14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
(Revelation 13)
To prepare readers for marvels and innovations, I offer this piece.
Since we live in a virtual age, the image rules. A substitute for the thing itself is acceptable in many venues. If the government can spend $6 trillion it doesn’t have to bail out the population from a virus that doesn’t exist—-$2 trillion more than the cost of World War 2—-what ISN’T possible?
I can see CNN leading the way, with this sort of announcement from CEO, Jaspar X Pucker:
“Today—-after consultation with our attorneys—-we make this legal ruling: Our use of the term ‘President’ will cover a range of potential meanings. For example, it could mean ‘the committee that hovers behind the Occupant of the Oval Office and decides policy, on behalf of which policy the Occupant acts a conduit (to the public)’.”
“That would be one meaning. But ‘President’ could also mean a computer generated image (CGI) of the Oval Office Occupant, when that image delivers what the Occupant WOULD HAVE delivered, were he present.”
“Here is our FAQ on the subject”:
Would the CGI image of the President have to resemble the President?
Yes. We will render an exact likeness.
CNN could decide when to deploy a CGI image of the President?
Of course. That’s the whole point. But we will maintain a close relationship with the committee that hovers behind the Occupant of the Oval Office, to ensure we are accurately presenting official policy.
Is it possible that, in a single instant of time, several CGI Presidents could simultaneously appear in different locations speaking to audiences?
You’re saying a physical double for the President would IDENTIFY AS THE PRESIDENT?
Yes. Getting out the message(s) is the first priority.
What about viewer confusion?
We recognize there will be an adjustment period. It isn’t a major hurdle. For instance, for years, we’ve been claiming our anchors and hosts are ‘real journalists’. Our viewers now understand that term is relative.
The reality of TV ads is also relative.
Exactly. And no one has a problem with them.
Does the new definition of “President” also cover actual physical doubles who stand in for the Occupant of the Oval Office?
Yes. We’ve pondered that decision. You see, we’re already in an era of gender fluidity. A person can declare any of a whole host of gender IDs. So why not extend that concept?
You’re saying a physical double for the President would IDENTIFY AS THE PRESIDENT?
Correct. And since he is a certified double, his/her claim is acceptable.
He/she IS the President?
That’s right.
No comments:
Post a Comment