From an extremely different era 17

A 1950 ‘meet the press’ style program had 5 reporters talking with Betty Hutton. Atypically the preserved recording is an uncut version, with frequent ‘offstage’ pauses where the reporters try to figure out who goes next, or check with Hutton to see if a question is acceptable. She had an interesting life. Like most reporters in those days, she learned on the job starting at age 7, and got her first big NYC break at 15.

One of the questions was about Senator Johnson’s proposal to license actors. Everyone hated it, and everyone could see that licensing reporters was next on the menu. “It’s certainly an infringement on freedom of expression.” “It’s like licensing a dog or something.” “Well, I just want to get a license to hunt congressmen.”

Who was Senator Johnson? Was this part of the HUAC commie hunt that finally fizzled out with Roy Cohn’s boytoy McCarthy? One online source gives this account:

Famed actress Ingrid Bergman’s adulterous affair with Italian film director Roberto Rossellini caused in international scandal and a civil liberties crisis in the U.S. On this day, Senator Edwin Johnson (D-Colorado) delivered a vituperative attack on both Bergman and Rossellini and proposed a law that would require the U.S. Commerce Department to license actors, actresses, and film producers, and permit the department to revoke licenses if found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude, or publicly admitting to such conduct.

It wasn’t McCarthy, it was morality. Licensing was presented as an extension of the existing semi-official Hayes Code into official law.

So this is really comparable to today’s #MeToo, not comparable to today’s #FUCKTRUMP.

But in both situations the response of the 1950 actors and reporters was opposite to today’s actors and reporters. Both modern groups are enthusiastic supporters of hunting down political heretics AND hunting down “scandalous immorality”.

Note especially that Johnson was D. Many of the 1950 red-baiters, including JFK, were also D. The reporters wanted to hunt down CONGRESSMEN, not REPUBLICANS.

As fucking always, the Fairness Doctrine worked. It forced reporters to think in terms of power and class, not R and D team labels.

In fact radio reporters were already licensed. Like a hunting license, the Fairness license prevented monopolistic hunting of one species to extinction, and tried to maintain balance. Restriction is not always bad.

Probably right

Saagar and Krystal interviewed Dylan Ratigan about stocks and crashes. Before they got into the subject, Ratigan offered up a more likely scenario for the Young vs Rogan “fight”.

Rogan wants this “fight” because he wins either way. If Spotify fires him, he gets a massive payout from the terms of his contract, and he can immediately start up his own fully independent servers and channels in competition with Spotify. If Spotify doesn’t fire him, he continues making millions and dominating the landscape within Spotify.

This makes tremendous sense. As I’ve been pointing out, censorship is OFTEN triggered by the “controversial” author or actor or movie studio, because censorship is a great selling point. The outraged activists don’t know who they’re really working for.

On second thought, I’ll bet they do know who they’re working for. The Inner Party always knows the truth.

THEY KNOW IT’S A HOAX BECAUSE THEY’RE CREATING THE HOAX.

= = = = =

Later, a more positive thought. Rogan is actually reinstating the Fairness Doctrine by sheer market force. He proved that huge numbers of people are HUNGRY for a relatively nonpartisan and balanced source of news and opinion. When the FD was repealed in the ’80s, all media abandoned the concept and turned back to the pre-radio newspaper approach, where each station or paper has an immediately recognizable partisan brand. When FD was in effect, radio had proved consistently that nonpartisan content SELLS. The FD forced radio stations to compete on quality, not on mindless repetition of a single phrase like BENGHAZI or JANUARY6VIOLENTINSURRECTION. The mantra approach attracts SOME people, but it disgusts and repels people who are hungry for nonpartisan quality. Those people didn’t disappear from the country, they just turned off the TV and radio.

Abstractification

Kirn points out that journalism is now purely involuted, purely about other journalism.

The trend started a long time ago. It seemed to coincide with the rebirth of Deepstate in 1946. Before the switch, radio news was realistic, and radio entertainment was empathetic. You could recognize real events in the news, and you could recognize real people doing real things in entertainment.

Radio followed Fibber’s rule. If it couldn’t happen in Peoria, it can’t happen on the show.

Lately I’ve been trying to include some post-1950 radio comedies in my bedtime playlist. It doesn’t work. It’s just TV without pictures. The characters are NYC aliens, not humans. They never make a lick of sense. The phone rings for 5 minutes while the characters speculate about who is calling and why. The man is supposed to be an executive at work, but he doesn’t even know how to be a vague generic executive. He does things no executive would ever do. Mostly he just babbles about nonexistent shit.

At every stupid line I find myself shouting NOBODY EVER DID THAT! NOBODY EVER SAID THAT! ANSWER THE FUCKING DOORBELL! GET TO WORK, DAMMIT!

Not conducive to sleep.

Entertainment has always included an element of the absurd, but radio in the 30s and prewar 40s was much closer to reality and much more empathetic. Scriptwriters, like journalists, had real job experience and knew real people. If you were a mechanic, you wouldn’t shout at the mechanic character. If you were an executive, you wouldn’t shout at the executive character. If you were a housewife, you wouldn’t shout at the housewife character.

The shift was most clearly marked in This is your FBI, officially endorsed and approved by Lady Edgar. The show started in early ’45. Some episodes dealt with famous crimes, easily recognizable despite changed names. All episodes were located in real cities, at realistic addresses. People had realistic ethnic names, and cars were specifically identified. ’39 Hudson, ’41 Buick.

