It is interesting to watch the way our MSM beats around the bush. Take a Rand Paul story. Rachel Maddow interviewed the guy who looked like a total phony and asked him if he would vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and also should all the establishments not discriminate. Of course, he answers Aye to the first and Nay to the second; he runs on the libertarian platform, what do you expect? The problem is not with Rand Paul; it is with the question. The proper question should be:
-Dr. Paul, if a private establishment discriminates by color, ethnicity or other means, a)Would you become a patron of such establishment and b) As a lawmaker what would you propose to do about such establishments?
See, the issue should be with the reality. Here's a person who wants to become a lawmaker and here's a country which already had been functioning under certain laws. If the future lawmaker somehow considers doing nothing when confronted with the unlawful situation we will find it out when he answers the properly asked question and vice- versa. Put him on the defensive. Ask him what would he do? But there wasn't such question, not even close. And no one else, none of the MSM people who discussed this even mentioned such question. Why?
As I have said, MSM beats around the bush about 99% of the time. The real reason for asking dumb questions is the expectation of the dumb answers. The whole idea of that dialogue as well of countless other dialogues of that nature is to do anything but connecting the dots. It would be a total disaster for any MSM pundit to be consistent on any issue; in short, every event, interview or report are never associated with anything bigger and have no goal other then" yes, entertain. It is entertainment and it cannot be disturbing. You cannot ask the proper question because such question if wrongly answered immediately makes all the good people of Kentucky who voted for that guy at least morons if not malicious bigots. Rand Paul answering something abstract in the views area is Rand Paul, the man; Rand Paul specifying what would he do is an elected candidate-lawmaker, the hope of his constituents. Caught my drift?
I could never figure out when did that happen. On what stage of the journalistic career do they whisper all those unwritten rules into the rookie's ear; when does the fresh young person becomes an SOB on the retainer? Rachel Maddow is not that bad. Others are worse. But all of them seem to KNOW some secret- how to discuss the topic without actually addressing it. It is the highest art of whoring- the one on the molecular level.