Essays in Idleness

The most telling argument against the Ukrainian side (versus Putin) may be seen and heard from virtually any mass medium in the West. The Bafflegaberatti, as I shall call them, are overwhelmingly pro-Zelensky (the Ukrainian Caesar-of-the-moment). How does this tell against him? … you may ask.

It has sometimes happened, in the modern world, that a defensible, intelligent, and honest proposition has been embraced by the Bafflegaberatti, for an evanescent moment. Perhaps that is what is happening now — the light showing through — as it did for several days after “9/11.” And perhaps not. But when the newscasters all agree, on the airwaves for more than a week, my suspicions are passionately aroused.

The mass media are, in my experience (from decades of having worked for them), characteristically false and misleading, to a frightful degree. Their customers, “the people,” are also badly informed, but only because they are tipped off by their idiot boxes. By following instead my rule-of-thumb — that anything generally believed and promoted by the talking heads of commercial broadcasting is likely to be malicious, and yet imbecile — it is sometimes possible to understand current events, at least in outline.

So what went wrong this time?

My speculation is that things which happen fairly suddenly, in the perception of the media, have a way of “cutting through the shit.” Given time (say, two weeks) we will be getting essential falsehoods again, if we are not receiving them already. In the meantime, the modest details of an underlying truthful account will be botched and misrepresented.

The “fog of war” will be held accountable. This results from the reporting of something, when nothing is known.

For the Prince of This World is its principal newscaster.