Well-done, Mr. Naureckas. Increasingly, the FRAMES chosen by mass media's most widely-quoted "sources" purposely shift the narrative away from Truth.
While the 911 Official Narrative reportage didn't begin this trend, it sure accelerated it.
Once the nation was "at war," any journalist who questioned the necessity for the use of massive militarism was painted as unpatriotic or worse.
And with simplistic "with us, or against us" frames ultimately working from the Biblical polarization between good and evil, and fitting equally into the sports' world's emphasis on "winners and losers," all shades of gray went missing.
PR strategists have studied polled responses and done audience testing on buzz words, colors, and musical scores. Taken together, they've made logistical progress into the ways and means to facilitate low-grade streams of ongoing mind control. Now a dark mastered art.
These managed feedback loops take the place of news and honest information, and since so few people can handle living as social outcasts, the current of Bull-shit passing for what's true carries the vast majority.
Nonetheless, given Truth's inviolate capacity to pierce the din with its own light, millions ARE waking up. If that were not the case, majorities would not poll in favor of things like a decimation to the MIC budget, a genuine health care plan for all, an end to corporations purchasing elections and candidates, and so much else.
As George Lakoff instructed, frames DO matter. And Mr. Naureckas, you show how the frame focused upon ANGER (as if it appears by spontaneous generation) takes the spotlight off the regular expressions of police violence granted impunity within a sickeningly racist, increasingly policed state.
Like so many other things the Washington Post won't tell you.
In fact, I'd say that the more important the reality that needs to be said, the less likely it will be said by the Washington Post or the New York Times (or Le Monde or the Times of London, for that matter). Excellent analysis by Naurekas of the weasely subterfuges by which mainstream journalism not only avoids the real issues but falsifies them and replaces them with dubious constructs meant to obscure.
The corpress paints a portrait of "a city on fire"
But avoids the question of who lights the match
My generation grew to a constant drumbeat of voices teaching us myths that society wants us all to believe - and my suspicion is that it was not just my own generation. Among those myths were a lot of "truths" that certain people should be trusted absolutely. The President of course, whoever he was (always a he of course) would never lie or mislead. And police are only there to help; police would never treat us wrong and we should trust them absolutely. And of course we learn that anyone who breaks the rules must be simply a bad person who deserves only punishment.
The things we are told as children are things we learn well and if we ever learn otherwise it comes as a great shock. Whether it is religion or the myth that police unerringly deal out justice, some people just never face up to the notion that the rules of thought they were taught babies might not be absolutely the truth. Cognitive dissonance its called, and a lot of people simply deny it, perhaps because they just cannot handle it.
I think that is why so many people cannot look past rioting in the street to ask why. They already know the answer because they learned it on their mother's knee or perhaps from their first-grade teacher and they will not face the possibility that the world is more complex than that infant could understand.
But not everyone has this child-like view of the world. What is amazing is not that there are people who have failed to mature; no, it is that our MSM seems dominated by these people. If we don't believe this then we have to believe our MSM is consciously promoting this childlike view to the nation's citizens (and we wouldn't want to believe that, would we).
pecohen, I grew up in apartheid Miss'ssippi in the '60s. I wonder how I'd have evolved in a less blatantly racist milieu.
Would I have been more disposed to rationalize the reality of oppression? Would I have become a "compassionate conservative", or a "liberal" who felt confident that the band aids applied to the gaping wounds of a society divided and unequal were all that were necessary to "restore the promise of this great nation"?
For whatever reason, I couldn't close my eyes to the vicious prejudice that defined Dixie. The contradictions were too great.
And I think that having been exposed to the raw reality of racism innoculated me against the blandishments of a more filtered, more "civilized" manifestion of that malevolence.
It's a theory, at any rate.