, fairness, and accountability. Media literacy education is essential to empower audiences to critically evaluate information and discern fact from fiction. Moreover, media outlets must reaffirm their commitment to ethical reporting practices, prioritizing the public interest over commercial gain. Only through collective action and a renewed dedication to journalistic integrity can we rebuild trust in the media and fulfill journalism's vital role in a democratic society.

[relativelyfvcked]

.

[bisexualrapline]

I really don't want Namjoon to feel like they shouldn't have opened up about this just because the media took 2 words out of context and ran with it. It's not their fault the media twists everything and anything. I feel so sorry for him, he genuinely told us his problems and confided in us and then had to face the articles...

it just sucks because they did it this way on purpose they talked about it during festa on purpose as opposed to in the media or at a press con. he wanted us to hear his words sincerely and jimin said the same to just take their words as they are and i know a lot of us freaked out after because of the translation saying “hiatus” and how we interpreted that, but the fact that media outlets took that one word and armys’ initial reaction and ran so mcuh stuff about how bangtan are going solo and whatever like… the sensationalization of the deeply emotional conversation they had with us is so ugly. and namjoon deserves for his words and emotions to be heard without then being berated by the news cycle for 24 hours.

[0l0x]

Anonymous asked:

What do you think of the state of America at this point? Personally I’m disgusted, enraged, and scared shitless! Blue states cities being burnt to the ground and filled with homeless refugees while the democrats do absolutely nothing to solve these issues. Red states having been overtaken by literal fascist and are actively stripping away human rights while the rest of the republicans do nothing to stop them. The climate crisis is now fully here and nothing can be done to stop it, not that  Where doing anything about it anyway. And a nuclear world war with China and Russia now seem enviable.

The illusion of hope is gone and I’m struggling to not completely give into nihilism in the face of immediate doom. The only thing I think that could solve anything now is if a revolution happens that kicks out all these inept, corrupt fools that are destroying America from the inside! Sorry for my own mini rant, feeling super stressed about everything and needed to vent. What are your thoughts

On everything? Is their any hope left or do believe where all doomed!

Hey Anon. I don’t know where you’re located or how much current events personally affect you, but I’m sorry you’re going through all this stress. I used to worry myself inside-out about current events too. I did this because my mom was super bad about it, she’d have the news on literally 24/7 and rant to me about how the world is so awful. It turned me into a miserable, anxiety-riddled pessimist for half my life. It took many years of therapy to dig myself out of that mindset.

I’ll just say that the older I get, the less I worry about things I can’t control. I stopped reading the news years ago when I realized it was just a bunch of agenda-pushing, clickbait, sensationalism, and outright lies. There is absolutely nothing of value in the News(tm), it’s made purely to scare people and get clicks/eyes on the screen. If an event is really important thing that’s going to affect me, I always hear about it without ever glancing at news sources.

There’s no sense wallowing in the misery that news pushes onto you. Corporations WANT you to have a bleak, hopeless worldview. They WANT you to be scared so you’ll continue consuming more news. I watched my mom go through this cycle of consuming news every hour of every day, because it gave her a false sense of control. She had insanely high blood pressure from all the stress she caused herself by worrying about the entire world’s problems, and now she’s on her deathbed in her 60s because of it. Her blood pressure was so high for so long that it destroyed her heart.

Instead, ask yourself “What CAN I change?” and focus on that. The truth is, a single person can’t fight a tidal wave of shit, so don’t even bother putting that kind of responsibility on yourself. Let it go. It’s not your job to carry the entire world’s problems on your shoulders.

I can’t change the world or control anyone else’s behavior. What I CAN control are my own decisions and the space around me. I choose to be kind to people I interact with. I choose to vote for causes I believe in. I choose to ignore the media circus. I choose to pick up trash off my street every weekend. I choose to write and make art and take care of my mental and physical health. I choose to help my friends and family out when I can, and let it go when I can’t.

If we were all living in primitive, isolated tribes, it wouldn’t matter what another tribe was doing half-way around the world because we’d never hear about it. This 24/7 news cycle is a fucking curse, it’s unnecessary and horrible for human mental health. If another tribe’s actions will destroy us, then that’s the way it’s going to be. If a meteor is going to strike the earth and kill us all, then that’s the way it’s going to be. Volcano blows, Pompeii turns to ash. Sometimes it just be like that. I refuse to waste my time and energy worrying about doom and destruction that I can’t stop anyway. I watched my mom do that my whole life and now I’m watching her die from it.

Like, I literally live within the blast zone of an active volcano that only becomes more active with time. I’ve lived here all my life, and they’ve said it’s overdue to blow since I was a kid. I used to worry about the volcano erupting constantly when I was young, but not anymore. I realized if it’s gonna blow, it’s gonna blow, and no amount of worrying is going to prevent it. I choose to live my life as if the volcano wasn’t there at all, because it may as well not be until it blows.

