Microscopic Life

Public persons are living under microscopes. Media which is all-powerful, isn't satisfied with what one says or does, it goes far too far. We who view and listen are confused naturally, by all of the speculation and conjecture that surrounds those who serve us. Do we believe what we read or see or hear as reliable plain truth? Or do we try, in some way, to sift through the morass and extract what is the actual truth, whatever that means. We, the public, are wafted about in the tsunami, one wave on top of the next, of one side against the other,  and are left to make decisions about which one is truth. Most disturbing and frightening it is, to know that what we see is not always what we get. We of the general public, the consumers, the voters who trust, the average people, are simply trying to eke out every day working, living good lives and having faith in the institutions that are supposed to care and protect us in our country, find it frustrating. We have only the media as our source in learning how our land is governed, who is to be trusted and what our part is, in it all. We want truth and openness but where is it? The media is the one force that should help. It is just as wide and long and high as the opinions it seeks toward truth. Pundits, professors and those who are close to the issues that matter, all have sides and opinions. Of course they may be knowledgeable, but are they reliable? They must serve their own takes on issues and they are not in agreement with each other, naturally. They have lives just the same as ours. They breathe, live and work.  We, like innocents, try to absorb all of the sides and then attempt to interpret them for our own needs. We want security in the people who we elect, we consume from, we trust to serve us, we live next to. The media tries to bring to us, only information and do it objectively. But is that possible? Media chooses those they interview. Media extracts from the interviews, what they consider relevant to the issues, but they add to it, or take from it, segments that are "salable". If they are public institutions as media and not the commercial variety, they have to maintain regardless of their mandate, what is deemed "popular" and appealing, therefore. We, the audiences, are known for our love of sensation. Media is well aware of this feature of their listeners, readers and viewers, and they give us what we want. It must never be forgotten that media has methods to cut short or off, or re-vamp, their primary sources, so that we are not necessarily able to take in raw news. News is spun like a web, to both inform for response, and capture emotions. Those who study Popularism know what we like and don't like, what bores us and what feeds our egos. If successful, it ends up as money-in-the-bank for them. They are not ghouls but something like it. They feed on us as much as we feed on them. We have to form conclusions very carefully, and believe me, it is not easy. Is it?