I’m not going to provide links, or names. I have no desire to encourage clicks or promote what doesn’t even rise to the low bar offered by BAD journalism. Use Mr. Google.
Did you think the troublemakers were going away? Silly you.
It’s as if someone had Xeroxed the concept. Find an adviser, among many, and write an article that frames that as if that adviser will be the ONLY one making all decisions for Joe. 
One decision: that COVID vaccines go out to the rest of the world FIRST. The other: irresponsible corporate behavior will be tolerated, like dumping toxic chemicals that go into making the current form of Teflon.
One advisor advised DuPont; among many, when they made some very questionable corporate decisions: something they have a long history of doing, long before Teflon I flaked off into our food.
One advisor made the suggestion that the world get any COVID vaccine when it is ready. Not saying ONLY the world, and not us. But that’s how it was framed.
Isn’t framing a fun place to barely hide insinuation, slander, libel and outright lies?
Neither advisor will be the only one, in fact the COVID advisor will be one out of 15, if I remember right.
To me it’s as if one article was a clone of the other: they just switched the names, the nouns and specific insinuations and you have the same article. Articles designed for for people who don’t think beyond scaremongering.
Pause. Think this through…
In the case of the Teflon advisor he was doing his job, as slimy as that job may or may not have been, for DuPont. Is he merely a corporate shill, or someone who takes his job seriously? A good choice because he saw how this works, he KNOWS the tactics used, the ins and outs, from inside such corporations. NOT act like shill appointees so commonly appointed these days?
The automatic assumption here is he’ll be a corporate shill.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
If he were to be the ONLY advisor I might be more concerned.
In the case of the COVID advisor he never said ONLY the rest of the world will get any vaccine, it’s just framed that way. And, again; if he were to be the ONLY advisor I might be more concerned.
The problem being the public is too easy to assume what such articles insinuate is true, in this case, because we have had so many solid block of shill advisors in the past. And neither article has any disclaimer I saw that says, “This is just one out of many.”
Or say presidents ignore advice all the time.
The two articles could be clones; Mad Libing theior way into scaremongering. Expect more articles like this.
Remember: no one adviser doth a policy make. A good president listens to all kinds of advice. A good president selects advisers to get a diverse group of opinions. Then a good president decides: sometimes following some of the advice, sometimes not. Presidents ignore advice all the time.
The good presidents certainly don’t act like kings, act as if they know all, ignore advice, or are absolutely ruled by it. A good president gathers the finest, the best and different minds on differing topics… listens to then assesses which way to go. A good president is neither king, nor tyrannical business owner, who micromanages everything AND everyone. The worse ones act as if they are both. No adviser with bad, corrupt, advice might be listened to, certainly not obeyed.
Whew! Ye of little thought! We are safe… so far. Doesn’t matter if they become advisers, considering all this, even IF they have bad advice, or are shills.
If these articles had been boiled down into ONE article listing Biden advisers, concerns about their various opinions and previous positions, yeah, not a bad way to inform the public. Could be written with a skew, or as bipartisan as possible. Pay me good money, hell, I would do it right: objectively bipartisan, and do it well. Yes, despite being a columnist I could do it in a bipartisan manner. I have before.
A good writer would contact pundits and pols on all sides to see what their concerns are, list them, match them up with the other advisors, and match them up with who they might offend. Include any evidence which way Joe Biden may seem to be leaning without assuming that’s necessarily true. Sometimes they DO follow advice. The presence of any one advisor may mean nothing.
And writers even marginally claiming the journalism label don’t deliberately skew to scaremonger. Instead what we have here is two all too similar, boogeyman blowhard, politically driven, examples of non-journalism meant to outrage the left.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses, that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2020
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all rights reserved