Bikernet Blog Search Bikernet
Ride Forever - Bikernet.com
Friday Edition


NEWS JOURNALISM 101

How daily-news journalists think, work, and function.

By J.J. Solari with images from Sam Burns and Barry Green
1/23/2021


Share this story:



1: All daily-news journalists are failed or in-the-process-of-failing fiction writers.

Daily-news journalism is a category of the trade called "writing." "Writing" is a trade that embraces a slew of categories, all of which require that they be "read" to be "fulfilled." A painting or drawing or sculpture has to be "seen" and a musical composition or sonic composition has to be "heard" and an architectural structure has to be "seen" and is usually inhabited and thus has to be "physical friendly" to human bodies and human emotional states and writing needs to be "read."
This collection of stuff is sometimes called the "arts."

The "arts" can also include "practical" items, although the species of pompous gasbags known as "art critics" will argue this until their mothers tell them to stop. Whoever designed the Winchester 94 was an artist. Anyone who has one loves looking at it, whether or not it is being used for its primary function which is to propel metal and end a life way over there, and then do it again a half dozen more times quickly before reloading. Should an art critic ever be informed-of or actually be shown what a Winchester 94 is he would throw his panties at you if you dared to say it was a work of art.



2: "Writing" is one of the arts, or considered artistic, only if-and-when it's judged by the panties-hurling gentlemen referenced above to be "literature." All who declare themselves "writers," in some dungeon of their soul, want to write literature. Because if you write literature that means that you are "a good writer."

"Literature" comes in two forms: prose and poetry. Prose is sentences, usually conveying real-life practicalities or realities. Poetry is formulaic word-assembly, sometimes in patterns and rhyme, usually to inflict upon the reader the heart and soul of the fellow writing it. Burma Shave ditties, once conveyed in advertising signs along the highway, are not poetry except when I write them. Then they are a category of poetry called "filthy poetry."

Daily-news journalism is the bottom rung of "writing," just behind "school textbook" writing. While they are both abysmal from a competence standpoint, they differ in that school textbook writing is written to put you to sleep while daily-news journalism is designed to upset you and instill fear and ruin your day. Another difference is that school textbook writing is nominally factual except history books which are only accurate up to 1492 AD, while daily-news journalism is fiction 100% of the time, usually propelled by a political or personal agenda. Not many people are prepared to call textbooks "lies." Daily-news journalism on the other hand is nothing but lies. And the reason is....item # 1 above.



3: Fiction writers write lies that every reader knows ahead of time even before they read the fiction....that's it's lies. All fiction books announce themselves as fiction: someone - a writer - sat down and started writing lies. Even if the fiction story actually happened the reader does not concern himself with that. The story is announced as fiction and that's the end of it. However, the names have to be changed to fictional names. The events can be actually true.....but the announcement is made that it's fiction and that the names are changed. Most fiction however is sheer fabrication. And everyone understands that going in. You read fiction to be told a story. Fiction is make-believe.

4: Daily-news journalism claims to be true. However, it is lies. It is make-believe. Because the journalists are writing fiction in the only venue that will get them readers: the news. Were they to write a novel or a short story no one would read it because it would be so bad. In their role as fiction-writers claiming to be fact-writers, daily-news journalists spare themselves the problem of being sued for libel or slander by inventing a vocabularic "buffer zone" between themselves and the lies they are telling you. That is why you see the word "report" often at the end or beginning of a headline: "Trump kills small negro child with grenade then eats the parents: report." This means that you are being informed via a report...of a report. You are not being told the incident happened. You are being told that a report of the incident - which may or may not have happened - happened. The report of the incident happened. The incident probably did not.

Naturally you believe the report of a report because it is "news." People believe the news. Even though it is 95% fiction. Most "reports" in daily-news journalism come from the journalist writing the story. He reports something imaginary to himself and then he will tell you about it via the keyboard, leaving out the fact that he's reporting on one of his own reports. Which he made up.



