Go Ahead; Make My Day

Dawg subscribes to GOOGLE News to get a daily synopsis of what is being reported around the globe and also subscribes to two English language sub-contexts known on GOOGLE as "Mexico Violence" and "Chiapas Mexico News" since Dawg lives down there in Chiapas a few months of each year as long as I remain mobile if you folks get my drift. So, this morning, as is my habit, I went to GOOGLE to get my normal load of news trash and this was the contribution to GOOGLE Mexico Violence news as picked up from Fox News, according to GOOGLE, 19 hours ago as of 7:15AM at Lake Chapala:


"The gubernatorial candidates in the western state of Michoacan have wrapped up their campaigns ahead of Sunday´s elections in one of Mexico´s most violent regions...."

Now, I only looked at the headline feed because I don´t need to be educated by Fox News about Michoacan or the elections being held there at present nor do I need to be reminded of what happened in La Piedad the other day but I thought, since many readers of this forum live in Michoacan you might benefit from seeing how a news medium such as Fox News can, with a simple opening sentence, condemn a whole region as among Mexico´s most violent.

Folks, I can tell you simply because I have lived there about six months every year since 2006, the only reason Chiapas is not considered one of Mexico´s most violent regions is because the news out of there is one massive cover-up. I will report to you as well that the Chapala and Jocotepec municipalities in Jalisco are also, shall we say, unsettled at present.

I´m now leaving my compound here in Ajijic to get some milk for the daily cafe aux lait. If I don´t make it back, adios and Godspeed to the rest of you. We are all doomed sooner or later.

Oh, bad Dawg, now you've gotten me started on the media. If you thought I was somewhat cynical about the banksters, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

All news is censored, can't be scaring the masses in the wrong way now can we. Now of course the right way, is via alerts, extra screening, x-rays, very personal attention at the airport if you say no to the x-rays. If that doesn't do the trick, let's ramp up the threat of things you can't see, smell, or taste. Like what you say? Hmm, how about radiation leaks, or influenza. Great marketing for the companies that sell stuff to prevent personal injury from those kinds of things.

Then there's the tactic of taking a few incidents anywhere and keep repeating them ad nauseum every time there's a new one. Example, kid gets drunk, falls off balcony at a tourist resort. Another one gets hit by a car while drunk. These two can and probably will be repeated every time something new happens. Possibly for years.

Photos, hmmmm, why are so many doctored up? Exif data missing, photoshopping, etc. You be the judge.

Exaggeration, Noooooo, they wouldn't do that would they? Oh yes, get the decimal point in the wrong place, repeat other stories to add emphasis, or worse, just make the whole thing up for fun. After all if you weren't there, you won't really know will you?

Fun with translation. This is my personal favorite. Take a story from Italy, run it through an inept translating service, and presto, you've got a whole new story, which will then be picked up by the newswires, not many of those, and spread worldwide in a nanosecond.

Make a mistake, accidentally on purpose, no problem. Print the story on page one, then days later when nobody is looking, post a retraction on page 39.

Now, I'm just getting warmed up Dawg, so if you'd like to return the favor and make my day, you'll continue on this fascinating theme.

raqueteer wrote:

Photos, hmmmm, why are so many doctored up? Exif data missing, photoshopping, etc. You be the judge.

Strange, huh? They don't even need a reason to mess with photos. NASA has a whole bunch of moon photos that have had features smeared. Their big photos have little places that look odd then when you enlarge them you can see they've smeared out detail in certain places. Very amateur job at it but those were way before Photoshop and digital techniques, and by the appearance of it before airbrush even.

1960's technology was apparently before color film yet they could get a team to the moon. You know the moon is not all black, white, and gray (little gray people maybe??) it actually has some vivid colors. Easier to obscure detail and easier to touch-up in monochrome I guess, though it still looks like crap when they do it. But why obscure it? It's just a pile of rocks, moon dust, and craters.