All media is in deep crisis and Trump is responsible

Trump's remarks yesterday when speaking about what will happen with the Supreme Court if he is not elected had the effect of shoving the entire media over the edge into irrationality, and that is world-wide media not just American national and local media. This is a blanket condemnation on all media. They always were nearly useless on covering political matters, now it's official, not a single one can be trusted to deliver objective facts about anything.

They are as toddlers tossing their toys and teething implements out of their cribs.

We all saw and heard the same rally. Admittedly, Trump's delivery is disjointed. He does skip back and forth between points of a subject as people do conversationally. That specific moment foremost he was talking about the makeup of the Supreme Court. This is familiar territory well internalized by everyone paying attention. Each point that Trump makes is stated at every rally, there is very little difference between them. Trump reiterates that 2A will be a thing of the past under Hillary Clinton, because of her obsession and because of the Supreme Court.  Trump reiterates the support he's received from NRA. There are several crucial points that Trump makes at each rally, he states them as they occur while he is speaking from outline, he will interject, "They backed me early. That's never happened before," then continue with his main points, there are key elements he tosses into the middle of larger points. His followers do not see this as confusing. It's not confusing. It's all quite easy to follow. It needn't be delivered in order. This is how people really do speak, asides, sprinkled in, however with Trump a bit excessively as if sprinkling salt with a Trump aside-shaker all over his speeches. It's spicy. It's entertaining. His crowd loves hearing the same points repeated rally to rally. They go there physically to hear it again, to be near the man making them.  This drives critics nuts because they prefer clean straightforward text point to point, so their outlines are provided them cleanly. Trump does not wander, but appears loath to complete a repeated thought without allowing intrusive side points. His crowd accepts all this as normal human speech. We really do speak to each other this way. His critics and detractors despise Trump's manner of speaking and claim it proof of an addled mind. It is no such thing. Trump actually speaks directly to people, he speaks to the crowds as if they are an individual person in the same living room being spoken to intimately.

The problem is they're imagining that viewers don't have eyes and ears of their own and are incapable of comprehending what they saw and heard for themselves. Their interpretation is useless. 100% useless. All of them, across the board. Worse than that, damaging. Not a single reporter is capable of getting it right. One after the other no matter who is speaking, no matter the network, no matter the channel, each reporter delivers the same ridiculous nonsense.

If the point is to train Trump to toe the media line and manner and express things just so to their liking, that misses entirely the reason of Trump's stupendous acceptance and his sudden and shocking rise in politics. It is this quality that propelled him. Reporters give Trump reason to continue in this manner, not shape up to their ways of processing.

Trump's crowd roars with approval when at each rally Trump points directly to the media in the back rows and calls them out specifically telling the crowd the media are all liars. The worst of the worst, the lowest of low. And outside of rallies, at his own home, Trump treats them as such, corralling them into a holding room, a pen provided with only a table of Trump branded water, then for the speech outside the room (pen) segregated from regular people, his people, and previously having them park their sloppy jalopies well away from his regular people with regular (spectacular) automobiles close in. Trump tells his crowd how they will mangle covering his events, and they all do so reliably and predictably.

Every news outlet, every single one, delivered the exact same spin allowing no other interpretation. Telling us the opposite of what we heard with our own ears.

Even the BBC reports flatly, and reports this to the world, "Donald Trump urged his second amendment supporters to murder Hillary Clinton." He did no such thing. Not by a long shot. This on the heretofore respected tax-supported British socialist news agency with worldwide reach. A flat lie delivered by a dope for any observer who watched the Wilmington N.Carolina rally in real time, available here. See for yourself if you like. The speech is short and sweet.

"Maybe the 2nd Amendment people can stop her" By showing up in force to vote, he is suggesting, not some gun crackpot working up the fury to kill her, you dopes! That is how you think and the opposite of how 2A people think. That's you projecting your own murder fantasies onto law abiding citizens. Again. At this late point the only people accepting this bizarre interpretation are already dead set against Trump for reasons of their own.

It's obnoxious. And now that obnoxiousness is standard, now every word out of Trump is held up for examination for its most dangerous possible interpretation. Now that impulse it taken to magnitudes of order beyond anything remote to objective reporting rendering the entire class of reporters 100% worthless. Now on any given matter regarding Trump listeners must just roll their eyes and dismiss every single word spit and sputtered from their stuttering mouths informed by their massively rattled minds. And worse than all that now, even conservative bloggers closer to home covering the same bogus story, and covering it as bogus are compelled to deliver their disclaimers before getting to their point so that readers must bear again more anti-Trump descriptors to get to that tiny nugget of insight that illuminates nothing at all.