I also live in an area that experiences frequent earthquakes (probably because of the volcano...). I’ve survived several major earthquakes in my life. The thing about earthquakes is, there is NO warning before they happen. They just happen, and god help you if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’ve been lucky so far. No buildings have collapsed on me yet. No bridges have fallen out from under me yet.

I attended school in a valley shaped like a bowl, where we would have flood drills every year in case the dam broke. The dam could break any time and that valley would fill up with water faster than most people could evacuate. I used to worry about the damn breaking, but again, I realized that it was a waste of my time and energy because there was nothing I could do to prevent it. It was totally out of my control.

Maybe these things have just conditioned me to take things one day at a time, I don’t know.

Just my two cents. I’m not sure if any of that is helpful to you. Thanks for opening up to me though, I’m honestly flattered that you would share your feelings with me. Try not to worry about things outside your own backyard, it’s seriously a waste of time and life is short. That’s my advice to you.

[missmentelle]

Mental Health in the Time of Coronavirus

In the last couple of weeks, we have watched COVID-19 - commonly called ‘coronavirus’ - rapidly change from “some mystery illness in a small part of China” to a disease that will almost certainly be declared a global pandemic. As of right now, the virus is in 82 countries with more than 92,000 documented cases, and the news is constantly filled with reports about quarantines, school closures and deaths. This is a scary thing for all of us to go through - most of us have never lived through a global flu pandemic before, and if you already struggle with fear and anxiety, you may be struggling to cope with what’s going on. 

If this looming pandemic is creating concerns for your mental health as well as your physical health, remember:

Don’t panic. Again, this is a frightening situation and many of us don’t know what to expect. But it’s important to avoid panicking. Panic is not productive, and it is not necessary. Remind yourself that there are concrete steps you can take to avoid exposure to the virus. If you have been possibly exposed, follow the guidelines that your country has put in place for those circumstances. Remember that the vast majority of cases of coronavirus will be mild, and that if you do get the virus, there are things you can do to protect your more vulnerable loved ones from catching it. Avoid buying up massive amounts of supplies and medical masks - this behaviour is only creating unnecessary shortages. Do what you need to do to keep a level head and stay optimistic; people are working around the clock to deal with this pandemic, and we are going to get through it. Panic does not change anything - it only makes your experience of this pandemic more miserable. 

Get information from official sources only. For information about the virus, what precautionary measures you should take, what your risks of exposure are and what you should do if exposed, check the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control websites, or the official websites of your country’s health organizations. Do not rely on information from social media, blogs or your friends and family. There is a ton of misinformation out there, and none of it is helpful. Official sources are accurate, non-sensationalized, and give you the information you need to protect yourself while still remaining calm. 

Limit your exposure to the news. The news cycle has picked up coronavirus in a big way, and there is basically 24/7 coverage of the virus now - you can effectively watch it spread in real time. Even the tiniest bits of news are amplified and repeated over and over again. If following news coverage of the situation is making you anxious and causing coronavirus to take up a lot of space in your mind, limit your exposure to news coverage. Getting hours upon hours of news about this every day is not healthy - if you are getting obsessive or anxious, turn off the news for a while. Check official websites every now and then for any updates in guidelines, and find other things to occupy your mind. 

Maintain contact with friends and family. Even though official guidelines are to limit your exposure to crowds or possibly even stay home as much as possible, it’s important to avoid social isolation. Keep in touch with family and friends online, though phone calls, or through video calls. Play online video games together. Send pictures and memes. Have a movie party over Skype. Do what you need to do to maintain social connections, even if you are having to remain physically isolated from them for health purposes. 

If you are quarantined or told to work from home, maintain a daily routine. If your work, school or health officials have instructed you to stay home and quarantine yourself, it’s important that you take steps to avoid falling into depression. Have a daily routine - get up, shower, get dressed and eat normal meals at regular times. Get some exercise. Eating chips in front of the TV for 12 hours per day might seem fun at first, but it’s a quick recipe for spiraling into a funk. Take steps to maintain some sense of normalcy and protect your mental well-being. 

Talk to a mental health worker if you need to. There is no shame in admitting that this situation is taking a toll on you and that you need someone to talk to about it. If you have a therapist, bring this up in your sessions or book some extra sessions if you need them. If you don’t have a therapist, consider getting one, or check out online support groups and text-based resources like 7 Cups of Tea. Make sure you are keeping up with your medications if you have them, and let family and friends know if you need them to check on you more often or provide extra support. 

Find healthy distractions. Find things to keep your mind off the situation in a healthy way - it’s essential to avoid obsessing or ruminating. Work on things that stimulate your mind - read books, learn a new language, do some art, write some stories. Maintain a normal sleep schedule. If you’ve always wanted to start that blog, write that screenplay or learn the Thriller dance, now is a great time to do it. Find things that put you in a positive space and make it possible for you to get through the day without going back to refreshing the news. 

