Tailored Results

they will all be dead soon enough. reagan first! whats funny is, he doesn't even know that he has alzheimers. haAHhahHAHaha ahahHAAH

Well, funny you should say what you said about the media, t-bag, because this relative of mine, S.B. is on an internship at PBS (or NPR, i can't remember which one) and guess what her job is??

Her job, at the moment, is to prepare obituaries for people in their last days. If you want to hear what PBS/NPR is going to say about and aging dignitary, im sure she could hook you up. For example, Yasser Arafat might be a good choice.

For me though, it isn't really unsettling. The media at the moment isn't creating news that will happen so it can have the jump on it. It simply is preparing itself to jump on anything that comes up. From what S.B. has told me, it seems like they're simply being ready, and preparing for future events that are likely to happen soon. The point that they used Ronald Reagans death as practice doesn't disturb me because a) it's going to happen soon and b) if their network truly is slow, then practicing like that is sensible to tune up.

Remember, they aren't creating news, just preparing for future news.

hey vladick shh

tv -- Interesting points, but its one thing for them to prepare premade obituaries for people close to death, and quite another to choose percieved "breaking news stories" to practice. For example, in the article I cited it describes ABC practicing on various possible terrorist attacks in NYC and the collapses of several major bridges. Its things like that, that are more disturbing to "practice on" than the whole obituary thing. I just thought the obits were good for a laugh.
Note: Tell that cousin of yours to give you what shes got obituary-wise on some living people. Thatd be great to see, if you can. Thanks.

Actually, there is little disturbing in the concept that the media is preparing obituaries for individuals before their deaths, as there is nothing more certain than the unescapable fact that the elderly pass away. Reagan will forever live on only in the massive and ill-begotten conservative campaign to name seemingly every piece of federal property possible after the man, and when he does finally make his long overdue rendezvous with his maker, ABC will be better prepared to deal with it. A more disturbing scenario would be an attempt on the part of ABC not merely to prepare and drill for unpredictable crisis, but to anticipate them through the fomentation of instability. However their latest initiatve does not yet go far enough to realistically invoke this fear.

Lukas - I'm with you completely in finding nothing really unsettling about premade obituaries, they're just good for a laugh. On your other point I'm a little uncertain...please elaborate more on the possibility of the media anticipating news through instigating instability. Thanks.

Once the media decides to prepare for and preempt future news events, the next logical step is to develop a method of accurately predicting when news will occur. The only accurate method of predicting events that I am aware of is to influence them, and although I'm not suggesting that the media is actively shifting towards the implimentation of such a policy, when refrences to Orwellian media policy surface, this is what comes to mind.

Lukas - One could argue that the very fact that the media is drilling for certain events it deems likely to happen is in effect influencing the likelihood of similar or related events of that nature occurring. For example, if the media gets caught up in hysteria over terrorism and starts practicing news stories about bridge x collapsing or city y's decimation, the leakage of their drills may reinforce the already strong fear of terrorism in civilians who will see these massive, trustworthy news organizations preparing for what they see as inevitable events. The fear that would be strenthened would eventually be taken advantage of by policymakers pushing forward their anti-terror agenda. Not only would news stories related to the creation of the new policies arise from the media's anticipatory tactics but there would also be a rise in news related to the effect of the more stringent policies. Some possible examples could be the arrests of more terrorist suspects; a rise in terror attacks in the United States and abroad; heightened surveillance of US citizens via new powers enumerated to Homeland Security, etc... the list could go on. In essence, I think its a little naive to completely dismiss the hypothetical ramifications of any new practice adopted by any powerful media organization.

Although hypothetically your argument can perhaps stand to criticism, in reality I find it a far fetched notion that ABC's internal drills alone will have any affect on world events. What your speaking of is a wider phenomena- the climate of paranoia and alarmism that exists in America today in relation to terrorism and almost any potential threat to national security. I imagine it is more likely that ABC's internal drills are a result of this atmosphere than that they are a major source of it. Although the media's slump into tepidness in the last 20 years is a major source for concern, I am not even quite ready to say that ABC's internal drills are a result of this timidity, as the desire to drill for catastrophe is an attempt at instilling efficiency within the corporate bureacracy. Whether the exercises succeed in doing so is irrelevant- that they are attempting to do so is what matters. What ABC should focus on is the content and impartiality of its broadcasts, as these are major worrying points. Their drills are not detrimental and to accuse them within themselves of having any impact on national affairs smacks of political correctness and the same alarmism that has lead to our current state of public paranoia, but they do fail to address ABC's real problem, the biased coverage of tabloid news.
In addition, I think it worthy to mention that the the "hypothetical" fallout which you allude to- the detention of additional terror suspects and the heightened surveillance of US citizens- have been occuring without relation to ABC's internal drills. Once again, it is the institutional prejudice of the media and the complacency of the public that has aided the administration in the implimentation of their garish policies, not internal preperatory exercises, however Orwellian.

Ok. You win. I agree with everything you said in your last post. I hope you understand my playing the devil's advocate though.

Oh, we're all in the service of the devil at any given time to some extent, but that doesn't make my victory any more savory.

Lukas- Can we lunch? I am so fucking in love with you.

Any day man, any day

lol, thats that fuck saul using my handle...

It feels odd adding a legitimate comment to this blog instead of the usual "Fuck Trevor" response, but I wanted to ask Lukas something about his Miscellaneous Thoughts on Bearing and found this to be the only place to do so. I am going to try not to sound too much like Charlotte Hall or Jamie Denvir here, but I just don't entirely agree with your statement about our affluent country. Sure I've watched BET and MTV and VH1 and I might have your same opinion of defining the programming and the people who watch it as "glorified cavemen" but I think this only for a second and then I laugh it off. These glorified cavemen are not the ones who scare me. I'm scared of the men who are enhancing our technological capabilities. I would be dumb if I said that the US was NOT tolerant, but what am I supposed to think when just now anti-sodomy laws have been abloished and we glorify Strom Thurmond as a racist who was instrumental in the southern strategy that helped elect our fantastic former president, Richard Nixon.

You know...he has his own blog you can ask him shit on...but I don't care if you use this medium.

Actually, there is an option to comment at my blog, but I suppose the 'cultured' atmosphere of this one will serve just as well. My comment about the tolerant nature of modern day American society is meant to be viewed in a historical perspective, and really was referring to society at its base. Ours is a multiethnic society that has avoided (or survived) tearing itself to shreds, something of a historical precedent.

The trend you describe, of the growing intolerance and conservatism at the higher levels of government, is a worrying one that eeriely resembles an inversion of pre-fascist Germany, in which the intolerance began in the streets and was eventually capitilized upon by Hitler. "Glorified cavemen" was not designed to be a derogatory term applied to the abstract masses, but rather referred to every individual in our society, persons contributing to this blog included. We've all risen through the same conditioning and all have similar values and opinions- one would be hard pressed to find a local who adhered to Confucian Bureaucracy. I'm not insinuating a sense of fear from the base nature of BET broadcasts, more one of remorse, its a reflection of us all.