Saturday, October 22, 2016

Trump vs Clinton

This isn't a political post. However, I'll throw out some political prognostications just for fun. These are my thoughts on the disintegration of a pillar of western democracy, the media.

Before I get to the point though, I'm predicting Trump will win. That goes against almost every commentary and poll I see. I made that prediction over a year ago when Trump entered the race to be the Republican nominee. I may be wrong. I've been wrong before. If Trump doesn't win, I wouldn't want to be an American in 20 years. They are circling the drain at the moment. Western civilization is at stake.

Moving on to the the topic at hand, the diminished influence and respectability of the media. It is a fact that news organizations tend to be left leaning when it comes to almost all topics. As long as you could filter their bias, you could sift out a little truth. Those days are gone. There is no truth in reporting anymore, only narrative.

Pollsters keep confirming that trust in the mainstream media is at an all time low. Why? Because we no longer believe the stories they tell. Their "news" and our "reality" don't agree. I could go on and on but I will use a couple recent political examples to show why even Democrats and Socialists don't believe the narrative any more.

1. Trump competed against 16 other candidates for the Republican nomination. Most were quite well known. Many had deep political connections. Commentary after commentary from the "media" explained to the masses how he couldn't win. His support was capped at 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then he was going in to a contested convention because he couldn't win enough delegates. They were all WRONG. Trump defeated all challengers and won despite the narrative the media put forward for their "viewers". Being proven wrong all the time tends to reduce one's credibility.

2.  Meanwhile, Clinton was barely scraping by on the Democrats side against a geriatric socialist most have never heard of and some other guy. The media did not say a thing. They did not question Hillary's viability. She was their chosen candidate and they did not want to cast her in a disparaging light. Even worse, was the obvious DNC bias in favour of Clinton and against Sanders. They awarded almost all super delegates to Clinton against the wishes of their own party members. Did the media report on this? Only in passing, and not nearly to the level they reported on Trump's supposed inability to win. I have no doubt Bernie Sanders would have beat Hillary Clinton if the Media Party and the DNC did not cover for her. The day Trump won the Republican nomination the media's headlines screamed, "Trump Divides Republicans" and other such drivel. Instead of focusing on the fact that not only did an outsider win ahead of 16 other established candidates, he did so before Clinton could beat 2 challengers with the support of the DNC shenanigans. Most stories discussed how the Republican party was now fractured. Meanwhile, the Democrats were deeply divided by Clinton and Sanders but the media ignored the political parallels. The media lies by OMISSION and by the selective narratives (or distractions) they present.

For example, do you remember when Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning? Of course not. The media would not show that footage to the public. It would indicate that their chosen candidate was not the intellect they told us he was. Now ask yourself, if this was George W. Bush would the footage have been aired? Of course it would, because that fits the narrative the media was trying to sell.

3. Hillary has stood by and defended her serial sex offending husband (who is likely a rapist) and attacked his accusers publicly. Trump was privately recorded saying women let rich men grab their privates a decade ago. Which story do you think the media ran with? Yep. Trump. Now I have no problem with the media using the recording to illustrate who Trump is. I do have a problem with them acting as though it was worse than the Clinton's actions. I have a huge problem with the media giving voice to hypocrites like Michelle Obama and other social commentators talking about how this is obscene and offensive, while ignoring the Clinton's past, or ignoring the sexual innuendo of artists and activists Michelle Obama and the Democratic Party support. The narrative was that this was the most obscene and misogynistic thing to be thrust upon the American public in the history of the Universe. Apparently they haven't heard of rap music yet. Just recently Madonna offered to perform sex acts on anyone who voted for Clinton. The media must be clutching their pearls and getting the vapours about that? Nope.

4. Media personalities have been caught (via hot mikes, poor editing, and hacked emails) aiding Clinton. Media personalities have given debate questions to Hillary. Producers have told her when to smile. Moderators have advised her campaign team. The networks shrug off the fact that Clinton's defence of her illegal and treasonous handling of classified information was that she was incompetent. Editors have "removed" black Trump supporters from their footage of campaign stops. Or, when the media accidentally shows a person of colour supporting Trump, they quickly explain it away as a novelty because that's not the story they want to tell.

5. The Media used to control the gates that information flowed through. Now we have the internet. This makes everyone an eye witness and a reporter. One of the things this new generation of news gatherers has discovered is that the media spins the truth. They can't do it any more. When the media lies, the public is there to correct them on a world wide stage for all to see.

Years ago I attended a political rally. It was the only one I have ever been to in my life. It was in a small city but there were hundreds of people there to see this conservative politician. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a political gathering of that size in that city before or after. There were about 10 protesters outside with signs. I was quite young back then and was curious to see what parts of the speech would be covered in the media. As I watched the national news, the tag line was "Politician X Met By Protesters in City Y". Was it true? Yes. Was it presented accurately? Not at all. The actual footage for the story was mostly of the politician walking by the protesters as he got off the bus. The camera man was careful to fill the entire shot with all 10 protesters while making sure that the hundreds (possibly near a thousand) supporters were not seen at all. I was incredibly disillusioned by that story and began to sense that the media may not be reporting what was really happening. It caused me to question a lot of what is now presented as fact by these journalists. This was during the infancy of the internet, but if it happened today I could easily refute this narrative with a couple cell phone pics and a Facebook/Instagram account. And that's exactly what is happening today. The media can't control the masses like it used to. The gates are open.

And they wonder why no one trusts them.