Or so my mentor says.
I’m not making a judgment on whether Stokes is a corrupt political crony. The fact he was chosen to lead such a historically important office as the diversity commission in a state as honest as Rhode Island should be enough to tell you he’s a true blue American patriot.
The question people should be asking is why Projo is doing a hit piece on this particular guy.
Language is powerful.
For those who don’t know, Rhode Island is a state about a quarter the size of an average American county that boasts the power of providing two United States Senators, two-going-on-one Representatives, and the entire nation’s supply of coffee milk.
The Providence Journal, naturally owned by people from Texas, is a powerful political mouthpiece aimed at the 80+ aged population who still listen to it or can figure out how to subscribe to its online platform. It’s little more than a public relations machine for whoever has the pull to control it, which is why it never uses its immense and diminishing power to ask “What the fuck is going on in this state?” and why if it did, you should still be suspicious.
What interests me about this jarring hit piece isn’t the blatant political corruption or the fact that it’s running rampant, it’s that they chose this particular guy to run a piece on. That’s not an accident, someone pulled the trigger.
When Patrice O’Neal talked over a decade ago about Tiny Fey and a bunch of B-list actors calling out Tracy Morgan over some controversial things he said in a standup act— or was it using the word faggot? I forget— he gave an enlightening exposition on the machinations of the entertainment world.
And since news is entertainment, especially nowadays, it stands to reason that the same principles apply.
The takeaway point is that no one does these types of things without word coming down from the top. Stalin would be proud.
Whether permission or an order, someone signed off on taking a dump on this guy, whether it’s Tracy Morgan or… whoever this political appointee it is. It doesn’t matter. We’re glancing at the workings of the system. Fundamentals. And just like your relationship, you can decipher what’s going on from what doesn’t add up.
For context, Curt Schilling, avowed gamer and baseball player for the Red Sox, led the charge in 2012 for Rhode Island to finance a video game that turned out to be a disaster and lost the state a lot of money. It’s a fine example in a history of institutionalized money-losing debacles there, never mind that one of the most affluent states is consistently rated with the worst-maintenanced roads in the US, (it’s probably the salt in the air.)
The point is that it’s old news as far as the news is concerned… until it isn’t. They don’t give a crap in that state about the millions they lose every day to squandering and corruption.
What interests me is the psychology and the backroom politics of why this particular guy got put on blast in today’s post. They could have just as well said “John Smithfield saves a dozen kittens” or “John Smithfield kills a dozen kittens,” but Projo specifically decided to publish an article that said this guy just got hired and he’s getting a raise— from the Governor— and implying that’s bad. It doesn’t matter whether it is or isn’t bad.
There’s probably a hundred other crony positions they could have pointed out as equally deserving of criticism, but that’s not the point. A publication with the weight (i.e. interests i.e money) of Projo does few things accidentally. There was some backroom purpose to this article that we’ll never know but can only guess about.
The important part is to remember exactly that, not take it at face value. What are they *really* trying to tell us (i.e. tell us what to think)?
In a different timeline, they’d be extolling his virtues. Someone decided he should be condemned instead. Now that’s interesting.