Campaign 2016 won't just have lasting implications for American politics. It's obliterated what was left of our news media
Well for what it's worth, I don't believe that there was much left of our news media to begin with. But I have to agree, whatever there was is now pretty much completely gone. There is no coming back from this election cycle. Journalists who can fool themselves into believing that they have the right to be blatantly biased against Trump, while still maintaining that they be seen later as objective deserve the ridicule they receive. You cannot simply turn journalistic integrity off and on as you see fit.
We've discussed the concept of cognitive dissonance a lot, and I think it's important to understand that not only is it common in today's society, for many people it may simply be unavoidable. Even Patrick Moynihan - who once stated that everyone is entitle to their own opinion, but not their own facts - might have to concede that this isn't even realistically the case anymore. There simply is no such thing as neutral facts anymore. There is only the power of media attempting to manipulate and bend the population to it's own specific will.
Look at a publication like Politico. (or better yet, don't). They literally repeat the same basic stories (as news) that are nothing more than biased observations, often times written without sources, or written as if "a" source is actually reflective of a much larger reality. They headline every negative story about Trump as a statement, while routinely headlining negative stories about Clinton as allegations or accusations.
- Trump hates babies
- Critics allege that Clinton is under investigation
That assumes you can actually find a negative story about Hillary Clinton on Politico. But if Politico (and way the Washington Post and NY Times) are the sources for your political news, then the world must seem pretty one sided to you. You could end up like that Reporter who was shocked when Richard Nixon won, because that Reporter literally didn't know anyone who voted for him. If you only read negative stories about Trump, and every time someone remotely neutral criticizes him it's "Politico headline news" then you probably actually start to believe that stuff must be important.
When your news sources bend over backwards to cover a Pakistani Immigration attorney's relentless personal criticism of Donald Trump as opposed to covering a $400 million dollar payout to the Iranians which appeared to be a ransom for Hostages, then you probably start to believe that pretty much any criticism of Donald Trump must be more important than any other news story. Eventually it becomes so hardened in you, that you cannot understand why others don't feel the same way?
Well... that's likely because those people are not reading Politico, the Washington Post, or the New York Times. They are probably reading FOX, Wall Street Journal, or Drudge Report, which will keep you well informed on the latest Clinton investigation, the latest Clinton medical problem, or the latest politically damaging emails released from what appears to be an unlimited supply of such. You will read about the riots in Milwaukee, the latest terrorism attacks, and the spread of the Zika virus. You will read about how major donors to the Clinton foundation found their way into good graces with the State Department, and you will read about the latest "Wikileaks" that exposed damaging information about Democrats.
You won't read a peep about any immigration attorneys, which former assistant director of internal security patrols most recently blasted Donald Trump, or about unknown sources telling you that the RNC is thinking about dumping Donald Trump from the ticket.
So if you read the Conservative news outlets, you probably see the investigations, conflict of issues, and other signs of Clinton corruption as real issues of concern. You probably don't care less about immigration attorneys or which former one time Republican is not voting for Donald Trump. Your news priorities are different, the news you read is different. This makes your view of the political world different.
For me, I try to read both sides, but I have to admit... it's become hard to see this objectively.
For me, I try to read both sides, but I have to admit... it's become hard to see this objectively.
E.G. - For the life of me, I will never quite understand how someone can argue that it's okay for Hillary Clinton to call Trump the "sergeant of recruiting for ISIS" but that calling Obama the "founder of ISIS" is worthy of much hand wringing and in need of actual fact checking. That seems like a painfully obvious display of hypocrisy to me. But perhaps that's just me. Maybe I missed a memo from Websters on the new definition of hypocrisy in a post Trump world. Who can even tell anymore.
But I can certainly understand how it becomes very easy for people on opposite sides of the political spectrum to simply talk past each other, not realizing that they simply do not live in the same political reality. It has become more than apparent to me that Trump fans will never care about 99% of the criticism that the left has of him. Certainly he can say pretty much anything he wants, and his hardcore fans will only cheer him on. Meanwhile, polling suggested that a majority of Democrats would still support Clinton even if she was running while under indicted. So no amount of criminal or otherwise corrupt behavior on her part will ever matter to those on the left. All either does it reinforce the reasons why NeverTrump and NeverHillary are who they are. It just divides things deeper, and promotes bias confirmation and cognitive dissonance.
NOTE: If you believe that the Washington Post is objective and the Wall Street Journal is biased. Or if you believe that FOX News is objective and Politico is biased. You suffer from cognitive dissonance. The entire point here is that there is simply no objective news media anymore. All of it is biased one way or the other... almost to the point where (as the Rolling Stone story points out) we may never actually know for sure what is and isn't even supposed to be a scandal anymore.
One side will report everything about one candidate as a scandal while defending the other from any accusations of such. And yes, boys and girls, the media has actually taken "sides". This is obvious to anyone with a thread of objectivity.
8 comments:
The end was when Tim russert died and NBC gave his idiot son a job.
......or was it when they hired Chelsea?
So I have already not-published multiple comments that were cut and pasted from the publications listed in this post as biased. Not only do I not allow cut and past comments, the irony of using the very publications I accuse of being biased was apparently irony lost on them.
Yesterday Trump gave a wonderful , thoughtful and well delivered speech on everything he would do and what O'Hillary refuses to do on protecting America.
We know it was great because the progressives are mute on it.
my viewing and listening habits have been reduced to 'special report with bret baier' on fox for straight news and honest analysis, and MSDNC and NPR for just about everything else.
limbaugh has been eerily prophetic on dissecting the motives and tactics of the state run media when it comes to the details, but if you accept 97.8% of the media as blatantly dishonest and biased as i do, as any sane person would, then there's not much to learn from rush either.
what is most galling to me is the sheer mountain of effort the msm has exerted to destroy trump and prematurely write his political obituary. trump is still pulling in crowds in the thousands while hillary is pulling crowds in the hundreds, and one can conclude that there really is a large silent majority who actually show up to the polls on election day in spite of the media's efforts to wreck trump.
You could almost hear the visible disappoint when the murderer of the IMAM and his friend turned out to be an Hispanic male.
And the motivation turned to be the usual gangland "street thing".
They could almost taste the opportunity to blame Trump for it.
Grow up, Ch. All sides are biased.
But the media failed the American people and even Republicans during the GOP primaries by giving Donald Trump a free ride.
They aren't doing that now.
Politics for grown ups and people who think have returned to take the field.
James - I recommend you actually read the entire post. Especially the part at the end after NOTE:
and for the record... reading Politico and cutting and pasting stories is not thinking. You would be better off not reading any media, than just reading those sources that back your belief.
For the note, Ch, I do not read Politico all that much.
It is politicalwire.com and electoral-vote.com that I get more of my information from, and sometimes First Read, all of which sometimes report things that we on the left do not want or like to hear.
True, no source is, can be, or even should be totally objective. Who could be totally objective, or should be totally objective, about Adolf Hitler? But news sources with any respect for truth, and commentators and pundits with any real respect for truth, should at least attempt SOME degree of objectivity.
As do, in my opinion, those named above.
But of which I find little in most of your rants.
Post a Comment