You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 22505079? ago 

Do I understand that you are basing your theory on the fact that arresting media personnel will be shocking in a visibility sense, since these ppl are on tv everyday etc? And that the narrative establishers would not have a script ready for an event like arresting a media figure, as they would in the event of a politician being the initial arrest?

0
0

[–] 22512939? [S] ago 

It is more of a hypothesis where I'm speculating since a theory needs either compilation of supporting data or a testable experiment with results that can be duplicated. But yes, you've got most of it. A high-visibility arrestee; a straight-forward crime (like lying) that is easy to understand and not convoluted, and obvious enough that it cannot be easily blamed on something else; and a charge that, as you said, they would not have a script ready for it because it is so "unheard of" to make an arrest for reporting fake news, even though POTUS has been putting it out there in plain sight that Fake News ought to be held responsible for creating a clear and present danger.

Most speculation about the First Big Arrest has been a "Who?" "Who" is important, but not the top of the list. A sense of personal betrayal would cause a greater emotional response.

"That person deceived us!" The "that person" is somewhat interchangeable, but the deception was targeted directly at ME and my friends. Personal betrayal is more jarring than celebrity gossip; a good movie will have both the personal, visceral response and a starring celebrity. So that is the other part—an emotional realization that what they did wrong was actually harmful and dangerous to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.