You will remember--as this blog says about every other day--that I recommend BOYCOTTING the unfiar and unbalanced network, but that I also recommend boycotting TT&T/Yahh/ABC News, who combine for my disgraceful "default" Yahoo "News" page (which I keep just to keep up WITH LEFTIST PROPAGANDA--it beig less time consuming than surfing the unfair and unbalanced netwokr or CNN).
How do tahese things relate: my 89 year ol dmother, AT&T an dthe unfair and unbalanced netowrk (namely my BOYCOTT of that network). Amazingly enough, they DO relate. AT&T has actually JOINED my bycott of the unfair and unbalanced network--or at least has FORCED lots of people to joijn my boycott. It this an attempt by AT&T to curry FAVOR with this blog, becaue of AT&T didgraceful support of Yahoo "News'? I know Hacker Boy (Piers Morgan, or some other hacker out of the News Corps hacker network howho regularly hacks into this blog), but I have often noted that this blog SEEMS to have much more influence than would appear from the SMALL audience. Hacker Boy would say that this is just another example of my megalomania, because AT&T has no idea I even exist. AHacker Boy would say that the AT&T action was just MERCENARY, or some sort of "business dispute".
What am I talking abou? AT&T has DROPPED the unfair and unbalanced network--at least in El Paso--from its "basic" (cheapest) Uverse TV package. AT&T has KEPT CNN, MSNBC, HLN, and similar networks in its "basic" TV package. You can see that AT&T, especailly in a relatively poor city like El Paso, is FORCING lots of people to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. My own mother, for example, is now officially part of my BOYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced network. She would NOT do i FOR HER SON--and she does not red this blog, although I have told here about the boycott---but she WILL do it because AT&T has forced her to consider whether she really neds the unfair and unbalanced network This is only PARTLy because AT&T is ASKING MORE MONEY. AT&T (really a pretty disgraceful company) gave my mother the RUNAROUND (infinite hold and people who keep referring you to other peple), when she tried to find out why her TV suddenly did not carry the unfair and unbalanced network. Yep., The Uvrse basic service HAD carfried the network up until about two weeks or so ago,, and AT&T did not exactly ANNNOUNCE that the service was changing. Further, my mother could not get a coherent answer (partly because sheis no longre good at this kind of communication, but these TV "package" arraangements would try tthe patience of a saint, and the communicatian skils of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan). So it is ADIOS to the nfair and unbalanced network, as AT&T has clearly RECRUITED more people to my boycott than theis blog ever haad any hope of converting. Is this an accident, or did this blog have something to do with it? Just asking.
My mother, by the way, AGREES wtih me that the unfair and unbalanced network has been getting steadily WORSE. She, too, has found it hardly worth watching. However, she is 89 years old. I find myself this way at "only" 64. She was USED to the unfair and unbalanced network. She is on oxygen (as a lifelong smoker until she ended up this way) 24 hours a day . She does nto walk very well. In shrot, although she is still alert and lives alone, my moterh is SHUT IN her house (even more than my owhn hermit existgence). She no longer drives, and really simply does not leave her house. Thus, she usually has the TV on as BACKGROUND, if for no other reason. It is alos a way of KEEPNG TIME. O'Reiilly and Greta and Hannity come on at a set time every day, and my motehr is USED tao that schedule. She even knos the WEEKEND schedule of the unfair and unbalanced netwokrk (at least the evening schedule), which is more than I do.
Why should the unfair and unbalanced network be WORRIED.? You should be able to guess this one. Now that AT&T ha FORCED my mother to join her son's boycott (more strictlyl than her son follows his own boycott), my mother gets to test whether she MISSES the unfair and unbalanced network. She does ntot. It gets worse. She has switched to CNN as her "background companioin" in the house, and she SEES NO DIFFERENCE. As this blog has stated, neither do I.
Is the unfair and unbalanced network headig for a fall? I tend to think so. IF CNN wer to actually get away from its AGENDA coverage, could people go BACK to CNN, and give it more audience than a test pattern? Mayb. Of course, this is FANTASY. The reason that the unfair and unbalanced network is no better than CNN is a current JOURNALISM problem, and noot jsut a problem of "bias". Present da 'journalists" are NOT INTERESTED in actual information, in contrast to agenda. See Michael Crichton's great book, "Airframe". Plus, "jounalists" are now TAUGHT this junk, and the people coming out of "journalism" school are almost ALLL leftists (even far leftists). Taht is ture of the peole hired by the unfair and unbalanced network, as well as for CNN and the rest. In addition, these people almost ALL use the DESPICABLE Associated Press. It is no mystery that these peole all apear to think down similar paths, even if the unfair and unbalanced network may still ut on a few more conservative "voices' in their OPINION coverage. Even here, I find PANELS on the unfaira nd unbalanced network to be now NO DIFFERENT from panels on the mainstream media networks. Theese people are pretty much CLONES of one another--the SLIGHTLY "establishment GOP" views "pushed" on the unfair and unbalanced network being no more than a NUANCE "different" from the views on CNN. My kind of conservative or Rush Limbuagh's kind? Forget it. Ron Paul's kind of conservative? Forget it. NONE of f these people are worth listening to, except to see how STUPID our "establishment" has really become. I automatically discard everything these peole say, except to read between the lines, using the FEW actual FACTS given--using MULTIPLE "surf" sources. If not for my eyesight, I would actually range even wider, on the internet especailly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).