"Trump throws thousands of bags of terrifiedly-mewing kittens off the roof of one of his high-rises and then ignites the bags into flame by remote control while laughing at their pain according to sources close to the former President who spoke on conditions of anonymity said an expert familiar with the story who did not wish to be identified" translates into "I am now going to tell you a whopper I just made up."

5: Words used to keep the journalist out of court are "sources," "may," "could," "has been shown," "studies suggest," "might," "spoke under conditions of anonymity," "the whistleblower said," (whistleblowers do not have to be identified, thus granting immunity to liars, assuming the liars even exist, which is often not the case in a daily-news journalism fiction tale.) "Sources" are nine times out of ten the journalist himself making something up. He's the "source." "Studies suggest" is a two-fisted sluggo-festival to your brain inasmuch as a study is not a "finding" or a "fact" or a "result of an experiment." Which makes them basically nothing. The fact that nothing is then used as a basis to suggest something...is taking nerve, moxie and unmitigated gall to an almost admirable level of bursting-out-of-the-starting-gate preposterousness. What's even more preposterous is that the words "studies suggest" is interpreted by the idiot reader as "this is an undisputed fact, I am not balls-out lying to you right now." But yes he is.



6: You might be asking yourself "Why do daily-news journalists do this?"

They do it because they are the people actually running America and it's fun. And they're not just in America. I know what you're thinking, "Yes, they are also in Russia and Iran!" No! They are in England and France and Canada and Australia! The Guardian and The Telegraph in England are more fixated on the USA then they are on England. I guess they figure the jihadists are so well entrenched in England and Canada and Australia and France that they don't need any more assistance from the Press. Whereas in America there is still some resistance to turning America into a caliphate. Not a lot but some.

You might also be asking "How is it daily-news journalists are running the Country?"

Well, because of the First Amendment. Daily-news journalists have convinced everyone who isn't a daily-news journalist that the "news" is the only actual job mentioned in the Constitution. Which is almost true. Actually, the ink and mechanical device itself is what is being talked about, not the propaganda cabal known as The Press. But I'll let them have this one. Sometimes - rarely-daily-news journalists utter a truth. It's always inadvertent.



Since the job of daily-news journalism is mentioned in the Constitution, and since it is declared "safe from Federal onslaughts against it" the average American dunce comes to the subconscious conclusion that the "press" is superior to the Constitution. Which in fact it is. That's nothing: it is also superior to everyone in public office, including the President, the head of the Pentagon and any other American bureaucrat - or private citizen - you might want to suggest. The Press has also realized this and did so a lot sooner than I did, to the extent that, in yet another back cartwheel double Axel tour-zhah-tay crossover toe-hold of breathtaking nerve, the press has declared itself The Fourth Estate.

The first three "estates" considered "real" by medieval philosophers and other unemployables and "political scientists" of the time were the nobility, the clergy, and the peasantry. The nobility and the clergy needed the peasantry as slaves so they could survive, and the slaves were programmed to believe that they needed the nobility and the clergy as protectors in order for them to survive this life and the next one otherwise the slaves would all kill each other, having no guidance.



The "press," created by a man named Gutenberg - who inadvertently created reporters in the creating of the printing press - the "press" announced - quite boldly and without embarrassment - "All three of you need us: 'us' being the Self-Proclaimed Fourth Estate. We can make you topple or we can make you thrive. You decide. Being nice to us and worshipping us will get you more friends among us than calling us names will." This worked! And the Press hasn't struck out since.

Witness the actions and emotional rollercoaster of anger and befuddlement that a "press secretary" who is unliked by the press performs as he takes "questions" from the daily-news journalists. He doesn't see them or think of them as worthless untalented loser asshole snots who can't think a thought that has not been written-out for them beforehand by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. No, he thinks of them as cunning wary super-intelligent magicians who in an instant can form-up into a pack. Which they are actually already in, they don't need anything as meaningless and impotent and frightened as a Press Secretary to unify against a common enemy, which would be anyone who does not properly bow down to them and beg them for favorable write-ups. Daily-news journalists are more unified against all critics than cops are. There is nothing more pathetic and strangely entertaining than seeing a "press secretary" try and deal with the press. It's like watching a blind chihuahua trying to deal with a circling clutch of adult and starving hyenas. At a "press conference" the two sides are not discussing plans and events: they are courtroom recreations with one side on the witness stand and the other side attempting to prosecute. The "press" is always the prosecutor. And the press has never lost a case when it unites itself in order to divide others and infuriate press secretaries. Which pastimes news-writers consider reminders as to who is actually running things.



Daily-news journalists and bureaucrats go head-to-head because they both have one thing in common they can relax about and relate to each other about: neither knows what the actual "job" of government is. No one on earth knows. Have you noticed daily-news journalists rarely write about anything not government-related? That's because they can say anything they want to politically since no one knows what government actually is. Since the bureaucrats also don't know what government is but do know that people obey all its billions of edicts and in fact respect and pay homage to the edicts, you have two of the "estates" - the nobility and the press - vying for dominance against the lesser influence and power of the clergy and the populace; the populace being the people paying the mortgages for the other three. And doing it willingly and with enthusiasm and even with surgical masks on their faces as commanded by the bureaucrats and the daily-news journalists.

One other thing the press and the public servants know is that being "moral" - which has never had a definition anyone in history has ever agreed on - is what both sides are claiming superiority in and they both agree that your job as a non-bureaucrat non-journalist is to trust their righteousness and do as they tell you. Because mommy knows best. You do not want to be immoral.



7: Daily-news journalists are all aligned and in lockstep on all political issues presently holding sway, which would be Collectivism, and on all determinations of what people in particular are deserving of "favorable press" and what people are going to instead be driven to despair and hopeless and utter oblivion by the press. There are no renegade journalists in The Media.

No ambitious journalist who wants to get promoted out of the mailroom at Rolling Stone or Esquire is ever going to say in print that the journalists at the New York Times and the bottom-feeding untalented failed novelists and failed screenwriters at the Washington Press Corps who are getting-even with their mothers for turning them into shit-fitting little girls and getting-even for God making them ugly, uncoordinated, tone-deaf, rhythmically challenged and bad-at-writing petulant snots who spray food all over the room when they eat and can't get heterosexual dates......are shitty writers and idiot thinkers. Not if he ever wants a career in bad writing.



8: The daily-news journalist's audience is "everyone." No other writer can make that claim or assumption. No intelligent writer would want to make that claim. Only a daily-news journalist is comfortable within his shallow, limited soul enough to boast that he has no target audience. He writes for any dimwitted naive imbecile who will pay him the homage of considering him "objective and fair." To have a target audience a journalist has to focus on what his audience wants to hear. Not what he wants the audience to be converted to. Which would be obedient idiots. Like himself.



To have a "target audience" a daily-news journalist would have to be able to do or know something or have some sort of empathy or rapport with a group that was not a group of journalists. Which will never happen. Daily-news journalists are isolated, usually homely, unambitious incompetents who have stumbled onto a secret pathway - "the press" - to inflict upon everyone else what Nature inflicted upon them: neuroses.

9:There is no such thing as objective or fair "news." There is only intentionally erroneous or misleading fiction from....that's right, failed fiction writers. You might ask, "What is it about daily-news writers that make them so dedicated to lying to everyone?' And the answer is they are getting even for failing at appealing to any specific target-audience. Their motivating engine to get them to the pad and pencil is to have their name read by others. Forget about what the name actually wrote, since daily-news journalists can't write worth a crap.



Read a New Yorker article or a Huffington Post article, both entities of which write for no one in particular. If there's a difference in the two the difference is you can actually understand what the Huffington failed-novelist is trying to communicate because Huffington "news" is geared to the mind of a child.

The New Yorker article, on the other hand, might as well have been written by a stream-of- consciousness gymnast doing floor exercises on the keyboard. They're so sophisticated you can't possibly rise to that level of insight. Bring whiskey when you read it, that's what the writer brought when he wrote it. You come-away from a Huffington article with the yucky feeling that you have just been lectured-to by a third grader telling you off. You come-away from a New Yorker article wondering 1: why you read what you just read and 2: why other people will consider you quite the inquiring intellectual for having read it.



