Wednesday, October 16, 2013

We Don’t need Barak Hussein Obama in Order for Democracy to Work | Editorial 2013

“Barrack Hussein Obama can’t make democracy work.”

There are many distracting arguments coming from the left that easily obscure a simple truth that voting Americans need to realize.

Barrack Hussein Obama can’t make democracy work.

He is not fit for the job of leading a democratic republic mostly because he has chosen not to follow this country’s foundation and duly chosen form of government. Whether his actions are deliberate or merely show him to be incompetent is irrelevant in the voting booth. But, it is an issue at large for every citizen that treasures freedom and liberty. And, if we freedom lovers are to take back what is rightfully ours, we'll need to do it without The Press, without some elected officials, and in some extreme cases, without some lawfully elected and appointed judges of The Law.

--The Press and Advertising Dollars

What should be a major news story every night on the evening news is merely BAU, Business As Usual. One would think that the sitting POTUS circumnavigating the rule of law in order to land his agenda squarely in history’s lap might be something to talk about over the anchor desk of ABC, CBS or NBC, but apparently not.

Our resident press corps has chosen to deliberately obfuscate Mr. Obama’s obvious anti American courses of action for whatever reason. But again, the presses’ motivation is less important as what to do about it.
For Mr. Obama’s case, it is obvious that he needs to be removed from office one way or another.
In the case of our non-journalistic journalists, we simply turn them off and put down their writings; which apparently is exactly what America has been doing for almost a decade now.
If you listen to news broadcasts and editorializers who favor the status quo; editorializing masquerading as news journals, one would think that everything is fine; they’re all good, and rich and fat and happy. “Nothing to see here; move along, move along. Ooh, look at that over there…” But the dollars, layoffs and bankruptcies in the News Entertaining Industry say otherwise.

In case you have forgotten, or just didn’t know, all of Newsdome (think “kingdom”) and the TV entertainment empire is funded by advertising. Or, that’s the conventional and sustainable method from days of old—before the super rich Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner started funding a now failing *oligarchy.

Advertising 101

Remember Soap Operas? They were called that since the 1950s and 1960s origin of the genre’ when  Dial Corporation, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and Lever Brothers, all soap manufacturers, were the major advertisers of daytime “soaps”. Advertising to the millions of stay at home moms who were the main laundry engineers at home was a major boon for soap sellers, advertising execs and TV producing studios all at once.

The marriage of TV dramas, moms and laundry soap was so advantageous because everyone was well served.
  • The laundry soap really did make things whiter; mom was happy.
  • Moms bought a lot of soap. Advertisers were happy.
  • Advertisers proved that they could deliver a gigantuous buying audience to their clients. The soap manufacturers were happy.
  • TV studios could crank out easy-to-make dramas based on stories that dragged on into eternity with never a close or The End to worry about; the easiest story to write is the one with no end. One just keeps writing. The plot is no longer important to support a killer ending. The producers were happy.

This happy closed loop of partakers in American enterprise on steroids is a perfect example of synergy; elements together are greater than the sum of their separate parts.

Additionally, the industry added greatly to the new royalty called TV stars whom TV watchers idolized and adhering loyalties were born almost overnight; an unlooked for boon to the creators of day time soaps which drew even larger advertising dollars from the added leverage of viewer and customer loyalty; thus the really big bucks that drove advertising rates into the stratosphere where only the really well funded industries could reach.

Question: So, what happened? Why are ad rates in such severe decline? First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the Entertainment world and the Newsies are inherently related. They are in a marriage from which there is no divorce. They share the same pocketbook of funding and therefore are in it together for better or for worse. Fox’s entertainment programs are concretely tied to their news programs. IT IS ALL ENTERTAINMENT.

This does not mean that one network’s news dept. is just as unreliable as the rest. Each program’s content rests upon its own efficacy. If it’s spouting lies, the viewing public will know; especially if there is a running standard of truth tellers by which the liars can be compared.

The answer: no longer is there a happy circle of well served elements in the closed synergestic loop. The soap still works, but advertising is now well known for embellishing to the point of misrepresentation at the same time that the attached network news journalists are even better known for embellishing to the point of editorializing the daily news. If you look up editorializing in journalism 101 courses, it is the same as a curse word for purists of the truth. One can either journalize the news (report it) or editorialize a story. But never the twain shall meet, nor shall the line be made unclear.

During the heyday of the soaps, CBS’s anchor man, Walter Cronkite was hailed as America’s most trusted voice. Today, these anchor men and women seek not after trust, but back slaps at the Leftist White House cocktail pressers (Press Release, Press Parties, etc).

