Media Experts Try to Explain Trump Away
The
Propaganda of Negative Interpretations
by
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.
__________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment