A couple of observations based on my years – long ago – in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily paper:
Reporters seldom have a thorough understanding of the things they write about. To be fair, it's just not possible. I noticed early on that every time there was a story on a subject that I personally knew a lot about, there were err…
A couple of observations based on my years – long ago – in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily paper:
Reporters seldom have a thorough understanding of the things they write about. To be fair, it's just not possible. I noticed early on that every time there was a story on a subject that I personally knew a lot about, there were errors. Most people probably have experienced similar. If there aren’t outright mistakes, there’s that generally lame feel that tips you off instantly that the writer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It always made me wonder how many of the stories on subjects that I didn’t know much about were also inaccurate. Probably most.
Reporters and editors generally have little interest in anything technical, especially when it involves machines and how they work. Much too low-brow to bother with. Many months after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, a story came across the wires with the final findings of the investigators. It revealed manufacturing errors made on the seals between sections of the solid rocket booster casings that were blamed for springing a leak and setting off the big fuel tank. I won’t get into the details, but here at last was the actual physical cause, and it was a machining deficiency that I had not thought of. An aha! moment for anybody interested in how that magnificent machine was put together and what brought it down. I assumed this would be Page One news, and I lobbied for treating it as such in our afternoon planning meeting. Big yawn. I don’t recall whether it even made the paper. The story was technical in nature, with no drama or bureaucratic finger-pointing. In other words, it was not the sort of soap-opera crap that would get their juices flowing, so some very important findings on one of the most memorable disasters in US history were ignored.
I've thought about that Challenge disaster non-story as well. Here's another one. I read somewhere that the second space shuttle tragedy might have been caused by a change in the way the tiles were manufactured. The change, if I remember correctly, was implemented to be better for the environment. Well, if this is true, that change led to the loss of seven lives.
I also have noted that the move to replace asbestos from the bowels of buildings might have contributed to the World Trade center towers collapsing earlier than they would have otherwise. If I remember correctly, a good bit of the asbestos surrounding these steel girders had already been replaced. The asbestos was a (superior) fire retardant. The building might have still collapsed, but if might have collapsed later, which might have given more people time to escape the building.
This would be another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." It's also another example of a "taboo" line of investigation.
I still think the wide-spread number of people getting flu vaccines in the winter and fall of 2020 could have explained the spike in deaths beginning in late November/December 2020. But this also can't be investigated or considered. "What?! The flu vaccines might have contributed in some way to thousands of Covid deaths?" Talk about another taboo story.
These "off limits" stories/investigations are everywhere. If Gates had been exposed as a regular Epstein client, Bill Gates would have been disgraced ... and would have never become the key "money man" for all the Covid madness. But none of the VIP (alleged) "Johns" of Epstein have ever been investigated.
What if X had happened (or not happened)? These are all "unknown unknowables" ... and the press exists to make sure we never know these possible politically-incorrect answers.
A couple of observations based on my years – long ago – in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily paper:
Reporters seldom have a thorough understanding of the things they write about. To be fair, it's just not possible. I noticed early on that every time there was a story on a subject that I personally knew a lot about, there were errors. Most people probably have experienced similar. If there aren’t outright mistakes, there’s that generally lame feel that tips you off instantly that the writer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It always made me wonder how many of the stories on subjects that I didn’t know much about were also inaccurate. Probably most.
Reporters and editors generally have little interest in anything technical, especially when it involves machines and how they work. Much too low-brow to bother with. Many months after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, a story came across the wires with the final findings of the investigators. It revealed manufacturing errors made on the seals between sections of the solid rocket booster casings that were blamed for springing a leak and setting off the big fuel tank. I won’t get into the details, but here at last was the actual physical cause, and it was a machining deficiency that I had not thought of. An aha! moment for anybody interested in how that magnificent machine was put together and what brought it down. I assumed this would be Page One news, and I lobbied for treating it as such in our afternoon planning meeting. Big yawn. I don’t recall whether it even made the paper. The story was technical in nature, with no drama or bureaucratic finger-pointing. In other words, it was not the sort of soap-opera crap that would get their juices flowing, so some very important findings on one of the most memorable disasters in US history were ignored.
I've thought about that Challenge disaster non-story as well. Here's another one. I read somewhere that the second space shuttle tragedy might have been caused by a change in the way the tiles were manufactured. The change, if I remember correctly, was implemented to be better for the environment. Well, if this is true, that change led to the loss of seven lives.
I also have noted that the move to replace asbestos from the bowels of buildings might have contributed to the World Trade center towers collapsing earlier than they would have otherwise. If I remember correctly, a good bit of the asbestos surrounding these steel girders had already been replaced. The asbestos was a (superior) fire retardant. The building might have still collapsed, but if might have collapsed later, which might have given more people time to escape the building.
This would be another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." It's also another example of a "taboo" line of investigation.
I still think the wide-spread number of people getting flu vaccines in the winter and fall of 2020 could have explained the spike in deaths beginning in late November/December 2020. But this also can't be investigated or considered. "What?! The flu vaccines might have contributed in some way to thousands of Covid deaths?" Talk about another taboo story.
These "off limits" stories/investigations are everywhere. If Gates had been exposed as a regular Epstein client, Bill Gates would have been disgraced ... and would have never become the key "money man" for all the Covid madness. But none of the VIP (alleged) "Johns" of Epstein have ever been investigated.
What if X had happened (or not happened)? These are all "unknown unknowables" ... and the press exists to make sure we never know these possible politically-incorrect answers.