By Meta-Content Generator A.J. Liebling with
Social Media Expert Sir Nigel Gottgelt de Murdox
What's the latest grave threat posed to our children that consumes hundreds of hours of Congressional and cable news bloviating?
Is it the repeal of vaccine mandates after a pandemic killed tens of thousands of them?
Is it the insane repeal of gun laws protecting our kids from being massacred by machine guns at recess? or
Is is the unimpeded global warming that threatens to make huge swaths of the Earth uninhabitable for millions of children here and around the world?
Of course not. Those are real problems.
The real threat to our youths we are told is in their pockets (which is what Victorian prudes thought too): their smartphones. The fear and loathing attached to kids consuming social media has landed on all front pages. The alleged news peg was a suggestion from the U.S. Surgeon General seeking a warning label on social media accessed by children and adolescents (the insane proliferation of insurrection-inducing lies directed at supporters of the Tangerine-Faced Felon not being a problem at all, apparently).
Smartphones, like other solitary pastimes enjoyed by kids before such as television, comic books, and rocket polishing are linked to all kinds of horrible things, not including seeking the overthrow of U.S. democracy, white supremacy, and misogyny, among other real social ills.
Even the normally gullible New York Times had to point out some inconvenient truths:
For many years, researchers have tried to determine whether the amount of time a child spent on social media contributed to poor mental health, and “the results have been really mixed, with probably the consensus being that no, it’s not related,” said Dr. Mitch Prinstein, the chief science officer at the American Psychological Association....
“It’s kind of like saying, ‘Is the number of calories that you eat good for you or bad for you?’” said Dr. Prinstein, ...“It depends. Is it candy, or is it vegetables? If your child is spending all day on social media following The New York Times feed and talking about it with their friends, that’s probably fine, you know?”
Is it though?
The idea that promiscuous media consumption can hurt you, and that you deserve a warning to protect you is surely applicable to all media.
As part of our continuing effort to protect you, the social media consuming public, we propose our own warning labels that should be slapped on all kinds of media which if absorbed without warning, could lead to terrible effects, up to and including installing a corrupt Russian-owned sex offender as President of our United States.
For example, we have long known that reading and believing any number of New York Times op-ed columnists can lead to utter brain rot.
Let's protect ourselves, like this:
WARNING: This columnist supports anti-trans bigotry and hatred while whining hypocritically about cancel culture and should not be taken seriously by any fair-minded reader.
WARNING: This distinguished expert in Italian smoked and cured deli meats has passed off lazy generalizations as argument, while peddling a conservative both-sides myth that attempts to let his fellow Republicans off the hook for their angry violent support of white supremacy, plutocracy and Christian extremism. You should disregard everything he says.
WARNING: This champion of undeserved white Irish reactionary privilege platforms the racist lies of her so-called brother Kevin. Her facile both-siding in 2016 and her blind rage against Hillary Clinton for being married aided immensely, and possibly decisively, the election of the Tangerine-Faced Felon, who went on to install Supreme Court Justices she now is shocked to learn took away the rights of women. If you see her in Georgetown, do not try to engage her, unless you are safely accompanied by a celebrity.
This warning label idea seems so powerful it would be a shame to restrict it to just our favorite wypopo columnists at the Times. It could apply to entire publications, right at the top of their home pages:
Of course, the power of the warning label isn't limited to legacy print media by any means. It can apply to broadcast outlets who propagate reactionary lies masquerading as news in violation of their FCC licenses, which require them to serve the public interest as a public trustee:
Speaking of public service, the Pulitzer jury knows how to reach us. We think.
No comments:
Post a Comment