Dear Dingo:
How is it that the our presidential turnip can get away with calling a free press, especially those news outlets run by educated and award winning journalists-- as "fake". The last time I checked the dictionary, "fake" meant a forgery or hoax. The 'Onion' could be considered fake, but not CBS or the NY Times. Why isn't the entire nation outraged?
Answer:
Yes, yes-- up until very recently, the term "fake" was easy to determine, as in: "hungry babies agree -- silicone breasts are indeed fake as these vesicles are unable to facilitate lactation".
Now "fake news" is an extremely confusing topic. Let's look at the "fake" and "failing" NY Times as an example:
A recent "fake news" headline suggests the Tappan Zee Bridge has been reconstructed and set to open soon.
Now, as a reader of NYT "fake news", does one simply assume that there is in fact, no bridge, and this event is not happening? Has the article been written in jest as a piece of satire? Will your car fall into the Hudson? Yes, a very confusing time indeed.
"Real news" apparently consists of unpresidented tweets, where one is to assume that the word "too" is now to be spelled as the word "to", and vice versa. With these confusing developments, there is simply not enough time in the day for national outrage. We must instead rewrite grammar books and map out new travel routes, avoiding those dastardly imaginary bridges invented by the fake NY Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment