Why Is It So Easy for Rose and O’Keefe? AKA Where is the real news?

National Review


As noted, it isn't as if these named people are some sort of incredible journalists or once in a generation sting artists. It is as if the entities they are investigating are so lazy and dealing with such a compliant media that they simply don't know any better than to shut their mouth or attempt to disguise their wrong doing. Five million dollar anonymous donations, of course we can discuss such things and even a history of such things because, well no one in the media will care to cause a storm looking into it.

Even now, I mean the lid has been cracked and most of the liberal media complex just sits there, reading their talking points from their press releases and having the paid talking heads engage in endless hours of analysis. Is it any wonder there isn't a media outlet, even Fox News, that isn't losing viewers? News that doesn't want to investigate or provide any information doesn't have much cause to be watched or listened to at all.

Hey media outlets, the federal government is engaging in 3.8 TRILLION dollars in spending. Think there might be a little bit of graft, waste or fraud going on in that amount that would be worth looking into? We've got a few wars, acknowledged and unacknowledged going on that apparently no one cares to report on any more.

Why is all the news, be it bank fraud, climate fraud, or government fraud coming from email leaks and hackers associated with them? Can it really be so hard to find this stuff? The stuff O'keefe and others are doing isn't any harder than Dateline pedophile stings. Put a bit of bait out there and watch a dozen people bite on it like idiots.

I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made for finding and reporting on some real news. It sort of makes you wonder why it is so hard to find given that reality.

Yet where is the real investigative journalism to replace them? Again it isn't even like it would be hard as evidenced by the fact that the targets of said journalism are so lazy and willing to self-incriminate.


You might have a point if the fake news or current news producers were getting some sort of ratings. Instead they increasingly pedal opinion and analysis as news and watch their ratings fall ever more.

Your reasoning sounds a bit like MTV replacing actual music with Jersey Shore and then complaining that no one buys music anymore.

Well that is sort of the thread premise, aren't such delusional and disconnected people the easiest possible pickings for newsworthy material? How complicit can the media be to be able to find nothing when these delusional will just spill in front of anyone who mimics agreement with their worldview and the various nefarious acts associated with it. Buy them a cobb salad and throw around the term teabagger and racist, and you should have a ratings bonanza.

I'm not the one selling off hollow husks of former news companies.

What did Newsweek sell for again? How much does the NY Times owe their Mexican mogul? How many viewers have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc lost in the last year?

People don't just tune out to bliss out. There's no reason to tune in. News programs need so present.....news.

Yet wasn't the internet supposed to be the great leveler in all of this? In many ways it has been. The point is that in my view it has been but the old industries are basically being allowed through crony capitlism, often supported by leftist government elements when you think it would be just the opposite, to continue running when they should be bankrupted and swept away.

We see this in the U.S. at least. All older industry that should be replaced is instead turned into a government subsidized industry. We are "investing" and "stimulating" jobs in these laggards. It could be trains (Amtrack), postal mail(U.S. postal service), radio news (NPR) and this becomes a form of theft, of redistribution from new to old, from performer to laggard or worst of all, from the small guy to the big guy in the name of the small guy.

How will the people in rural areas get their state sanctions and approved news if there is no NPR to provide it for them? Sure they could get it through blogs, twitter, youtube, and get actual news. Instead they must be taxed and indebted to get....analysis and opinion posing as news from inexpensive suits who would hide five million dollar donations while thinking nothing about it because they've got the right intentions. They hate those "teabaggers" and "racists" so there is no qualm in stealing from them to provide the state sanctioned non-news.

We don't have to imagine. They have been here during the internet. They turned into yuppies who thought the world would make them rich via manipulation rather than adding value or creating products. The boomers have always thought they were above the rules.


The main reason is because the premise that the boomers operated under was wrong and thus the changes they sought and wrought had no effect.

Sort of like if you have brain cancer and I remove your right lung, nothing gets better for you.


Last I checked the boomers were alive and well. I'm sure they'll be sad to know that they're dead.


They don't have control. They have passivity purchased with other people's money. However they are broke and so soon the last bastions of their attempts at control will fall. Likewise institutions like old media and all the money previously funneled into them are quickly draining away in terms of viewers and revenue. They're left throwing tantrums about their relevancy and begging for the status quo to be continued.

This is why more and more, the proclamations prove so wrong. The "consensus" they attempt to push out there fails. They're left scratching their heads and disconnected.

No one gets the picture Sego. The logic is always too inconsistent. All the people doing the controlling are always stupid and brainless morons who never earn anything on their own but always control it perfectly and fool everyone with their perfect lies while again being morons.

A couple new examples of the failing media and failing institutions....

First up is Paul Krugman via the broke NY Times.

Paul has problems understanding how when people who have public jobs get upset about Freedom of Information Act requests associated with those jobs.

Is it so hard to keep a private and public resources separate? Of course it is unless of course one believes they are above the law and thus "the ends justify the means" and they ignore such things.


Yes Krugman, that's it, they want to use the fact that he wanted his cats fed to discredit him.

A second example that is much more frightening and that the media SHOULD be reporting on.


The article goes into more depth but the main point, should general be applied to specific should be terrifying. It takes tribalism and legalizes it. It allows you to be guilty for a general conclusion regardless of your specific actions. It legalizes "but they all look and act the same in my opinion." In short it applies a stereotype to certain people regardless of their specific actions.

Terrifying.....