Reply #50: DM Mom, you are a writer whom I respect, and so...

[TygrBright]

...I am willing to again attempt to clarify both precisely what I wrote in my post, and the reason I used those images.

Which brings me back to what the two areas you reference were: Images.

I made no factual claim or serious speculation that Karl Rove actually called anyone or that any individual actually claimed to have received a call from him. I referred to it (if I may engage in the hubris of self-quoting) as:

>>the subtext (and you KNOW it's there... )

"Jam! Jam!! We got jam!!! JUST in time for Anna Nicole's baby to die out of the headlines, we got SOMETHING ELSE to distract America from the vicious corruption and warmongering government! KKKarl just called, boys... ride this one for all you can whup out of it!!"<<

Emphasis mine.

"Subtext" does not refer to actual text or transcription or even the suggestion that such a conversation actually took place. Merely, it describes the predominating influences that have come to shape our media the last few years. More specifically, it refers to the knowledge accumulated by many (if not all) of the decision-makers in the "news" media business that certain types of stories are more likely to be acceptable to the publishers and owners of the major media outlets. Those stories are, in order of preference:

a) Stories that prominently feature malfeasance by persons regarded as enemies of the GOPpie cabal and those who fund that cabal for the better continued acquisition of their own corporate power and wealth;

b) Stories about the cabal's front men and major political players which can easily be spun to portray them in ways that confirm the positive expectations of their hard-core political base, and/or make them look attractive to the remaining moderate conservatives; and

c) Stories that appeal to the very large segment of the public that is easily appealed to by prurient, salacious, celebrity-related, and/or horror-titillating events, and can be used to distract that public from other information that might conceivably foster a negative impression of the cabal and its supporters.

Media decision-makers have had these priorities ground into their heads for six years, now, and by now they are probably operating an a virtually instinctual level in determining what stories to cover, how MUCH to cover them, and how to focus the coverage to manipulate the public.

That is the subtext. Articulated or not, that subtext was operating Monday and yesterday, and is still operating today. Whether their coherent thoughts were actually something along the lines of "Karl will love this, he'd be wanting us to run it out as far as we can," or a more innocuous "This will both garner incredible ratings, especially if we can play the 'find someone who can be blamed' angle, PLUS it'll make the big boys at the top happy," the knowledge of that subtext in their decision making process made this even more revolting for me.

BTW "homicidal penguin" is not Shrub. And whether he actually literally howled "Yeeeee-HAW!! Dead students!! We got DEAD STUDENTS!!" or just smiled quietly to himself, I stand by my contention that Darth Cheney is as thrilled as his cybernetic circuits allow him to be, by the knowledge that something came along to knock the ongoing revelations of evil and corruption temporarily aside. And I have a difficult time imputing to him even a moment of dutifully-contemplated compassion for those involved.

But I'll cop to being over the top on that one if you wish. I'll admit that enough of the gut-wrenching revulsion I felt may have displaced onto Cheney to somewhat overstate his probable response to the tragedy.

If he wants to clank on out here and collect an apology, I'll grit my teeth, put on a hazmat suit, and deliver it.

There.

I chose to state those two parts of my emotional reaction to the coverage I'd witnessed in the way I stated them because that admittedly hyperbolic verbiage seemed the only way to adequately convey what I was feeling and thinking at the time. I wanted what I wrote to carry some of the same impact I was feeling. Newton's law, can't remember which one. Now it's been thoroughly deconstructed and thus the impact I'd hoped to convey has been cushioned by intellectualized analysis and explanation, so hopefully it won't offend anyone anymore.

patiently,
Bright