So... it's been a cunt-ton of months since I last blogged. LJ says it's been since the 20th of March, so four months and a week. I think that takes the record as longest blogging gap since my bog began. This blog post is in relation to a huge bugbear of mine, namely shitty journalism. Few things anger me more than people who, when given the trust to inform the public either do a poor job in terms of research, or deliberately have articles littered with errors in order to promote their own ideals.
I've mentioned my ire to shitty journalism before, far earlier than the furore surrounding the rage generated by the News Of The World phone hacking cuntery. In my mind the purpose of a journalist is to inform the public of recent events in an impartial manner. Impartiality is crucial if the reader is to form their own opinions with a minimum of outside bias, needless to say most journalists pander towards a certain partisan line, as such cuntery as abound. I've previously gone on about mainstream game journalism, but that pales in comparison to the cuntery displayed during the very recent Norwegian attacks.
At the time of writing, four days ago Oslo suffered some brutal attacks by a self proclaimed "Christian fundamentalist" (oh how I could go on about fundamentalists and religious people as a whole) . Needless to say I mourn for their losses, this was a cruel, callous and illogical attack. So as such the world's media should try and keep a neutral approach in this instance and condemn the attacks naturally right? Well, looks like someone forgot the innate cuntery of the press. The American media especially (the rights specifically) have to capitalise from the atrocity, or if not capitalise at least distance themselves from it. I quote Glenn Beck here "There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing."
Let's break down this sheer cuntery bit by bit. “There was a shooting at a political camp” is Beck's first point. Who gives a flying fuck where the shooting took place? People died to a mass murderer. It doesn't matter what they were doing. They could have been in a giant orgy, it wouldn't have lessened the tragedy, unless Beck feels that only certain people are worth mourning after a tragedy. Perhaps as it occurred outside of the US it's less worthy of note.
His next point in this poison loaded sentence is “which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever.” OK. I know this is clichéd, but I call Godwin here. A baseless comparison to Hitler does not an argument make, especially when it's a spectacularly poor comparison. Firstly the Hitler Youth was a compulsory organisation, kids had to join, already differentiating the Norwegian organisation from the Hitler Youth. The allusion to Hitler is designed to sway the audiences opinion “Hey! You guys hate Hitler right? Well you'd best hate this organisation (thereby lessening the import of these kids' deaths) or you're racist, an anti-Semitic, and basically Hitler” Beck tries to lessen the tragedy of the mass-murderer. He becomes more of a hateful, spiteful cunt than he already is. Man, fuck Glen Beck. It's an entirely baseless argument designed to generate a gut response without engaging higher brain functions.
And the final part of this hate-pie “I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing." Yeah... because in no way does the US have Young Republican/Democrat camps for kids. Or is it only disturbing when these camps are outside of US borders where nothing bad happens ever unless the Democrats cause it?
Basically, Beck uses the tragedy to capitalise on the death by basically saying it was the kid's fault for trying to be politically aware.
But of course, Beck was not the only person to try and profit from this, take Bill O'Reilly for example. He said that at Breivk (the man who did the shootings) couldn't have been a Christian. It was “impossible” because “"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,” Yes, that's right O'Rielly, the belief in a dude who came back from the dead and whose flesh you can literally eat on a Sunday due to transubstantiation is actually incapable of mass-murder. I mean dudes like the Yorkshire Ripper who said they were on a message from God to kill people, I'm sure they didn't believe in Jesus at ALL! And of course the bible is very much against murder. Unless of course one reads any part of the bible, where God waxes wroth. Hell, he kills kids for taking the piss out of a bald dude. Kings 2:23-25.
O'Rielly says that “the left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.” the left only want people to believe that because it's true. Fundamentalists of any religion are crazy motherfuckers whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or even fucking Buddhist. Note, I'm talking about fundies here, not the majority of religious people, especially in the western world who gloss over most of the bible (after all, why believe in most of god's dictions when one can choose certain parts to believe and justify hatred while happily ignoring the rest). Basically what I'm trying to say is that shitty journalism is a bane to us all. It misinforms the public, and arguably, xenophobic articles like in The Sun saying that the UK will implement law from the Q'ran only serve to spur on hatred and justify acts of aggression.
I've gone this far without mentioning the whole News Of The World hacking stuff. Frankly it's been covered far better than I ever could and at length. Suffice to say cuntery abounds.
Finally, it behoves me to mention that terrible journalism is abound on all sides of the political spectrum not just the right. It just seems that the right-wing press has the most abhorrent of examples, especially in light of current events.
Soon I will find worse examples I'm sure.
*NB* LJ lost the post, so I restarted but LJ rediscovered the post This may he a hodgepodge of shite now. (Totally different to the rest of my posts)