[bluewatsons]

Laura Miller, Sleazy, bloody and surprisingly smart: In defense of true crime, Salon (May 30, 2014)

This stigmatized genre has much to teach us about the way crime and justice really work

Give me a book that begins with a time and a date and a boring address, something along the lines of "At 9:36 on March 24, 1982, Dep. Frank McGruff of the Huntington County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to 234 Maple Street in Pleasantville, North Carolina, a quiet, suburb 10 miles west of Raleigh, to follow up on reports of gunshots and screams."

There is nothing more generic than this sort of sentence -- which is why I was easily able to make one up on the fly -- and yet there's nothing more seductive, either. In it is promised: the regular-guy lawman (who always seems to have a new baby at home), the horrific crime scene (there is always more blood than anyone expects), the enigmatic object found lying in the foyer (marked with an X in the helpfully provided floor plan), the minute-by-minute timeline of that fatal half-hour, the witness reports that don't add up, the fractal-like multiplication of scenarios and theories and complications.

I've always felt somewhat sheepish about my appetite for true crime narratives, associated as they are with fat, flimsy paperbacks scavenged from the 25-cent box at garage sales, their battered covers branded with screaming two-word titles stamped in silver foil, blood dripping luridly from the last letter. The most famous practitioners of this louche genre -- Joe McGinniss, Ann Rule, Vincent Bugliosi -- come coated with a thin, greasy film of dubious repute and poor taste. (Can there ever be a valid reason to title a book "A Rose for Her Grave"?) True crime is also the mother's milk of risible tabloid journalism, of endless trashy news cycles in which the same photo of a wide-eyed innocent bride (where is she?); a gap-toothed kindergarten student (who killed him?); a bleary-eyed, stubbled suspect (why did he do it?) appear over and over and over again.

Occasionally, true crime is where literary writers go to slum and, not coincidentally, make some real money: Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song." It's not the Great American Novel, yet somehow such books have a tendency to end up the most admired works of a celebrated author's career. Is it because better writers tease something out of the genre that pulp peddlers can't, or is it just that their blue-chip names give readers a free pass to indulge a guilty pleasure?

By contrast, crime fiction has a better rep. It is the most respectable form of genre fiction, the one that even the snootiest literary critics will admit to enjoying now and then. They justly praise the innovative prose styles of Raymond Chandler or Elmore Leonard as vehicles for a distinctively American voice. And crime -- transgression of the social and moral order -- is one of literature's central themes, after all. Isn't one of the greatest novels of all time called "Crime and Punishment"? Plus, from Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men" to Toni Morrison's "Beloved," many novels by literary titans are crime fiction by another name.

True crime, however, labors always under the stigma of voyeurism, or worse. It's not just unseemly to linger over the bloodied bodies of the dead and the hideous sufferings inflicted upon them in their final hours, it's also kind of sick. Gillian Flynn's second novel, "Dark Places," describes the wincing interactions between its narrator -- survivor of a notorious multiple murder like the Clutter killings of "In Cold Blood" -- and a creepy subculture of murder "fans" and collectors; when she's hard up for cash, she's forced to auction off family memorabilia at their conventions. Yuck.

The very thing that makes true crime compelling -- this really happened -- also makes it distasteful: the use of human agony for the purposes of entertainment. Of course, what is the novel if not a voyeuristic enterprise, an attempt to glimpse inside the minds and hearts of other people? But with fiction, no actual people are exploited in the making.

I love crime fiction, too, but lately I've come to appreciate true crime more, specifically for its lack of certain features that crime fiction nearly always supplies: solutions, explanations, answers. Even if the culprit isn't always caught and brought to justice in a detective novel, we expect to find out whodunit, and that expectation had better be satisfied. A novelist who dares to build her narrative around a murder and then refuses to collar the perp by the last chapter -- as Donna Tartt did in her sumptuous, underappreciated second novel, "The Little Friend" -- will never hear the end of it. Readers of books and viewers of television and film demand not only to know who did it but why, preferably with a tidy little back story about a molesting uncle, bullying schoolmates or a mom who tricked with sailors in the next room. We believe in evil, but we also want pop psychology to explain it away.

Crime fiction reassures us that for every murder there is a sleuth as obsessed as we are with getting to the bottom of the puzzle. There are the formulaic clashes between the committed police detective and the self-serving brass, the feds who interfere with the locals (or vice versa) for purely territorial reasons, the nagging spouse and the occasional sloppy, time-serving colleague who just wants to wrap this thing up before he's set to retire with a full pension. But there's also always someone, the hero -- whether public officer or private dick -- who really, really wants to find out the truth and has the brains (and sometimes the brawn) required to do it.

Because most of us have a lot more experience with crime fiction -- TV and movies, but also books -- than we do with actual crime, our sense of how law enforcement works has been distorted by the imperatives of entertainment. Forensic scientists often complain that the public expects them to possess and deploy the wizardly high-tech tools they see every week on "CSI." Because the "CSI" team's gear is presented as omniscient and infallible, legal professionals must contend with jurors' overinflated confidence in forensic evidence. Even the most appalling news stories of incompetent or corrupt lab workers will never register as deeply as watching Gil Grissom and his earnest sidekicks stay up all night and ruin their marriages for the sake of seeing justice done.

For all their lingering shots of mangled bodies and gooey, maggot-ridden corpses, these TV procedurals paint a too-pretty picture. If Jack Nicholson were a true-crime author, he'd be telling the audience for such pseudo-gritty shows that they can't handle the truth. Finding myself seated next to a criminal prosecutor-turned-defense attorney at a wedding several years ago, I asked him what pop culture gets the most wrong about crime and punishment in America. After a long pause, he said, "I'm torn between two answers: How much police care about getting it right and how competent they are to do it."

True crime is not above trafficking in misleading clichés -- because, let's face it, there's not much that true crime is above. The majority of the genre is cheap sensationalism, deploying the most shopworn clichés: tragic maidens; idyllic small towns; smiling devils; winsome, doomed tots. Much true crime has achieved its goals if it gives its readers something to shiver over late at night or to whisper about at school. (Most of my early knowledge of true crime classics like "Helter Skelter" came from other girls who got ahold of the books while baby sitting and recounted the most horrific details to a breathless audience on the playground the next day.) Plenty of it offers a comforting message similar to that of crime fiction: that, for all the bewildering and seemingly random violence of this world, it is usually possible for us to know what really happened and who's responsible.

But we also live in a golden age when it comes to a more challenging vein of true crime. These books include Robert Kolker's "Lost Girls," about 14 unsolved murders in Long Island; Raymond Bonner's "Anatomy of Injustice," about the wrongful capital conviction of a black handyman for the rape and murder of an elderly white widow in South Carolina; Janet Malcolm's "Iphigenia in Forest Hills," about the celebrated journalist's inability to accept the guilty verdict against a young mother accused of hiring a man to murder her ex-husband; and Errol Morris' "A Wilderness of Error," which is in part a challenge to another milestone in the genre, Joe McGinniss' "Fatal Vision." Coming up next month is another landmark, "The Wrong Carlos," by James Liebman and the Columbia DeLuna Project, an exhaustively researched consideration of a 1980s case in which the state of Texas most likely executed the wrong man.

Even true crime books in which the identity of the killer is uncontested can open up welcome vistas of uncertainty. Recently, Anand Giridharadas' "The True American" examines the lives of two men: the sole survivor of a hate-crime spree, who forgave and tried to save his would-be killer, and the killer himself, who seems to have become a different man before his 2011 execution; who was he, really? Dave Cullen's masterful "Columbine," published in 2009, offers the most definitive account of the infamous school shooting and clears up many misperceptions, but still leaves the reader with a sense that the reasons for such acts may be fundamentally unknowable. Several years ago, when I was interviewing Margaret Atwood about "Alias Grace," her novel about a maid convicted of killing her master in 19th-century Canada, she remarked that murderers themselves often don't seem to understand their own crimes. They describe the acts as something that "just happened" or as if they were committed by someone else even as they acknowledge they did it. The true crime accounts I've read confirm what Atwood said.

Most important of all, true crime reminds its readers over and over again that most detectives aren't fantastically clever, that most investigations make dozens of significant mistakes and that even the most seemingly hard evidence can become as indeterminate as a quantum particle under sustained study. Sometimes the confusion is understandable. Jeff Guinn's "Manson," a biography of the murderous cult leader published last year, recounts how long the LAPD spent pursuing a bogus scenario in investigating the massacre at Sharon Tate's home.

Investigators assumed that because drugs were found on the premises, the motive was probably a drug deal or connection gone bad. Manson had his followers plant "clues," in the form of weird words written on the wall in blood, with the bizarre idea that the police would instantly link these words to the Black Panthers. (They instead assumed it was just crazy druggie writing, which of course it was.) Much time was lost before the cops were put on the right track by an informant. This, incidentally, is how most real-life whodunits, such as the Unabomber attacks, seem to be solved. There's nothing like true crime to dispel the notion that criminals get caught because of a detective's brilliant reading of the clues. Rather, they get caught because someone rats them out.

Nowhere is the danger of investigators' tendency to settle too early on a theory of the crime more evident than in stories of wrongful conviction. As "Anatomy of Injustice" tells it, police decided that Edward Lee Elmore, the simple-minded African-American man who had mowed neighborhood lawns for years, suddenly turned violent. Under the influence of a suspiciously meddlesome neighbor, a local city councilman, they ignored significant evidence contradicting this theory, and eventually resorted to falsifying evidence, while Elmore's own lawyers barely bothered to defend him at all. Finally, thanks to the efforts of an attorney working for South Carolina's Center for Capital Litigation, the conviction was overturned. The actual murderer has never been identified, but at least an innocent man has escaped death row.

