consultants are sandburs

Thursday, March 31, 2016

It being a slow morning, over coffee, a speculative websearch . . .

Search = ted cruz repulsive

A search that for clear reasons suggested itself.

With the search engine used, this return.

That the top return item, per whatever search algorithm was used, turned out to be a Salon item was not surprising.

Linking to that item, the sidebar was interesting with a number of silly seeming things listed.

Before getting into sidebar commentary, it seems noteworthy that the "Ted Cruz Repulsive" theme's first item dates back to Dec. 2013; with repulsiveness to some growing with prominence of popular "news" commentary as the individual seeks to convince people he should be chief executive of the federal government. Dissing Raul Castro seemed a theme of the item, but it took paragraphs to get to that; however, highlighting allowed scanning to the gist of the thing. Did not read it. It seemed stupid.

A sidebar item that was of salacious interest, " Why Ted Cruz’s sex life matters: The GOP’s toxic 'family values' charade deserves continued scrutiny - - Yes, privacy is important—but not as important as exposing hypocrisy from those whose policies harm the vulnerable". The gist there, if the National Enquirer thing has truth to it, then Cruz deserves scrutiny. Fair enough to say that, but the way it was said seemed to ring a bit artificial. As if presuming a fact not truly in evidence, a questionable allegation from a questionable source not identified that way up front, a spin of gossamer, and a late paragraph with the "if true" caveat.

Bad writing? You decide. Did the item meet its apparent purpose, and was that purpose legitimate?

Salon should do better, but all of Mainstream Media should, and compared to FOX Salon is like a gold standard.

Compared to FOX anything is better. FOX sets the dross standard that all else online proves to better.

FOX makes Salon's approach look "high road." Is that good? Are we well served or ill served by the mainstream? By potentially (possibly, likely?) Faustian contracts to one-up the opposition?

A suggestion is that Crabgrass readers take time to peruse the Salon sidebar stuff; with the further suggestion being the most compelling of the items is this one, " We must smash the Clinton machine: Democratic elites and the media sold out to Hillary this time, but change is coming - - Neoliberals, D.C. careerists and the pundits lined up this time. They won't be able to rig contests moving forward".

From my personal perspective, which is of course biased, that single item was the one I wanted to access and agree with, since the thought had already set itself in my mind. Readers might favor other items, or be repulsed by all of Salon and how it presents itself online. However, the thought that sustained itself through more than the first cup of morning coffee: How absolutely ill served the public is by those "thought leaders" in our media. They really to a large measure are a clown show. Offering a buffet of stuff, where you can gravitate to whatever online resonates with your existing biases; that seems to be the gist of web offerings in our U.S. of A. And, with Google doing user profiling to tailor return lists to user past search histories; use of that search engine over others, with profiling as done by Google by default, is arguably a wrong practice not doing for you a maximum good service. Arguably: An unhelpful thing. A bad thing for minds that already may be like a steel trap; once sprung never letting go, never to be sprung to other prey.

No comments: