Speaking Whose Truth?

The most important service rendered by the press and the magazines is that of educating people to approach printed matter with distrust.-- Samuel Butler -- 19th Century novelist Our media is famous, or infamous if you prefer, for being of the leftist persuasion. But why are they leftist? One might assume that they are simply incredibly brave people who are willing to risk everything to “speak truth to power.” What if we have that backwards?

Isn't it equally likely that media types, academic types and those who constantly rag on those on the right are equally likely not to be brave speaking truth to power but in fact are cowards who are speaking truth, their own truth, or perhaps the truth of those in power, at the bidding of those in power? When they do that, when they mouth the talking points of the government for the government, could it also be that they are simply speaking or writing as a fear response? Look at the media -- if you want to call it that -- in North Korea. Is that an example of actual media speaking truth to power when the power of the nation is controlled by a person who is utterly insane? How about the media, and its behavior, in Russia? Are they working to keep Putin honest? If you think they are it would seem reasonable evidence that you have an absolutely wonderful drug connection. Do you think those are extreme outliers of corruption in the media? If so, how do you explain the support for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others from ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC and others? And being cowed by those in power is not limited to simply the news media. Look at the number of black actors as a percentage of overall actors currently on television or in movies when compared to the overall percentage of black citizens to the population.

---

Look at the number of Hispanic actors versus the percentage of Hispanic citizens. Look at the number of female actors who portray senior officials within the police force in a play or portray the CEO of a corporation. Exactly how close is the correlation between that representation and reality? It appears that even those who write the screenplays that are watched nationally are performing their function for those in power. Are they speaking truth to power or just doing what they are told? Look at the number of states that offer tax breaks to corporations, which are a business type that is normally perceived by media outlets as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Satan. Why in the world should you and I pay increased taxes within our respective states so that we can subsidize the depiction of homosexual behavior as commonplace rather than rare and rather unique? Of all characters on television and in movies, what percentage of those characters is portrayed as gay, or perhaps part of the so-called LGBT community? Do they represent a proportional number to the reality of the number of gay people in the nation's population? Of course, those in power in leftist-controlled governments want each of these sexual or racially subdivided populations to feel that they are important far beyond their share of the population. Don't think so? Then why don't you run the same analysis on Asian actors portraying Asian characters? Do Asian actors in television and film productions over-represent the size of the Asian population in the country? Or, if you prefer, would you care to compare the number of characters in any screenplay who claim to represent Native American actors versus the actual population of Native Americans within the country. This exaggeration of the size of sub-groups within the general population is not the only inflation of their representation that occurs thanks to those "brave" souls who are busy "speaking truth to power". Consider the question of "global warming". Sympathetic characters in screenplays always portray global warming as an oncoming disaster that only fearless scientists such as themselves (who are employed by the EPA or a heroic environmental group) can avert. Then there are, of necessity, a few actors who play characters that preach the heretical idea that global warming is being exaggerated or is non-existent. Those few are forced to portray any such individual (by either the screenwriter, the director, or both) as (a) the leader of an evil, uncaring oil or some other type of energy company or (b) the evil genius who is behind the bribing of corrupt scientists who then take a position denying global warming. Yet the actual rationale that motivates these same “evil” and “uncaring” characters is inevitably never mentioned. Apparently the only requirement for the screenwriter in the fantasy world of Hollywood is that those who oppose the desires of the EPA or an unnamed environmental group is that such opposition simply exists. The same silence about why such opposition exists is exactly the same in the news media as in Hollywood. No explanation for the explanation of that opposition is ever provided. Such plays or screenplays are always described as “bravely speaking truth to power”. All the writers of these movie scripts or news “reports” who claim to be righteously “speaking truth to power” are being paid. But who pays them and who approves the words they write? Could it be that they only write the words that those in power want spoken? I might be mistaken, but there seem to be very few who donate their entire salaries as actors, screenwriters, directors, journalists, editors, media mavens or anyone else to “the cause”. They might make a small (by their standards) but highly publicized donations, but they are profiting handsomely. Failure to toe the line on describing “truth” that echoes the currently fashionable leftist view usually means that no paycheck will be forthcoming. They are making a good living doing, writing and saying exactly what those who are the “power” have dictated. Yet they wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they are standing on the barricades of their minds to defy those who are in power and doing something that they perceive as evil in some way. Kind of makes you wonder why the phrase “Speaking Truth to Power” exists anywhere beyond a college class in poetic nonsense, doesn’t it?