Investigations aren't always led astray by deliberate manipulation, however. In "The Wrong Carlos," confused and inept handling of the crime scene, witnesses and hunt for the man who stabbed a convenience store clerk in Corpus Christi combined with coincidence and bad luck to lead to the unjust execution of Carlos DeLuna. He was the spitting image of the likely culprit to the degree that even people who knew either of the men quite well couldn't tell photos of them apart. Under the aegis of Liebman, 12 Columbia Law School students pored over the records of the case, producing a meticulous and highly detailed report on the crime investigation and trial -- which, while sobering, is also catnip for the amateur detective. It strongly suggests DeLuna was innocent and it's so convincing that even the victim's brother agrees.

Robert Kolker's "Lost Girls" and Errol Morris' "A Wilderness of Error" may be the most accomplished true crime narratives I've read in recent years. The killer or killers responsible for dumping bodies along a lonely Long Island road have yet to be identified. The investigation appears to be stalled for a variety of reasons having to do with the personalities and ambitions of local officials. So Kolker's "Lost Girls" focuses instead on the lives and families of the dead, young women who drifted into the world of prostitution and could not succeed at pulling themselves out again. It's a portrait of underclass life, frayed by substance abuse, domestic violence, crime and fecklessness, and it asks not what circumstances create a monster but which ones forge his victims.

"A Wilderness of Error" is remarkable not just for questioning a murder investigation and conviction but also for condemning the famous true-crime narrative written about them. Morris is a master of the genre, albeit in a different medium (documentary film) and can even claim to have gotten an innocent man out of jail by making "The Thin Blue Line" in 1988. Above all, he is preoccupied with how we establish what's true. His first book, "Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography," dismantles our faith in the facticity of photographed images. "A Wilderness of Error," his second, concerns the case of Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of murdering his wife and two small children in 1970. The crimes were the center of a bestselling book, "Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinniss, later made into a TV movie, that pressed home McGinniss' theory that MacDonald was a psychopath.

The writing of "Fatal Vision" was the subject of yet another book, Janet Malcolm's "The Journalist and the Murderer," devoted to probing the moral soft spots in all journalists' relationships to their subjects, but Morris believes these murders were insufficiently investigated and that MacDonald did not get a fair trial. Many aficionados of the trial find Morris' arguments unconvincing, but that is partly Morris' point. Just like the cops, outside observers settle on a story about what happened and become invested in it. They then ignore or dismiss any evidence that undermines that story, often with a vehemence that increases as the counter-evidence mounts. Certainty, an emotional state all too common today, is less a testament to the merits of a belief than a measure of how much we want to go on believing it.

At the very least, Morris presents a convincing case that an uncertain McGinniss was pushed into endorsing MacDonald's guilt by his publisher because offering a conclusion would make for a more satisfying book. Later, of course, the author had no choice but to double down on that conclusion, and whether or not he believed it before his editor urged him to declare the case solved in his own mind, he seems to have fully believed it in the end. All this would be meat for an interesting consideration of the nature of truth and whether it can ever be meaningfully detached from desire, but as Morris keeps pointing out, when it comes to true crime, real lives and real justice are at stake. Crime fiction can afford to go on telling us what we want to hear, but at its best true crime insists on telling us what we can't afford to forget.

[nitewrighter]

mannnnn i sort of want more blackwatch gency angst since retribution started. he's just so angery and impatient and so different from recall genji

OOOOOHHHH I had some ideas for this today!!! 

—

“…and this is on us. No, obviously this is Overwatch’s responsibility, yes, this is a failure of Overwatch’s character, but this is on us because we gave them this power to begin with. This has happened over and over again through history— You look at Caesar or Andrew Jackson—when a war ends, generals assume power, and we were all too happy to lend our so-called ‘heroes’ power after the Omnic crisis. And look where it’s gotten us.”

Mercy could hear the commentator through the door, her stomach twisting in knots. She took a steadying breath and opened the door to the nearly-empty rec room where a large flatscreen television displayed several news reporters and political commentators seated around a table while images of Blackwatch’s fiasco in Venice were displayed behind them. Genji was alone in the room, cross legged on the couch, red eyes fixed to the screen.

 “Commander Reyes’s statement was that they proceeded unsanctioned by Strike Commander Morrison,” another commentator cut in, “It could very well be that a judgment call was made on Reyes’s part and—”

“At best, Reyes proceeding without command from Morrison indicates incompetence on Morrison’s part, but I highly doubt that’s the case…” a third commentator cut in.

