At one time I was interested in RVing in Mexico. There were quite a few Canadians around. I remember one fellow, who I liked, go through a daily ritual. As the afternoon sun became lower in the sky, an aura of anticipation built up around him.
The CBC broadcast was coming on in a few minutes! All other activities had to stop. Things needed to be quiet. He had such reverence for the news broadcast I am surprised he didn't light a certain number of candles in a certain manner, and put a prayer rug down on the Mexican campground's dust. His reverence for the truthfulness and earnestness of the CBC was one of the most educational things about my Mexican adventure.
Back to today... I am interested in this new trend of "fact checkers" showing up in the Media. Do you suppose that these actually have "fact checker" on their business cards or on a label at their corporate cubicle? How does a job interview work for a potential fact checker? What are their qualifications and background?
Perhaps they don't want us to imagine a fact-checker coming into being. They just want us to accept the 'fact' that the fact-checkers have the final word. After all, not seeing a law get passed makes it easier to bow peacefully in front of the new law. Otherwise we would see slimy characters trading influence and favors to get the law passed.
Then, after the deed is done, people can point a finger at us and say, "But it is the LAW", with a deep stentorian voice.
It is like "follow the SCIENCE!" I guess we are suppose to believe than anybody in the Media actually knows any science.
There is an art to getting the peasants to accept the authority of their betters. And that art is developing right in front of our eyeballs these days.
I wish there would be more history books about -- not the history of religions -- but about the techniques used to convince the peasants to accept the AUTHORITY of the religion. The doctrines of the religion hardly matter.
Heretics. Climate-deniers. Science-deniers. On and on it goes. And it always will go on, in slightly new shapes, as long as an Elite is trying to establish their AUTHORITY.
Comments
Meta then defended their 'opinion' as Free Speech.
Is this a great country or what?
I think they use 7 'independent' fact checkers for their USA market but they have hundreds of them around the world. There are two that I have found that I think are used for USA fact checking. One of them was created as a NGO in France that is mostly concerned with climate change and health; the other one is also a NGO that is headquartered in Washington DC.
That second one the International Center For Journalists (ICFJ) is very interesting. It has a membership of journalist around the world that do 'investigative' jounalism and I presume are called upon to do 'fact checking'. So they can report a fact as misleading that disputes what they have published as their fact? What a gig that is!
The ICFJ is also interesting from a funding point of view. Now I would be the first to not think that who has the gold set the rules but am always sceptical. The ICFJ get some of it's funding from Soros controlled NGOs and some from Pfizer. Another great gig.
As you said, it is all about an Elite is trying to establish their AUTHORITY.