Looking at willful ignorance through journalism.

Who funded the well-organized March For Our Lives? Who is footing Stormy Daniels' bills?

These are artificial stories, prepackaged and vetted with a secret team spinning the optics behind it.

And we ignore bigger trends afoot.

For example, Google "embezzled" and "board of education" and you will get this result: that there seems to be a serious problem with trusting people who work in school boards with money earmarked to educate children.

That is raw news, not the prepackaged sort.

That's why those stories fly under the radar, and "junk food" news gets national play.

Porn drudges and pawn teens are cheap and easy news. Someone gives the news media the press release and they go on without questioning the most basic of things.

Teens make very good pawns. As one psychologist I studied as an undergrad put it, they have a bad case of "pseudo-stupidity": their brains are almost fully developed (not until their mid-20s does that brain reach full maturity), but without life experience, they are prime pigeons to be used. Fascists before the Second World War exploited teens. Mao Tse-tung used them in his quest for power.

If you have ever dealt with teens, as I have as an educator, they aren't all that good at organizing themselves because they lack life experience.

Getting media coverage is difficult in a sea of social media. Getting prime real estate with positive coverage takes A-list professionals who are PR veterans.

But journalists will never disclose who is actually organizing or feeding them information because to reveal it would expose their own laziness and dependence on others to do the work for them.

The same goes for porn drudges who put out for rich men. They are a dime a dozen. For one to gain that kind of unquestioning attention means a power benefactor is not just footing her bills, but also finding the right team to manage the optics and the narrative.

Whenever we see a big movement, and the press gives it a free pass, the first question you should ask is Who is funding this group or person?

There will always be a source. Usually wealthy, white, and male.

Journalists see the press releases, and they know full well who is funding the spectacle, but as it gives them cheap and easy filler, they run with it. The propagandistic The Atlantic has even tried to inoculate readers from considering this possibility by claiming (very falsely) that philanthropy is being "demonized."

When you have the wealthy whose wealth comes from being a robber baron, and then they dole out their massive tax-write off to various causes, then yes, that is an evil thing to do. I don't want to overpay for services, and get gouged as my avenues for making my own wealth get stymied, and then have to rely on the mercy of the robber baron who fleeced me to decided where and how the money goes -- and then expect me to be grateful. 

That is the very definition of evil.

It is not up to the rich to decide things like that. If we all made the wage we have earned, then we have the freedom to pay for what we want and need on our own terms, thank you very much.

When I had my own new site Chaser News, I had a simple motto: Because every story has another story behind it. That came from my experience as a journalist.

People and groups who had attention always had something bigger advocating for them, and it didn't matter what issue it was. Even inmates who had the attention of advocacy groups had a better chance of getting positive press than those who fell beneath the cracks. They were vetted and they made a better "fit" for a news story than those who could not get the same attention.

It does not matter if a protest is on the Left or the Right: there is always channels to go through in order to gain the attention of the press who are notoriously brain dead when it comes to finding something or someone untested. They are always cribbing from one another (it is what the term "news peg" implies), and unless someone tells them this person or group is "newsworthy", they will not take a chance because that takes more work than if an activist groups whose patron has clout and deep pockets gives them their blessing.

That is the reason it is critical to look at patrons of various groups: it is your guide to know how this cause benefits the patron in question. How does this cause benefit the patron, is an important question to ask yourself.

Just as it is important to ask what public relations firms are choreographing the freak show. In this day and age, that should be the first questions you ask, regardless if you agree with the point of view or not.

And then ask, and why aren't journalists sharing with the public who is spoon-feeding them their stories and why?