“The question we have to ask ourselves now is that is Overwatch protecting the people, or is Overwatch protecting Overwatch?” the first commentator stated, prompting nodding and murmured agreements around the table.

“…Are you sure you want to watch this?” asked Mercy.

Genji’s gaze broke away from the screen only briefly to turn his head and look at her over his shoulder. He turned away and continued watching the screen.

“We should know what the world thinks of us, shouldn’t we?” he asked.

Mercy sighed and tucked her hair back, then took a seat on the couch next to Genji. “Just… you know how the 24 hour news cycle can be–they sensationalize. They’ll say whatever they have to to keep your atten–”

“What really worries me is that the bodies of Talon agents recovered from the mission showed signs of biotic decay,” the second commentator cut in, and Mercy cut herself off and looked at the screen as well.

“Moira,” Mercy’s brow furrowed and the name slipped out of her, a furious simmering growl in her throat. She would have to talk with Jack later.

 “This means Overwatch is weaponizing biotics!” the commentator went on, “It’s time Overwatch gives the public full disclosure and tells us exactly what it’s doing in its science division.”

“Stuff like this, apparently,” said the third commentator, hitting a button on their tablet and bringing up a massive picture of Genji on the screen behind them.

“Good god I still can’t get used to that,” said the first commentator.

Dread was pooling in Mercy’s stomach and she looked over at Genji, his arms folded tight around him, the nails of his organic hand digging into the synthetic muscles of his prosthetic arm.

“I think we should turn it off–” Mercy started.

“No,” said Genji.

The image of Genji was half blurred by movement and yet still clearly terrifying. Sword a red slash of color, dripping in blood, red eyes glaring.from behind a mask, loose wires dangling off of him. He was unrecognizable–most of the civilian footage recovered that night was shaky and blurry and that was a saving grace, though it sent the conspiracy theories online spiraling out of control.

“Look, I think we need to remember that in the wake of the Omnic crisis, prosthetics are fairly common-place—” said the second commentator.

“This goes beyond simple prosthetics,” said the first commentator, “This is taking–god, I don’t know how much of that thing is human—and affixing it to a weapon. Overwatch isn’t just weaponizing biotics. It’s weaponizing people. Are these the people we want touting the world’s ideals of peace and progress–”

Mercy grabbed the remote and turned the TV off. Genji showed little reaction.

“They don’t know,” Mercy said stiffly, “They don’t understand.” 

“…I think they understand completely,” said Genji standing up.

“Genji–” Mercy started.

“Even if they did know the whole story, what then? I was a killer before I was given this body. My enlistment into Overwatch undermined Japan’s government and law enforcement. Everything about what I am only confirms what they already know.”

Mercy’s mouth was hanging open. She felt like there should be a counter-argument to that, but any words were dying in her throat. Genji’s red eyes were boring into her, somehow both so angry and so numb. Finally he broke his gaze away from her. “I suppose you had a point earlier,” he muttered, “There’s little this news can tell me that I don’t already know.” He turned on his heel and began walking away from her, “If you have need of me, I’ll be in the training facility.”

“You’re not—” she finally blurted out and he stopped and looked over his shoulder at her. “…You’re not just what they say you are.” she said, “You don’t have to be.”

There was a long pause between them. Something had softened in those red eyes, shifting them from numb to questioning before he broke eye contact and faced away from her once again. “What I am is whatever is necessary to destroy the Shimada clan,” he said simply before walking off.

Mercy’s arms tightened around herself as the door shut behind him, leaving her alone. 

[fridgelessedard]

Regarding Covington High and the Protest Mess:

Though we, in the context of American society, have had this story held "on blast" for effectively months following the news breaking on mainstream media outlets like CNN and Fox, and particularly "old" media like the New York Times and The Washington Post, we have not truly been given a collective debriefing on all of the details regarding the story as a whole. This is, invariably due to a key factor that determines the trends of sensationalism in media in the current day: The Profit Motive. Now, I'll begin by essentially dissecting the events as they occurred. Students from Covington Catholic High School gathered in Washinton DC to protest abortions. Meanwhile, there was a Native American-led protest group that was conducting its own protest regarding Native American rights. These groups merely conducted their protests independently from each other, while a third protest group, led by the Black Israelites, was conducting their own protest. As the three groups moved closer in proximity to each other, tensions rose, leading to a back and forth between the Black Israelites and the High Schoolers, including exchanges of slurs and epithets. A number of high schoolers were wearing "Make America Great Again" hats. This was a detail essential to the rollout of subsequent media coverage. The Native American group marched by and as the two groups made exchanges, the Native Americans moved closer, leading to the two groups having a head-on confrontation where Nathan Phillips, a member of the Ohama tribe, walked up to a high schooler named Nick Sandmann while beating a drum and humming. Sandmann and Phillips faced each other while the surrounding crowds of kids and Native Americans began an altercation that soon became swamped in a mass hysteria over news networks for weeks on end. It was an insufferably bloated news story coverage cycle on 24 hour syndicated news networks, with hyperpolitization at an extreme high, but this allows us to study the political spin and virality of sensationalism at an academic level, to understand how different media outlets observe and analyze a story.

