Thing 1: I was listening to National Public Radio on the way into work this morning(1), when I heard the following on the local affiliate:
On [a date] ISIS released a video of the beheading of journalist James Foley. Ahead, we speak with [someone who made a movie about Foley, called “Jim.”]
Just a couple of quick remarks. Couldn’t they have used a different adverb from “ahead?” The juxtaposition of the word with the subject of the teaser made the whole thing jarring, even a bit gruesome.
Doesn’t anyone at NPR — or its local affiliates — pay attention to that kind of language thing? I thought NPR was supposed to be the sophisticated bunch. You know, the literate ones, the ones with that super-duper, high-quality programming? The cream of the media crop.
They’re a bunch of ignorant, buffoonish, ill-educated, pompous windbag schlocks who can’t get out of the way of their own hyper-inflated egos.
Thing 2: They did a feature on how people who reveal things about themselves — even bad, sometimes really bad things — “revealers” are generally better-liked than those who reveal nothing, or “withholders.”
The working hypothesis as to why: People prefer a person who is more of a known quantity, over the unknown one. I had a different take(2), but that’s not the point of this segment of today’s NPR Watch.
The hostette — one Mary Louise Kelly — then asked whether all that applied in politics as well. The response was, that yes, it does. And that people appear to prefer Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders because they appear to be more genuine, and more open, less “scripted,” in what they say.
Completely left out of that little exchange was the 9,000 pound elephant in the room: Hillary Clinton, who is the ultimate “withholder,” and who reveals nothing to anyone at anytime unless it’s dragged from her by court order or subpoena or other coercive measure. What she then says is so thoroughly scripted that it immediately rings false.
The omission of Clinton from the NPR piece was so glaring, in fact, that one wonders whether it was intentional, in order to imply really bad things about Clinton — remember, her “honest and trustworthy poll numbers” are legendarily low — without actually having to say them.
Are the propaganda organs of the left — NPR, Hollywood, pop culture, most of the media — abandoning Hillary?
(1) My standard introduction. Just a way to lead in to the feature… I don’t have a typical “morning commute to work.” 🙂
(2) I think that the way they did the research brought this about. They asked people to answer some really personal, really tough questions about themselves: “Have you ever hidden an STD from a partner?” “Have you ever filed a false insurance claim?”
Things like that. Test subjects then said they preferred those who said they had done those bad things — “revealers” — over the “withholders” who refused to answer,
Presumably the test subjects also would have much preferred those who said they had not done the bad things.
However, my reaction to the whole thing was: It would be really easy to respond, “No.” to the questions about the bad things. Those who refuse to answer — the “withholders” — are like people who “plead the Fifth.” They sure as heck seem guilty! And they’re dishonest to boot! At least the “revealers” admit their faults.
If you were to turn the questions around and ask really positive questions, the people reacting to the “revealers” or the “withholders” would probably prefer the “withholders,” as they would seem more modest, less boastful.