2024 A.D.:  Horri-spondents:  Horribly Biased News Correspondents That Aim To Shape Your Political Views!

     If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  But don't nearly all Americans prefer to have news shows be informative but with nearly neutral reporters of the events rather than reporters who see themselves as purposeful shapers of our political views?  It's never been perfect out there concerning this, but these days it seems a step beyond acceptable.  There are news commentary shows we can watch, and political commentary shows we can watch, and it doesn't take us too long to decide which ones we like.  Those shows have a bias but WE KNOW they have a bias.  We might even like their particular bias, or even watch them to hear our own biased views confirmed.  But...programs that advertise themselves as NEWS...or BREAKING NEWS ought to try to be the thing they advertise, shouldn't they?  Just give us descriptions of events or happenings.

     I am tired to death of hearing the phrase 'baseless and unfounded accusations/allegations' follow or precede any quote from someone who disagrees with the news Horri-spondent's (reporter's) politics, or their station's politics, in a report that comes only a half hour or sometimes less after the accusation/allegation they refer to was first uttered.  How much research did the reporter have the opportunity to do in that half hour since the hated quote was first uttered that they can so definitively inform us that those accusations/allegations are "baseless and unfounded"?  But more and more of the clown show type news stations are starting to encourage their "News Horri-spondents" to speak in this manner.  It's a knee jerk utterance against someone whose politics is so averse to theirs that, as a makeup besmeared political activist posing in front of cameras as a supposed News Correspondent, they know in their  fired up highly politicized brain that they need to let the viewers know that the quote from the baby, bad person should be rejected outright and immediately.  The inference is that it's because the source of the quote is a bad, bad person that no one should trust and who can't be believed and that this person just doesn't think like the ever virtuous "we" think.  (These terrible reporters and...their viewing audience, presumably?  They know how their viewing audience ought to be thinking?)  Their message is that the person whose quote they are trying with lightning suddenness to undermine simply doesn't think like they, the opinion shaping Horri-spondent, knows that good folks ought to think!

     That is a sad, shabby horrible type of news correspondent to be.  I'm seeing them more and more.  I think they should just be referred to as Horri-spondents, and their companies should be contacted and informed that we could use a little bit of professionalism and some convincingly feigned neutrality from the people they hire to be the mouth piece that informs us about the day's news.  News watchers of every stripe deserve that much, and this recent habit of giving us their assurance that the utterances of prominent persons are 'baseless and unfounded' before the echo of whatever was said even dies down??  Bad reporting at best.  And it comes from Horri-spondents who are completely aware that they are making up their slipped in refutations of the offending quotes on the fly from thin air in a great many cases.

     And while they are reforming themselves, perhaps the coming Global Warming Ultra Uber Mega Catastrophe could quit being a "complete Scientifucally prioven certainty 'for sursies and pinky swear' ".   After all, they spend all of their time moving the goal posts for the Climate Apocalypse's attival and redefining what it is that constitutes evidence of it even existing at all.  Meanwhile, the plants thrive, the birds sing, and the rain falls and the crops grow in every corner of the world, just like they did before the New World Order crazies started pushing this latest strategy for an appointed, not elected powerful world-controlling government consisting of ...drum roll please...oh yeah...them!   The same people working the puppeteer strings on the "pretending the planet is imperiled" scam.   It's imperiled, by gosh and for sure, and only placing them in charge of it all, for the good of all people, nations, and faiths, could possibly ever save it.  I could use a little bit less of that in the news casts too, please!  They have, after all, never saved even one single planet.  And their big reveal solution for it all is that there should be about 90% fewer human beings on the planet.  Any volunteers to help make their wonderful plan come to fruition?  Yeah, me neither.