An observation we’ve drawn from how legacy media reports events, asserts the imperative that narrative has to be continually separated from the news.
The burden for this falls on the consumer, and it’s never been more important to heed. The consumer of news today has to filter fact from fiction; bias from fairness.
This includes fact-checking well-paid crystal ball fact checkers.
A good academic will have a premise backed by at least three reliable sources. Wikipedia won’t be one of them. It’s the same with journalism.
A good journalist will start with a premise that runs with the evidence towards a reasoned conclusion.
There’s a difference between storytelling, and interrogative reasoning.
To avoid confirmation bias, they never begin with a narrative, with the purpose of upholding a narrative, in favour of a narrative. This applies even if a narrative is needed as a way to explain the how, what, why, who, where, and when.
This care for rigorous inquiry is why we try to saturate our articles with well-read references. Usually in the form of hyperlinks and a Harvard reference if space allows.
We believe the societal, intellectual, political and theological battles that we all face in today’s world, are consistent with the notion that the culture wars are grounded in the war between truth and falsehood, not black vs. white, gay vs. straight, or left vs. right.
Caldron Pool’s critics may consider this insight into how we do what we do to be nonsense, and they have done so in various ways, on various platforms, through various comments.
Every time we’ve answered those criticisms by pointing to the content beyond the headline, back to this rigorous attention to detail, we’re either met with silence or hostility. Which tells us that those criticisms are for the most part dishonest.
These criticisms are nothing more than attacks from haters in the form of slander, designed to discredit, discourage and destroy.
These critics aren’t concerned with the details, the sources, context, authorial intent, or the work an author has put into piecing together details to present a cohesive opinion based on the facts.
We practice separating the news from the narrative. Facts form our opinions and correct narratives. In Christianity this is expressed as faith seeking understanding; the process of God’s objective, Revelatory Word piercing into time and space through Covenant and in Jesus Christ, summoning, confronting and correcting, man’s imagination, superstitions, idols, and ideas.
The old axiom: eat the fish, spit out the bones, applies not just to entertainment, but to the majority of legacy media as it continues down a corrupt path of selling a narrative instead of reporting the news.
For evidence of this Google Trump’s response to the 2017 hurricane in Puerto Rico. Most of what you’ll find is line after line of “orange man bad.” There’s zero reporting on as big a scale on the consequences of bad Democrat government in the territory.
Note also that I made the point last year when discussing how the execution of Trump supporter, Aaron Jay Danielson, was met with suspicion, not sympathy. White supremacy fiction trumped the facts.
This strongly suggested to me at the time that far-left Democrats, aided and abetted by an opportunistic and lazy legacy media, need a white supremacist narrative in order to win/keep the White House.
The current line-up of Democrats, (and Leftists in general), run for the white supremacist smear because the narrative it projects gives them free media air time, unquestioning support, and public applause.
There’s a tendency for Democrats to use racism as a politics of evasion. It distracts an unsuspecting polis through whom Leftists can apply a narrative that triggers easy political leverage by pulling on our collective heartstrings. Thus, turning the polis into tools through which these puppet masters can manipulate and silence their opponents.
Another example of narrative instead of news is evidenced by how the January 6 fiction of “Insurrection at the capitol” has given way to the factual description of the event as a “riot.”
Based on conclusions from an FBI official the term “armed insurrection” used by some Democratic officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and mainstream news outlets is incorrect as no guns were recovered.
On closer examination, few may be aware that Trump wanted greater security on the day.
Former Acting Defence Secretary Christopher Miller said he was asked by Donald Trump on January 3 to use the national guard for the protection of “demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.”
However, Miller stated, “the U.S. military was deliberately restrained on the 6th.”
Analysis of security on the day highlights the strange behaviour of the DOD, who didn’t move quickly enough to answer U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s request for assistance.
Guided by Democrats, it looks like legacy media used January 6 to incite mass hysteria for the purpose of shoring up the legitimacy of the Biden presidency. They constructed white supremacist narrative and sold it as #BREAKING news.
Context and increasing evidence suggest that January 6 was an open-air theatre production. The claim about “insurrection” is a false narrative manufactured out of organised chaos.
The “insurrection” narrative allowed Democrats to repurpose a fatal riot so they could finally achieve their merciless, ferocious four-year goal of delegitimising the Trump presidency.
With the Democrats using the 6th as an excuse to build a fence around the capitol, guarded by the U.S. military, the decisions made by the DOD on the 6th, can’t be smoothed away by the argument that the DOD was concerned about the negative image having U.S. Military in the Capitol portrayed.
The narratives buttered up as news convince people enough to give arrogant, and smug Leftists the permission to parade their renewed hold on power, complete with a fence and vetted for loyalty military guard, in front of a global audience.
It wasn’t okay for the sitting President to bolster security, but it was okay for his successor.
Just as it wasn’t okay for rioters to breach Capitol Hill security, but it’s okay for Antifa and Black Lives Matter to burn down black communities, even set fire to the Capitol, and kill if called upon, knowing that they’ll be bailed out, and saved by well-funded Leftists for doing so.
Where being “oppressed” is a commodity that comes with protection and privileges, there’s a greater incentive to create fake “oppressors” through false accusations.
Fake news sells. It also controls. Buyer beware.
Eat the fish, spit out the bones.
Separate the news from the narrative.
You must be logged in to post a comment.