Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Anti-Trump Propaganda, Wishing and Hoping
Media Experts Try to Explain Trump Away
The Propaganda of Negative Interpretations
Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law
Stephen L. D’Andrilli
Edited by Brian Anse Patrick
With the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries fast approaching, centrists of both parties are squirming because the so-called extremist candidates Trump and Cruz command an imposing lead over Republican Party status quo moderates Bush, Rubio, and Christie. Meanwhile on the left, extreme socialist Bernie Sanders is giving Democratic darling Hillary Clinton a run for her donors’ money.
The curious thing is that, for months, mainstream media have operated to discredit the “extremist” candidates, extremist here being defined as those who have not fallen into lockstep with status quo party Bigwigs and major donors. Recall how mainstream media such as the über-liberal New York Times and the big business-oriented Wall Street Journal had for months previous pointed to the impossibility of a Trump primary victory.
Propaganda thrives in the realm of hopeful interpretations such as the above. These interpretations, stories we might call them, tend historically to reflect the wishes and dreams of the people doing the interpreting. Media professionals may call this “reporting” or “analysis,” but it is merely an attempt to bias perceptions. For an excellent example, during the entire decade of the 1990s, New York Times consistently reported in straight news and editorials how the National Rifle Association was defeated, dwindling and in decline. We all know, however, that NRA was anything but, and came out of the 1990s stronger than it went in in terms of membership, influence and finances. But media professionals tended to hate NRA and acted as cheerleaders for its destruction. So much for the notion of objective news! See http://arbalestquarrel.com/nra-didnt-take-the-bait-at-the-cnn-guns-in-america-town-hall-meeting-de-bate/ and also http://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/the-demographics-of-the-nra/#axzz3xeJYBapVv
And it’s the same game they are now trying with Mr. Trump. First they reported Mr. Trump was merely a flash-in-the-pan. Then they likened him to a petulant child who would bow out of the race if he should encounter difficulties. Third came the claim that Mr. Trump’s support consisted of disaffected rank and file Republicans who were financially poor, uneducated, older, white, male, and blue collar, the implication being that no one really should worry about such supporters. Now they are attempting to the attempt to nudge rank and file voters back to the vacuum of the center by means of the doubtful argument—that that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz could win a general election.
Democratic Party oracles are telling similar stories about Mr. Sanders, namely, that he is not electable. The Democrats, though, contrary to the claims of the mainstream media, have a bigger nut to crack than the Republicans, contrary to the protestations and remonstrations against Trump and Cruz. For, even among the rank and file of the Party faithful who would vote for Clinton come Hell or High Water, virtually all of them agree that Hillary Clinton is a person who is completely dishonest, lacking any semblance of personal integrity. The alternative is Bernie Sanders, a self-styled economic Socialist, but a person whose talk consistently reflects his convictions. So, whom will the Democrats put up for election: a former first lady with obvious sociopathic tendencies, or a somewhat whacky character who comes across as Pete Seeger without the banjo?
Average Americans are not buying into the claptrap interpretations and self-serving explanations (the very definition of propaganda) that continue to be fed to them by the mainstream media, the bigwigs of our two-party system and by the moguls who own and run the major news outlets. The propagandists don’t seem to understand, or don’t care, that large segments of the public have turned them off.