• Snowden Leaks Old Journalism Textbook, Media Shocked

    February 21, 2014 // 17 Comments »

    In yet another dramatic revelation flowing out of whistleblower Edward Snowden, a journalism textbook from 1983 has been sent to several large media outlets, including the Washington Post, New York Times and the trailer park where Fox News is thought to originate.

    “To say we’re shocked is an insult to electricity,” said a spokesperson from the Post while speaking with the media, who refused to give his name because he was not authorized to speak with the media. “We had no idea. Not a clue.”

    “For example, it says here that ‘journalists’ are supposed to gather facts, analyze them, and then ‘report’ what they learned,” stated an unnamed former somebody. “This flies in the face of our current practice of transcribing what government officials tell us anonymously and then having someone read that aloud on TV. We are still trying to find out more about the ‘analyze’ function of journalism, but Wikipedia is down right now.”

    Fox News went on to say that a chapter in the book about naming sources so that readers themselves could judge the value and veracity of the information “just came from Mars” as far as the organization is concerned. “I mean, if we named our sources, they’d be held accountable for what they say, you know, and I doubt we’d have much access to the big boys after that. We’d have to start hiring people just to go out and gather news, maybe outside the office even, instead of just from the web. Something like 90% of our content comes from press releases from ersatz think tanks controlled by PR firms. Our whole business model would have to change. And that thing about ‘questioning’ what the government says? How are we supposed to do that? Who do they think we are?”

    New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, speaking on behalf of the paper from his soundproof bubble removed from reality, explained “That J-school book is potentially a game changer, if you believe it is not just another disinformation scheme. For example, how credible is this bit– it says that simply getting two quotes from two sources that 100% contradict each other isn’t what reporting is. So here, in my latest column, where I have Obama saying ‘health care is good,’ and Sarah Palin saying ‘no, it sucks dick,’ somehow is wrong? Give me a break.”

    Multiple sources say, however, that the single most shocking thing to emerge from the leaked textbook is that “news” and “journalism” are supposed to inform, enlighten and educate people, an essential part of our democracy, and are not simply another form of entertainment.

    The spokesperson from the Washington Post was blunt: “That’s just bullshit. Anyway, here’s another cute cat picture.”

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

    Posted in Iraq

    He Lies, You Die (in Iraq): Troops to Stay Forever

    September 7, 2011 // Comments Off on He Lies, You Die (in Iraq): Troops to Stay Forever

    Bush, before scurrying away from Hague prosecutors, signed an agreement with Iraq to withdraw all American troops by 12/31/2011 (the mother of all New Year’s Eves). Obama, as a candidate, said he would honor this agreement. Zero US soldiers in Iraq by 12/31/2011. Yeah! Hope! Change! Nobel Peace Prize!

    “If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do,” Obama said with his fingers crossed behind his back in the fall of 2007. “I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.”

    Of course, he lied.

    Plans all along were to keep US troops in Iraq, to secure permanent bases there (where has the US invaded and not kept bases? Yeah, I know, Vietnam, but where else?), run spec ops kill missions and of course train Iraqis to use the expensive weapons we will sell them. Needless to say, the troops would also be around to threaten Iran and Syria, serve as a counter-coup force and pressure Iraq when needed to do whatever slimy chores of empire were needed. This was going to be the take-away from eight years of otherwise pointless war.

    The numbers kicked around to do all this changed, falling quickly from some 35,000 to a commonly-accepted 10,000 soldiers. All that was needed was serious coin to pay for them (estimated at $5-10 billion a year times forever+infinity) and Iraqi buy-in.

    Sensing he has neither, rumors are now afloat on Fox and elsewhere that Obama is going to go with some 3000 soldiers, preempting any Iraqi decision/refusal. He’ll call them trainers and the Iraqi government will reluctantly accept them in return for God-knows-what kind of bribes and promises (check Wikileaks in a couple of months). Obama gets a toe hold on permanent bases, with the hope of cranking up the headcount quietly at a later date when America is distracted by a new season of X-Factor.

    One entertaining factoid: Fox reports that the only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Despite recruiting an army of over 5500 mercenary orcs to protect her staff in Baghdad, Hils knows the troops would also be handy when it comes time to evacuate the World’s Largest Embassy (c).

    Fox (again) quoted deeply-closeted freak Senator Lindsey Graham, Idiot-S.C., as Tweeting that reducing the troop presence to 3000 “would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq.”

    Obama will for sure promise that none of the 3000 soldiers he wants to station in Vietnam Iraq forever will ever be killed or injured. Do we have to start saying this line again? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

    Under this plan, they’ll just keep dying. Bring them home Obama.

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

    Posted in Iraq