A thin collective consciousness hangs like a canopy, while the insulated words of journalists chronically stitch themselves to the universal mind. I suppose the onus plagues the journalists, due to the desired result from the populace. And rightfully so. Many writers, however, refuse to write extensively (as they pray for clicks) and you can look to sports journalism, celebrity coverage and any other speculative outlets.
Realize false idols.
Do you really care about numbing yourself? If you did, you wouldn't wait for cellphone notifications to feed you rumors and speculative (à la an avoidable consumeristic impatience). The truth is, you're entitled, too. Why does one opinion have to matter more than the other, especially when shoddy reasoning is present in both?
The sadness falls in the search for the truth, but for the truth to unfurl, actions must happen. Journalism is all about multiple accounts, a basis for a democratic system.
Incendiary journalism is cool and juicy, all while narcotizing the core of the half-assed truth-searchers (à la the unreasoned), right?
Question.
Using the logic of 20th century linguist Alfred Korzybski, who made people rethink intentions and meanings, the way we communicate is encoded within linking abstractions. Language is one of these, and can be further described in this video of Korzybski.
After watching this, if one wants to engage skeptically, intentions can never be promulgated, leaving response (via the physical) as the most logical conclusion. Abstractions make words a way to communicate, and are supposed to be taken literally. Note: this doesn't mean that they are literal, for the apple is solely a textual representation or substitution of the real, general image of an apple.
This may seem like common sense, but do you ever think of dystopia as a world where everything is concrete and irrefutable?
Language is imperfect, as there remain many barriers and I realize that preaching for more reason would amplify the amount of language needed in a particular conversation. Language resonates as a blanket statement, almost as a compromising to communicate, all while letting the imagination run into a frenzy.
We are too unsubstantiated as a society, and don't accept reasoning; rather, we'd find justifiability in phrases like: "it's good because it is."
The entertainment industry, with its headline philosophy, has likely numbed and exhausted all of this. Meanwhile, who holds the writers accountable?
Safety words like "if," "could" and "may" protect the writer; think of this as a succumbing sentence, such as: "The truth currently has not been divulged enough for me to confirm it."
Unsubstantiated opinions have a tendency to become saturated. Ubiquitous trash.
Transcend dehumanization.
Writers have many travails, if they are sincere, in terms of promoting the truth or what seems to be truth.
It's on the public to decipher if that listicle's intention is to raise public consciousness, cross-promote or indoctrinate opinions into your head. Feeding Moloch, who you can draw your own conclusion to here, or not feeding Moloch is concluded by questioning the true means of reality and who to believe.
Do you have to, if the analogy is clear, pray to entertainment? Do you have to feed the tyrannical beast? If the world wants to be different, then steer clear of the identical headlines "sweeping" you off of your feet, write honesty (from the heart) and think differently.
Isn't life all speculative?
That's the way society goes...for now.