After 1947 the episodes turned abstract. Cities were A Large City Along The Atlantic Seaboard or A Middle-Sized Midwestern City. People had strictly English surnames like Taylor and Parker and Adams. Mayflower names. Not even any Scotch or Irish, let alone Russian or Italian or Jewish. Addresses were 111 Oak Street and 610 Front Street. Cars were A Black Sedan or A Red Convertible Of A Popular Make.

Why would Deepstate want to abstractify all entertainment and news? That’s easy. When you attempt to portray reality, people can check your shit against their own experience. A carpenter can verify your carpenter character, and a Dubuque resident can verify your Dubuque address, even if it’s thinly disguised. When everything is ephemeral and abstract, there’s no possible way to check and verify. You’re free to create new fake realities.

THEORY KILLS. EXPERIENCE SURVIVES.

Not a conflict

I’ve made a habit of watching all Batya interviews, at least until they turn boring. I know Batya’s story by now, but she has the old-fashioned journalistic knack of interviewing the interviewer. The interviewer’s story is sometimes interesting.

This clip with three Bros got boring soon, with the Bros doing the usual Bro things about Fasting and Keto and Supplements and Hitting The Gym and Weightlifting A Thousand Reps, and Everyone Is Morbidly Obese. Crap. Americans used to be skinny because we smoked, not because we hit the gym.

Before that point, the Bros were asking an important question. Now that everything is based on the subscriber model, how can you hope to get unbiased news from any media at all?

It’s not a conflict, and it’s NOT NEW. As I’ve been pointing out for years, newspapers used to depend mainly on subscribers, and each paper had its own explicitly advertised viewpoint.

BEFORE GLOBALIZATION UNIFIED AND MONOPOLIZED EVERY FUCKING THING, a town of 200 people typically had one weekly paper, and a town of 5000 had two competing papers. Before a dozen unnecessary expenses became mandatory for all businesses, it was POSSIBLE to survive on a few hundred loyal subscribers. Smart papers did everything possible to keep the subscribers loyal.

Now we’re back to the same situation, aided by a few gutsy blogging and writing platforms that (SO FAR) resist the pressures of ideological compliance. Substack, WordPress, Rumble and others, now make it possible to run your own small-town weekly, with the same amount and type of content, and it’s possible to make a basic living that way. The typical Substack newsletter has “hundreds” of subscribers paying $5 a month. If you don’t need lawyers and accountants and Diversity compliance officers and EPA compliance officers and CDC Nazi mandate officers, you can live on that.

So it’s not a conflict now, provided those gutsy platforms don’t all get shut down.

As I’ve also been pointing out for years, radio in the 30s and 40s was the source of relatively unbiased news.

People EXPECTED newspapers to favor their own tastes. Competing brands are healthy for business. Paying for value AS YOU PERCEIVE IT is the key to real honest business.

The Fairness Doctrine FORCED radio to be unbiased, and it WORKED. There was no way for a station to gain more advertisers by breaking the fairness rules. So stations had to compete by increasing quality, not by increasing bias.

But the Fairness Doctrine was only strict for 30 years, and was repealed in the ’80s. So it’s not a permanent solution. In all eras, the real source of unbiased info has ALWAYS been your own senses and experience, with no interference or mediation from leaders or media.

BE YOUR OWN BEACON.

Hint of the Fairness Doctrine?

Batya is impressively non-partisan. She’s an elite Jew who had been writing conventional elite stuff in mainly Jewish publications. A few years ago she stood back and realized that the elite media was genocidal. Trump gave them permission and ammunition in their long war of attrition against normal working people.

Now Batya is closer to the old-fashioned leftists of the FDR era. Government should attempt to level the ECONOMIC system, but should STAY THE FUCK OUT OF CULTURE AND LIFE.

I’ve been watching a bunch of her interviews and haven’t seen a Gotcha yet. In fact she tends to blame the D side more than necessary for the long war of attrition on the working class. Batya says that Clinton started the offshoring. No, it was WELL underway by then. Nixon started it and every president since Nixon has continued it. Clinton finished repealing FDR’s bank and stock regulations, but even there he didn’t start the process.

She’s currently an editor of Newsweek, which made me think: If Newsweek employs her, are they ALSO trying for fairness in general, or are they just using her as a symbol? After reading the website, the answer is tentatively and cautiously Yes. Far from perfect but closer to objective than either of the “sides”.

The mainstream side has been murdering and destroying civilization for 200 years. Pure evil. The dissident side is trying to survive, trying to maintain reality, but often overstates the threats to bring in more clicks and donations. The dissident side also overstates the power of protest, which is dangerous and suspicious. Protests are always run by Deepstate.

In other words, we have two false premises.

Mainstream’s premise is pure Nazi:
All peasants must be EXTERMINATED.

Dissident’s premise unfortunately serves the purposes of the mainstream.
We must exert our rights and protest the extermination!

When you have zero power, exerting your “rights” only identifies you for easy extermination. Effective change must happen among people with SOME power, like corporate executives and governors and media editors.

At the start of the genocide in March 2020, the monstrosity WAS universal. But as sane governors started to exert their power and GUTS, a more messy picture has resulted. Despite constant noise and threats, the Federal level has NOT used its power to bring the sane states back in line. Biden has been in office for a year and nothing has really changed at the state level. Sane states are still sane and demonic states are still demonic.

Newsweek is trying to describe this messy picture without starting from either of the two false premises. I hope they can continue, but I expect they will fall in line with the Deepstate norm.