Good Intentions Paving Company

The Outer Limits. The New York Times. Just who is the Control Voice? An Avuncular Newsman? Hollywood? The Left? People simply want to know

                                                   Green water from copper pennies, Cub Run Cave Kentucky

Some background:

You may remember the black and white 1960s television show The Outer Limits. Each week’s episode would begin with the voice of a pedant reciting a litany of ways that you, the viewer, would no longer be permitted control over your television set. Here is part of that script: 

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity…

It was a remarkable way to begin a program. The delivery of the script by “The Control Voice” – actor Vic Perrin, gave viewers the impression there was someone or something in control of their very lives at that moment. And the thing in control was not necessarily a nice warm and fuzzy Indian on a test pattern, but something far more menacing.

During that initial television production run the United States was involved in international conflicts and it was entirely possible nuclear war would break out at any time between the CCCP and the USA. That fact was simply drilled into everyone who was anyone. If you breathed you knew about the danger. Citizens back in the 50s/60s/70s/80s were conditioned to fully expect to hear a very similar voice intoning about the need to immediately evacuate the cities and possibly get to a bomb shelter as nuclear devices were in the air and headed in their direction.

Another story, that I won’t go too deeply into here, involved the abject fear mongering/menacing from the left and Hollywood during the two terms of Ronald Reagan about the theoretical impending nuclear conflict with the CCCP. Movies were made, concerts were held, pundits intoned, hands were rung, and general untruths were upheld as pure god given logic. Of course, we all know the endgame – the CCCP while trying to force its failing political dogma on the west, attempted to hold its breath while treading water, turned blue, emitted a few death screams and broke apart. I think the left has never gotten over that sinking feeling and works hard to avoid it in the future.

Nevertheless, US citizens were successfully conditioned to listen to that disembodied voice of authority speaking to them through their television sets, whether it was the voice of menace, or the voice of an avuncular newsman. Oh, and Americans were conditioned to never question the veracity of the pedantic voices that entered their living rooms from their television nightly in the form of news, sitcoms and the like. But before the 1910s through much of the 1990s there wasn't much competition for news organizations and truth could easily be molded from outright lies.

You may also remember the New York Times. The newspaper that proudly claims to be “The Newspaper of Record” for all newspapers. That is a pretty bold assumption. But, the Times offices showcase the many Pulitzer Prizes and other trophies that seemingly attest to the paper’s reportorial prowess and buttress their claim to fame. Such a display of reportorial expertise has imbued the New York Times with the sense that the Times opinion and reporting are the first and last word in journalism. They will tell anyone, even those not listening to them that they are The Control Voice for news, opinion and politics. And frankly they don’t mind telling everybody that the science is settled on that fact. 

News organizations used to be guided by Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. That was how a news organization could assemble the facts and report a story accurately for its readers. It was known as the editorial mantra “The Five Ws”. After a few beers some journalists begin to call these the six Ws since HoW, after further investigation, it was revealed it does indeed have a W. 

We Americans like to proudly point out that our free press consists of honest and serious professionals who are willing to report truthfully, without personal bias to their viewers, listeners and readers. We will insist to anyone who will listen that our free press is a primary reason we remain free from tyranny! Then, of course, we grew up.

Who fact checks the news organizations that make up our free press? And does the free press like the New York Times and its Control Voice actually get fact checked? 

Mark Twain, an American writer explained it this way, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”. Note: Gossip possesses a similar ability, but remains an acquired taste in the news business.

Does our free press report truth or has it morphed into a quasi-propaganda outlet aping Joseph Goebbels? Goebbels ran the propaganda ministry for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. When he was appointed to his position he got right to work. Goebbels was the Nazi King of All German Media. All lies were crafted and fed to the German public through the controlled media to fit political needs and to mold opinions. Goebbels controlled all radio, movies and print. By doing this Goebbels postulated all that has to happen for a lie to become the truth, is to proclaim the lie as truth endlessly in as many media forms as possible until the public has forgotten it started life as a lie. Goebbels proved that turning lies into perceived truths is a very powerful tool in the bag of tricks carried by tyrants and dictators. 

Since the 1930s the it has frequently appeared that New York Times doesn’t like inconvenient facts or quotes detracting from a story they wish to cover, or detracts from their deeply held editorial policies, so it would seem likely the editors and publisher of the Times have begun, over time, to simply pay lip service to those 5 or 6 Ws.  (The seventh W, George W Bush was editorially hated by the entire Times news organization and this became evident when the Times editorial policy no longer emphasized the previous 5 or 6 Ws, but stressed reportage based on whether its editorial policy fit a paradigm to present a unified and tidy political agenda. So the Times editorial board tossed out first 5 or 6 Ws and concentrated its accumulated editorial and reportorial prowess like a laser on the George W Bush presidency. The seventh W became eventually known as BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome thanks to Charles Krauthammer).