10: The word "expert," the word "explainer" and the words "here's what we know."

The fact that 99% of the literate global population are now journalists thanks to "social media" and the home computer has resulted in the "real" journalists - the ones affiliated with an "authentic" news "source," such as
Refinery 29
Salon
The Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Bloomberg News
Politico
Yahoo News
Yahoo Finance
Yahoo Sports
Esquire
Elle
GQ
Rolling Stone
The Washington Post
Reuters (rhymes with goiters)
AP
AFP (whatever that even is)
The National Interest
Buzzfeed
The Guardian (England)
The New York Times
Time
Newsweek
USA Today
ABC
NBC
CBS
FOX
CNN
Atlantic
The New Yorker
The Independent
Marie Claire
Cosmopolitan
NPR
PBS
Vogue
Sierra Club
AARP
The Economist
The Realist
National Review (lost and confused, sometimes accurate)
Variety
Business Insider
all art publications on planet earth
all entertainment magazines on planet earth
most "science" publications on planet earth ESPECIALLY Scientific American
National Geographic (except for the tit pics of the lives that matter on the Savannah)
Popular Mechanics!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!
Hello giggles
Eat This Not That
The Weather Channel
Redbook
Glamour
The Telegraph (England)
Scary Mommy
Bazaar
The Wrap
Marketwatch
Deadline
She Says
all local newspapers
Barrons
The Conversation



.... to successfully having all sensible dissension removed from social media to emphasize the "fact" that they are the upper apartments of the journalist totem pole and they demonstrate this by eliminating the "comments" section of their articles, printing only like-minded Twitter barbs, and claiming to be getting information from "experts" that are more than qualified to "explain" today's political lies to you since they are experts, plus which experts are the correct experts and which experts are not to be paid attention to, and then do it with even more lies of their own thrown in. "Here's what we know" is especially nervy inasmuch as 1: journalists actually know nothing whatsoever and 2: they amazingly insist that their lack of knowledge is still more knowledgeable than your surfeit of it. Keep in mind and always remember and never forget that you are being "explained"-to by someone who has never been able to write for a target audience. So, he is instead writing to you. Since you are not a part of any reality any more than he is. Obviously, since you are reading him. This of course is another journalist lie. But one he manages to subconsciously get you to accept as fact, as you very likely accept all news-utterances as fact.

11: Who lies more, daily-news journalists, or bureaucrats and the new branch of government called "health advisors." That is the question. Studies suggest they are eternally neck and neck and neck. However, sources close to the persons involved who spoke on condition of anonymity based on a hidden recording provided by a whistleblower closely involved with the matter insist the daily-news journalists are always the ones winning the Who's Really in Charge Here race.



12: Thank you.

--jj solari

Share this story:



Back to Of Political Interest, Special Reports




Reader Comments


This is well thought out and a fun ( but sadly truthful ) read. I have detested the press since the '80s when helping the Contras in Nicaragua.
The press just loved the Sandanistas and the Thug Daniel Ortega.
One of his top men defected and told us that they called the press " Useful Idiots." Stands true today.

We are losing America and our freedom .

Edward Hardison
Corolla, NC
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Editor Response Well put.
--Bandit
I have not seen anything in your highly insightful article that I can recall from Hello Giggles

Shovelskull
Milwaukee, WI
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Well, yeah...
I recently read the Communist Manifesto (in it's entirety). I gotta tell ya, it was an eye opener.

I glance at the local news from this computer which comes out of Memphis. There are a lot of killings... I don't understand how some of these clowns made it past the third grade, the spelling is that bad.

Also, I remember when Dolly was a truly beautiful woman(as was Pam Anderson) before the DOCTORS...

You're welcome

Cap'n Bill

Monday, January 25, 2021
Editor Response Thanks!
--Bandit
How do they feel about acid baths?

Sam
TX
Sunday, January 24, 2021
Page 1 of 2 (6 items)
Prev
[1]
2
Next

Your thoughts on this article

Your Name
Email
City
Country
v
State/Province
v
Comments
Anti-Spam Question:
Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.
Submit
Clear