Example: Roger Simon. I like Simon a lot and this is not disqualifying but it is typical.  I find him among the most sensible and level-headed of political bloggers. He wants to tell us the reason media despises Trump is because Trump is the candidate that threatens their position directly. Simon's point is that of all the things that Hillary says she will do, the Washington reporters dismiss with a wink. They know that she has no intention of following through with the programs that threaten the media's lofty position. Simon says that reporters go, "wink, wink " and give Hillary that pass but they cannot do that with Trump. They cannot read Trump, he's too unpredictable, he really can damage their position in society. So they despise him. But to get to that the reader must bear through Simon quoting someone else and their  description of Trump using the ragged descriptors already rejected by Trump supporters. The reader must see again:
demagogue
racist
nationalist
dictators
dangerous
nuclear codes

All that in the quoted inset. Then Simon's own descriptors.
loudmouth
blowhard
poor impulse control

Now referring back to others.
racist (again)
sexist
demagogue (again)

Jesus Christ! How many times must our eyeballs take in those same words? The first five paragraphs are 100% useless. They can be skipped without missing anything. They build up to the point. They repeat the same words already rejected by Trump supporters and most followers, rendering all that 100% annoyingly useless and now at a whole magnitude of annoyance. Writers cannot help themselves. They all follow this pattern of repeating and disclaiming, then finally some precious nugget that makes the entire effort not only just wasted but tremendously annoying and thoroughly damaging to their craft and their profession, such as it is.

Curating one's own input has become a tremendously unhappy task so that 100% shutdown until November  is the single solution. It is not possible to receive anything rational regarding politics across media. And comments to articles are even worse. They can provide source material and that's it. Anything that comes with additional words, any opinion attached to source material must be disregarded. Tossed teething toys not even wiped off and returned to the crib.

[I did learn a new phrase today that applies, "pigeon chess" but that new useful phrase was seen in comments to Smithsonian article about why T-Rex's arms are so short.]

linear face

Straight up, I do not know anything about Brian Williams although I am familiar with him and I did recognize his voice. I would not have been able to place his network. Having him thrust upon my awareness and now paying attention, I am struck foremost how disjointed his face. It's silly, I know, but I cannot let it go. It interferes with everything because I keep wondering, how did his face get like that? He looks like he's been punched. Really hard. His face is actually segmented distinctly with each segment out of joint, like a short caterpillar in motion, with the nose in the central segment out of joint with the rest of the features. the mouth out of alignment with the eyes. His is singularly the most asymmetrical face I've payed attention to in a long time. It's fascinating.

He is a big deal to a lot of people and this shows how accepting all those people are. 

Are we not told symmetrical faces are considered more appealing, more trustworthy, at least more trusted? 

This example runs counter to that. With Brian Williams, a lot of people trust an asymmetrical face.

Maybe they trust the soothing assuring knowing baritone intonations of the asymmetrical face. I do not know. 

When you consider all this misalignment he is not actually ugly, his features not so displaced that they're disqualifying for television. 

Did he get in a fight? 

I feel sorry for him being punched so hard his features were shifted. I did a few anims of government people I saw on t.v., showing them being punched really hard or smacked with a pan leaving their features rearranged and that is what I see in every single instance of Google images for Brian Williams, a fist come in from right and solidly punch symmetric Brian Williams leaving asymmetric Brian Williams behind to struggle through with a career in... what?... in television. I didn't even use the best example. 

The WH Will Not Be Sending DOJ Investigators

An unarmed white kid was shot and killed by a black police officer in Salt Lake City.

This isn't getting much media coverage, is it?  Maybe it's the lack of protest porn that keeps the television crews away from the story.  Screaming protesters, tear gas, militarized police, looters, and burning buildings make for a better visual.  It appears that none of that happened after this shooting, although friends of the deceased held a small rally.

The New York Times fleetingly reported the story  as an "oh, by the way" kind of thing, but nothing in depth of any kind.  The White House hasn't commented.  The Reverends Sharpton and Jackson haven't been to Salt Lake City.  Trayvon Martin's attorney hasn't put his mug on camera over this shooting.

Now, note the similarities to the Michael Brown story, except in this case there’s no evidence that the victim actually committed a crime, as there is in St. Louis.  And note the total absence of any mention of race in this story.  There is absolutely no mention of race.  Now, from all accounts, Dillon Taylor didn’t obey the cop’s orders because he was wearing headphones. He may not have heard the order to “get down.”  He reportedly was trying to pull up his pants in order to get down on the floor.

In any case, he didn’t resist. He didn’t hit the cop. He didn’t try to flee, and yet he was shot dead.  The officers involved in the shooting have been placed on administrative leave, but in this story there was no reference whatsoever to race.

Or when he heard the officer yell "get down!"  maybe the kid thought it was a dance contest, who knows?  We certainly don't, because the coverage has been atomic particle thin.

You might have missed this as well, what with all the Ferguson coverage and outrage and so on.  The Police Chief of a small Texas town was shot to death during a routine traffic stop.  No protests, no press announcements made by an angry looking Attorney General Eric Holder, no vacation-interrupting statements by a peevish-looking President Obama.  Nada.  Because this event, like the one in Salt Lake City, aren't narrative compliant.

Police officers who draw their guns and fire when the believe they face imminent danger are excoriated by the police-hating media.  Police officers who don't draw, or who don't expect a life ending threat are shot to death by someone pulled over for a routine traffic stop.  They are largely ignored by the media.

Balance, people, balance.

I checked.  There are about 780,000 police officers in the US.  Ninety-nine percent of them are good men and women on a mission to help others.  One percent are jerks who should be hounded off the job.  And some won't make it the to the end of the shift.  The media is doing a good job of painting all of them with the contrived narrative that all cops are bad.  

Don't be part of it.