In the early 1930s Walter Duranty worked as a reporter for the New York Times in the newly formed wanna be communist regime of the Soviet Union. From his Pulitzer Prize winning series of 1931 articles for the New York Times (11 for the Times and 2 for New York Times magazine) it can be easily inferred that Duranty had a serious man crush on Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. He was Stalin's apologist.

Soviet dictator in charge was Joseph Stalin (Joey Steel) – Stalin changed his name from the editorially intimidating kludge of consonants and vowels that were Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili so he could differentiate those friends who were with him before he became famous and those who were late-to-the-party-bandwagon-jumpers. 

Joey Steel’s ascension to power was benefited greatly from his effortlessly acquired murderous nature and close association with known communists. He assumed leadership from Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aka “Lenin” the original gangster, so to speak, of the Russian revolution, which had overthrown Tsar Nicholas Romanov - Tsar if he knew you, Czar if you were anybody else. Or, as Woody Allen patiently explained, the Russian Revolution, “simmered for years and suddenly erupted when the serfs finally realized that the Czar and the Tsar were one and the same person.”  

My thinking about all this name changing stuff is that Russians grow up resentful of the birth names their loving parents gave them, and they aren’t English, so royalty doesn’t have the same cachet as it does for normal people. For a laugh check this out. What’s in a Russian name? How about a girl named Electrification or a boy named Tractor?

While Duranty was writing his 13 mash notes to Joey Steel about 20-50 million citizens of the Soviet Union were being systematically starved to death. Here is a taste of those 13 articles:

Duranty 8 6/24/1931 - "Stalinism Smashes Foes in Marx's Name"

Duranty 9 6/25/1931 - "Red Army is Held No Menace to Peace"

Duranty 10 6/26/1931 - "Stalinism Solving Minorities Problem"

Duranty 11 6/27/1931 - "Stalinism's Mark is Party Discipline"

Jesus, what a cheerleader. Jesus, what utter propaganda! Reminds me of the crap taught in colleges as political science. Or I should say the kind of crap INDOCTRINATED into college students! Can you believe he got an award for that? The biggest story of that century until WWII, was the death of 20-50 million people from starvation in Russia and Duranty did not report it. He was right there for crying out loud! I guess this is why people feel they should never be fired from their jobs – look, Duranty got away with it.

Reporting the starvation of 20-50 million people didn’t fit the New York Times narrative about the Soviet Union, and it continues to this date.

 Many people have called for Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize to be revoked. Many people have called upon the New York Times remove Duranty’s prize from its trophy case. To no avail. Here is how the Pulitzer Prize folks addressed the situation: “In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.” 

I guess Stalin didn’t make a public statement about it so Duranty felt he didn’t need to report it. 

Now I told you those stories to show you this one…

In Paris Islamic extremists stormed a satirical humor magazine’s offices and executed people for defaming the prophet of Islam. Naturally this is a major news story and is being covered in depth elsewhere.

Check out this Durantyesque bit of legerdemain. The Times ran reporter Liz Alderman's story that quoted a victim of the attack. Liz Alderman attributed the quote properly - unlike several other New York Times reporters recently.  The Times published the story in full, then edited the story to remove the unpleasantness. See if you can spot the unpleasantness.

Daily Caller has the detail, but this is the quote, “Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.”

Now that is some scary stuff. So what part did the New York Times feel was too unpleasant and/or did not fit their larger editorial paradigm? I will highlight it for you: "we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled. Proselytizing. It now gets in the way of serious journalism. Yep. Cant Have that damn it! Who did the Times think that might offend? The Killers?

Check out this for the rest of the story - here is the replacement edit. What does this edit do for the story?  Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.  

 If you are paying attention then you can see the New York Times pulled a Walter Duranty and ignored the real story – the removal of the equation driving the original quote "religion = murder + submission!" 'With a calm look in his eye' – what a reasonable guy! His religion isn’t demanding him to kill people. Far from it. He just wants a date! The New York Times assumed the Control Voice and successfully removed all of her horizontal hold. Get the feeling the new quote feels more like a mash note? Or at least something we would find in a racy tome like Islam’s Shades of Gray? Beyond the Valley of Religious Clitoralectomy?

The New York Times feels it can get away with this – they are the paper of record, after all. When they lie it becomes fact. When they obscure facts it becomes the truth. Can we allow the New York Times to be published without fact checking – I guess so, that has become their business model and we are seeing it in action every day.

Back to The Outer Limits

The Control Voice: It is said that if you move a single pebble on the beach, you set up a different pattern, and everything in the world is changed. It can also be said that love can change the future, if it is deep enough, true enough, and selfless enough. It can prevent a war, prohibit a plague, and keep the whole world... whole.

Or its just your friendly neighborhood news organizations indoctrinating you. Goebbels would be so proud of the New York Times! Or is it the Times who wish to emulate Goebbels?

We now return control of your television set to you. Until next week at the same time, when the control voice will take you to – The Outer Limits

                                          Cave Cricket, Cub Run Cave Kentucky