And also, there is … (wait for it) … the Rush factor. Since the 1988 national syndication of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh’s unabashedly conservative and therefore honest presentation of all things American politic have turned America’s attention from limiting their entertainment digest from purely entertuinamnt programs to news programs while at the same time opening up opportunities for non-broadcast based news programs and entertainment programs to catch the attention of the public via The Internet.

This perfect storm of Rush and The Internet occurring in the same annual hemisphere has put a major dent in advertising. What was once viewed as a vast base of a giant pie referred to as “shares” of a the market, has now caused the creation out of virtually thin air of the massively diluting force of Internet based as well as alternative news programs that have not only reduced advertising rates through dilution, but also pretty much removed the solid meaning of a strong market share scale from which advertising rates used to be figured almost 100%.

Ad rate averages, like real estate, used to never go down. So, to have rates reduced as much as the 13-15% being noticed in print ads alone is definitely market shaking. Advertising rates for news programs dropping through the basement is not being talked about with honesty yet, so that’s one to watch for. But the biggest to watch for in my estimation is the attempt by major news sources like ABC, CBS and NBC to try something new for a change; honesty. At the least they could try separating journalizing from editorializing. It seems to work well for Fox news.

--The Editorial Format

When I was cutting my media teeth at my first gig in TV, I was a floor director and camera operator for the evening news in our home town of Medford, Oregon. I operated on a split shift that required I come in at 7am for the local morning magazine human interests show, produce any commercial spots and public service announcements and additionally, produce the station manager’s editorial for the month, before taking my 3 hour lunch before coming in for the live Evening News with Hank Henry. The General Manager and owner of Channel 10 in Medford was R.J. Johnson. My first exposure to an editorial was from behind Camera One as my boss expounded upon his opinion of important political issues of the day.

The broadcast technicalities that separate the line between an editorial and a news story used to be
glaring in its clarity; today, not so much. Mr. Johnson, General Manager of Channel 10 in Medford Oregon had his editorial teased at the head by a pre-rolled tape announcing the editorial segment, and closed at the tail with a like post-roll. These teaser and closer tapes clearly explained that this segment was an opinion piece, not a news story. So, an editorial used to be a clearly marked section of dialogue that was an opportunity for the chief editor of a newspaper or owner of a TV station or radio station to expose their market to their opinion on matters of weight to the community at large.

Today, apparently all of the editorials are preceded by pre-rolled tape announcing the evening news with Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams or Scott Pelley; and one is left waiting for the evening news to actually follow all of the editorializing. There is little difference between editorializing and journalizing the news these days over at the ABC, CBS and ABC studios. Instead of pointing at the obvious political hey making for the Democratic Party and calling it the shameful acts of dishonest and disreputable editorializing, the press corps count it as a brave and courageous thing to mislead their viewers towards socialism and slavery.

--It's DejaVu all Over Again

So, instead of the Russian/Chinese communism brand of socialism dished out carefully and quietly in the 1950s and 60s, we are being fed Pseudo Sharia Muslim statism openly; our hope and change for the 2000’s.

So, Mr. Clinton couldn’t and Mr. Obama can’t make democracy work in a republic. Fortunately for us, our founding fathers knew that this was a danger; and some even felt it was inevitable. Thus the separated powers profile of our unique three part form of government.

And, if the federal powers are too corrupt, there are the state’s rights powers. And, if even these fail; which also looks inevitable in some states, there is always the posse comitatus of individuals taking back their own piece of turf as they follow The Rule of Law as presented in The U.S. Constitution, against which there is no lawful argument.

At some point, citizens may no longer be defined by how they vote, but by how well they hide their arms and ammunition.



SQAD | TV Week: TV Ad Prices Falling…

Seeking Alpha | Westwood One: Radio Advertising Falls on Hard Times

Oligarchy; a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes. The Encarta Dictionary.

Disclaimer; I do not promote vigilantism. I support local law enforcement. In my experience, local sheriffs are generally honest, hard working elected officials who respect The Rule of Law. If a group of individuals begin a vigilante police action without going through their local sheriff, they just might end up getting what they deserve. If you think that your ten friends with their 25 AR 15s and several thousand rounds of ammunition are any match for your state's national guard contingent, then you slept too long on one side last night and all your brains ran out your ear hole. What good is freedom if you get your wife and ten friends killed? One needs to pick one's battles and count the cost.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment. The editor has lifted the registration gate, so all can comment. Good conduct is expected. Since this blog deals only in truth and patriotic rhetoric, any excessive America-Hating comments can be removed, and if such persists, the poster will be blocked.