an outsiders inside view

The most contentious aspect of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9, 2009 was not the award recipient himself, but the general media reaction to the announcement around the world.

We now live within a media landscape in print, television, and online that theoretically increases the amount of news that can be distributed and the amount of individuals that have access to news. You can’t escape the “news”;  it’s on 24 hours a day. However, the definition of journalism and news has changed, and finding a news source that follows the journalistic tenet of ” true, accurate and fair ” reporting is as rare these days as encountering a virgin named Britney; it’s probably not gonna happen in our lifetime. Add to that a news consuming population almost unanimously high on legal prescription drugs (does anyone wonder why the pharmaceutical industry has reaped record profits in the same period that autism, adhd, and depression rates have soared or is it just me), diseased by air pollution (can you say record numbers in the petroleum business folks?), and generally weakened by a diet of unsafe food and beverage additives that make a Chinese toy factory look like a nature reserve and you create the ideal breeding ground for conditions that brought us the likes of Hitler and Stalin. All the opinion polls in the world will not erase the fact that the majority of the earth’s population can’t read and doesn’t own a computer and consequently didn’t take part in the statistics being presented as Holy Grail.

Case in point: International reporting on the breaking news of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Almost every single major news website opened with the information that “the award has always been presented to someone after they accomplished something” (or words to that effect). This statement is false, untrue, just plain lying…and easily disproved by examining the previous list of winners. Why then, is the statement repeated in each and every article or broadcast? Someone forgot to fact check and the zombies are eating it up like brain cakes. Or the lead in many articles about the story stating “The highly contested” award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama (apparently we don’t have to use the polite term of President anymore when referring to this one). I want to know WHO (or Whom as the case may be)  is contesting the award, and are there enough of these “WHOS” to warrant putting this sentence in every article about the story, don’t you? Just saying that something is true, doesn’t make it a fact despite the entrance of “truthiness” into Webster’s dictionary.

I believe that the general opposition by media outlets and the blabbering idiots and journalistic hacks (I’m talking to all of you now!) getting paid by them is because we have finally been graced with “the real thing”. A leader with the courage, vision, and power to change the world. That’s what they’re all afraid of. Someone who has a good chance of making the world a better place for all of us. All of us except those who’ve been getting rich off our suffering and pain, those who don’t want the human race to succeed further than serving them, those who have demonically and without shame disposed of everyone in their way…everyone until this man came along and ruined their evil plan. The Nobel committee is then the last bastion of good, the final frontier of hope for the human race-they’re still rich enough to not be bought. And President Obama is still true to his promise of change-and this truth that outshines any “truthiness” imposters is what has been recognized and rewarded so that we all might hope and dream of a better tomorrow.