With that in mind, let's look at how left-leaning political outlets responded to the story, which originally broke on Twitter. Initial coverage portrayed Sandmann as the aggressor in the confrontation, making note of his appearance; white male, wearing a Make America Great Again Hat with a grin. This carried a certain stigma to the audience of most left leaning outlets, as there is an immense branding association and political subtext to the infamous "MAGA" hat. For left-leaning people at that particular point in time, it was something akin to a symbol of hate and hatespeech. This was subliminally utilized by left-leaning media to capitalize on controversy and provoke discourse, which did work. Right leaning outlets victimized the children, as the MAGA hat carried an inverse triumphance among right leaning individuals at that time. Both outlets made a note of heavily enforcing the hyperfocused climax of Phillips and Sandmann staring each other down. Both outlets made a point of largely ignoring the Black Israelites' involvement in the entire altercation.

At the time, my news media consumption was heavily left-leaning, and upon further exploring the story, I was shocked to find that none of the outlets I read had mentioned that. I didn't even know the Black Israelits existed until my college professor spoke about it in a political science class! This entire story infuriated me at the time and infuriates me now; it felt like an overblown, soap-opera level controversy filled with anger and dissent that was fueled more by resulting discourse, rather than the actual merit of the story itself. To me, it was a shameful point in journalism.

[foroneandall]

Anon because I’m shy. I think school shootings happen and will continue to happen so long as we keep putting these shooters in the media for free political unrest. Copycat killers are huge, and now these people know they can “make history” by doing this. It all boils down to outrage making good ratings, and no one giving a shit about the consequences.

Thanks for the shy anon!

Yeah that’s why I feel like it may be about the notoriety. The amount of times these shooter manifestos (I even hate calling it that as if it gives it clout) talk about being the next columbine or school shooter is just crazy. The 24 hour news cycle sensationalizing it can’t help.

But the even sadder thing is these shootings are becoming so common that they aren’t even front page news or notable anymore. Nobody talks about them, you might see a notification but it’s almost background noise at this point. the fact that I’m being desensitized to school shootings is totally unacceptable.

[teacherintransition]

The Facebook Dilemma

... not just for the transitioning teacher, but for all of us...

...like most well intentioned possibilities on the internet, it can take a wrong turn.

In 2009, I was 43 and was intrigued by this new “product...service” you could find online called Facebook. There was a lot of buzz about it among friends I knew and my interest was piqued. For a Gen X’er, I had stayed more than just current on computer and internet advancements as I had written a curriculum and taught a course on “How to do Academic Research using the Internet.” A couple of college campuses had approached our school with a dilemma: many high graduates weren’t able to transfer what they knew about hard copy, old school, going through the stacks research to using online resources. I’d taught the class since 2003 and had already been exposed to the burgeoning world of “social media” from my students. Six Degrees, Are You (Hot of Not), Friendster, Xanga, MySpace and several others and all to a 40 something... they seemed too cheesy, too much for the teens and not comfortable for my generation. Then in 2009, I came across this new site called Facebook, silly me... it had loaded its platform and had been online since 2004. It seemed a bit more toned down than the others and I’d discovered that some of my high school classmates were already using it. “What the hell,” let’s give it a shot and I set up my Facebook account ... it seemed harmless.

At first, FB was a blast, I reconnected with friends I hadn’t seen in years, the groups on music and Art were addictive, there were fun games to play... it was an honest online, social media blast and it was user friendly, checking it became part of the daily routine. Like the ancient adage goes, “nothing good can last forever.” Soon, politics, biased news, divisive debate, spying, cheeky algorithms turned what had been a fun pastime into another area for the uniquely American “culture wars.” The same reconnected friendships became casualties on the battlefield, “gotcha” videos were everywhere, Fact-checking was a needed weapon... and it just wasn’t fun. Wishing Happy Birthday or sending sympathy for losses became a cold, mechanical process void of genuine feeling. A friend of ours had said while we were all having dinner that our generation was going to be the experiment subject for this. Generation X was the last one that grew up without wide spread computer usage or without the internet, but had adapted to it much, much better than Boomers. Millennials got exposed to internet and cell phones at the beginning of their teen years and the new guys, “Gen Z” are born with an IP address and a cellular plan. To all too many people I know, social media is more designed to develop angina than friendships.

Social media and a retiring “teacher in transition,” how does it fit during the daily routine of retirement? Well, like most things it’s as varied as the individual in question. My friend who astutely remarked that we were the experiment subjects of this trend had no doubt arrived at a conclusion for those of us who grew up tech free but quickly adopted for work and leisure... I know I have. Using Occam’s Razor in scientific evaluation, I’ve come to the conclusion that life, in general, was better without the pervasive use of technology in our lives. Life lacks a genuine quality and sense of independence during this age of internet everything. I’d rather call a person and wish them happy birthday that use an app; I’d rather spend my time just thinking to myself than have my thinking provided to me via algorithms, I’d rather be more self reliant than have to rely on Siri or Alexa telling when to turn left. C’est la vie... it is what it is, but I am able to put all of this to work for me in specialized ways since I’ve retired. Being able to easily share and post my writing allows me access to an audience that wouldn’t have existed before. These media platforms also grant me a web venue to share and market my Art to a vast online audience which would have been impossible to achieve in previous eras. The internet age also provides a magnificent way to satisfy my travel urges between trips, by being able to virtually visits cities and countries I long to visit and revisit in the interim. We human beings tend to jump into trends whole hog and then after the fact revisit the wise advice of “everything in moderation.” True, true, truer words were ne’er spoken. All this being said, O’ wise teacher in transition, how doth we interact with yon social media upon retirement?

As stated early in this column, this would be the ramblings of a mid fifty retiree finding his way through the challenges of adapting to a new way of living. Some of my “pearls of wisdom” some might find helpful; others, not so much. These observations are mine and not mandatory. I do hope some might find these helpful. Sigh... in regards to Facebook or internet usage in general for the newly retired, I’d suggest limiting it to the smallest degree possible. I envision legions of readers hearing my declaration standing up and crying, “huzzah, huzzah, huzzah” followed by cellphones and iPads being cast in to raging flames followed by the chanting of my name! Ahh, the blessings of a vivid imagination. I suggest this for several reasons, mind you I didn’t suggest total withdrawal, but a moderate to strong decrease in usage. One of the criticisms of Gen Z is their sedentary lifestyle while focusing on texting, gaming, trolling etc etc .... in other words, these young people spend so much time on line they are getting overweight instead of getting out and active IRL ( hipster, techie acronym for In Real Life). If it not a good idea for kids from the ages of 10-25 to sit on their asses all day, it certainly isn’t a good idea for those of us experiencing a mature quality of life (you like that huh? sounds a whole lot better than saying “getting old”). While being online... time can get lost ... and a day waisted and a waistline enlarged. Might I suggest limiting yourself to a few specific times where you check your email, peruse social media, play games ... what have you. I’ve remarked often that a structured day during retirement is a great way to chase your dreams and goals. That doesn’t usually happen sitting on a padded desk chair all day staring at a screen.

I strongly advise that you carefully research the most reliable news organizations based on accuracy and lack of bias and review them periodically during the day. The 24 hour news cycle, breaking reports, obscene bias in news reporting has become a scourge to all areas of society for the last twenty years. It has divided our nation to an unhealthy point amongst all demographics in our country. Inappropriate visuals, doctored photos, deep fake videos and out right deception can really shake up a peaceful mindset. I’m not suggesting abandoning online news at all, but be more discriminating of the sources that don’t sensationalize stories. You’re at a point in life to relax and enjoy peace of mind... make sure you do. Fill your time with what’s in front of you IRL .... not on a screen. Whether we are fifteen to 50 to 80, our time in this world is limited, don’t obsess over things you can’t control; “joie de vie” “la dolce vita” not doom and gloom.

In my mind, try to limit your online time to interests and hobbies that are personally yours. Give your time online a purpose: are you learning the guitar?...then pick some sites that develop that interest. While on Facebook limit your group memberships to interests that enrich you as a person with diverse pursuits. Goof off time is essential to having a peaceful retirement.... but to maintain an active lifestyle, make certain that most of your time has a purpose. No ... not like “working” but determined by the passions of your heart. While there are many ill advised sites on the internet, it was originally intended to enrich us and extend our knowledge. Do it!

“If there is nothing good about Facebook or social media, why do you still use it ...huh?” I’m not implying that it is totally without merit. AsI hoped I tried to state, moderation, the most un American of words is essential to anything we do. I’ll draw this examination to a close by sharing what I think is the most valuable aspect that I derive from Facebook: photographs and the memories option. The daily memories page offered is something I look forward to every morning. It’s is a personal journey through what was on my mind and of interest to me over the years. It takes me back to a moment in time to what I was thinking, feeling and gives me a chance to see how my life has changed over the years. You are afforded the opportunity to see if you’ve grown as a person and what events had enough of an impact for you to post it. It can make joys and sorrows live again momentarily and appreciate the life you have lived. Just remember... living online is not really living. Use these amazing advancements to enhance your life .... not be the direction of it. Just some random thoughts from a teacher in transition.

http://labibliotecacoffee.com/

Facebook Photo; https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7761-facebook-business-guide.html; 2021