Jules and the CNN pix

[john wells]

Tom Gorman wrote:
> 
> Jules: ... Just one other
> comment: a few people, including yourself just now, have in their
> comments about the CNN footage allowed the possibility that Pynchon is
> not in any of those street scenes at all--i.e., that CNN is participating in a
> hoax. I'd have to put that one down as far-fetched.

Why? The media does stuff like that routinely. 

> ... if anyone
> thinks TRP is not in any of the footage, I'd be interested in theories on
> why CNN would go along with a hoax. Not sure what they'd have to gain
> by it.  

Ratings and big bucks! Remember the explosive put under the pickup to
make the gas tank explode "spontaneously" in  a broad side accident on
NBC(?) in a widely publicized news story about unsafe pickups? The video
of that staged "accident" with the "spontaneous" explosion wasn't news,
it was performance art!

Television media is becoming more like the tabloids everyday. Their
lead-ins suggest interesting stories "Coming Up!" so you don't change
the channel, then they hang on to that story through 25 minutes of
advertising interrupted by news and, when they finally get to it, too
often there wasn't much to it at all. They care less and less about
content, they just don't want you to change the channel. BECAUSE THAT's
WHERE THE RATINGS ARE, and that is what determines how much they can
charge for their advertising time.

A "HOOK" like the ever reclusive Thomas Pynchon, famous author of a new
best-selling novel "maybe" being visible in their news broadcast, would
be too much to pass up.
They haven't lied, so it isn't actually a hoax, and they've kicked up a
lot of curiousity that amounts to free advertising for CNN on the net
and in this list -- that's bucks, big bucks, over the long term.

I've already copied the CNN shots generously posted from members on this
list and that's advertising that they don't have to pay for. It'd be
even better for them if the pictures got published in the print media, a
free color advert for CNN. It'd make more people watch CNN and that
makes more money.

I'm surprised that anyone would think that what they see in the media is
rigidly true.
Oh, they try of course, but they are not averse to bending their own
investigative journalism results for a better (i.e. more scandalous)
story. Remember the Food Lion scandal for which the news media were
sued? The story wasn't entirely false, but it was bent to make it
horrifically worse than it was, and to make the accusing journalists
"heroes" when they were actually more like witch-hunting propagandists,
bent more on destroying "the opposition" (ie the subject of their story,
Food Lion) than on telling the truth.

If you don't believe me, go to any media outlet, print or tv, when a
picket line is up and try to interview anyone, ANYONE, in the picket
line. No one is more paranoid in talking to the media than a person
who's employed by the media, from the janitors on up.

Excuse me for ranting, but I've worked for these loons all my life.

Jack