A friend of mine sent a note in Facebook that reminded me of the moment months ago when, seeing a news item about something Trump said or had done, I was incensed they would spend space proselytizing him, because that’s what they were doing. Anyone with any sense could see that the only value to spread of that… information was the notice that he existed. There was no useful information in the report. There was no verity in the report. It was decoration, banner, placard, ADVERTISING of Trump. What should have been reported was the actuality, the emptiness, of what it was. But that would have limited its life as advertising. Media, that is, papers, magazines, radio, cable, TV, make money from advertising. The reason it was reported in one, and another, and other, and still other places is because they could get people to pay to see what. You understand that it was really cheap for the publishers: no research, no validation, no editing. Just say what he said. Say what he did. Then say what someone else says about what he said. Then see what someone says about what that guy said about what he said, but don’t put it out till the next edition. What do you think he’ll do next? Oh! Ask that in the edition after that and do a survey.
Three days of reporting on nothing, about a self-aggrandizing, selfish bully, who is doing or saying some meaningless or untrue thing, in an unused moment of preening, that makes a boatload of money for each of several dozens of businesses, and incidentally, furthering the public presence of a cheating thief.
He said he was going to fund his own campaign. Well I suppose he could have, if he had the money he always brags he has. But with a nation of media outlets shilling for him, he didn’t need to. So they built up a craving for news about him (to hell – or any other distasteful place – with the other candidates). They reported on him so much that his sycophants couldn’t maintain continuity in his pronouncements, so they hired a shameless mouthpiece who could ignore any obvious faux pas on his part and barreled through to election. Which, if you look at certain election night photographs, surprised him as much or more than anyone else. He’s forgotten that you can’t underestimate the intelligence of an audience.
Now, I said “audience” which is different from citizens. Trump believed, at some level, that he was dealing with citizens. Some of them had the same delusion. But the Truth was closer to the situation he creates on his TV stages. He was dealing with an audience; an audience for whom the vote was more like applause. He did, for them, make a good performance.
If they had been voting as citizens, that is, thinking in broad terms about the United States of America from sea to shining sea, as tired and poor, … tempest tossed... free, they might have insisted on better candidates or a different winner. Instead, they hoped to satisfy a simpler hunger, like "there’s not enough", in a more personal zone ("in my city/town/state") of discomfort. The punch lines are easier to identify. And there is always a punch line.
But the lead-in wasn’t a joke. And if it was delivered by a clown instead of a comedian, times may be more than difficult. Our media jumped in on the joke because it was a cheap sell to big profits. Instead of reviewing the shows, they promoted the performances. It was disservice to us, service to him. And neither he nor they are ashamed. He is elected and they are paid.
We are confronted with severe conflicts with our incoming administration and with our national media.
I think the major problem confronting us AND this new administration is that it has led us to distrust in fact or in principle, everything it says. The consequences of some things we hear from it can affect our lives. How can we be expected to make rational, satisfactory, choices when we cannot depend on the veracity of the information or the informant? This MUST change. And, so far, the media has been little help in this, and they should be our first protector in this battle, not our last. Media that chooses to follow the fad of what sells, will eventually fail because fads fail. Media that chooses to seek truth lasts because the search alone builds the strength to always rebuild, and because truth lasts.
We try to guard ourselves against ineffective or ineligible doctors, and scientists, and educators, by establishing tests that verify at least their knowledge, and to some degree, their performance in their expected profession. It is more difficult to select qualified legislators because so much of their early qualification depends on factors of personality. Later they can be judged by performance. And that performance is always measured against varied and perhaps dynamic group goals.
In order to affect any legislator, you must start early, so he has an idea whose money to seek. If he gets the wrong money, he can't vote right. Now that situation can change, if campaign money laws change, but that's the way it is now. Money sets the stage, then you and your state and national representatives get to work out your dance moves. Any good producer (citizen) beats the money to the project (representative).
(Now, I know this is all true only if you don't trust your guy/gal, or if you don't care)
Unless we, no matter who we prefer as 'leader of the free world' , are content with repeating the election year 2016 experience, our job from now until the situation changes to our benefit, is to be watchful and thoughtful and talkative. We need to know the background in order to judge the real character of the performance. Being entertained by it can be different than being informed by it.
And we need to be as critical of our media and their agents as we should be of our politicians, and are of our educators, and our scientists. We expect their details to be accurate, and we expect their judgments to be rational. How else can we expect to approach the same surety ourselves?
_M