There are a good deal of historic and important events occurring right now: the possible Iran nuclear deal, and the beginning of the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. Both of these subjects deserve and warrant a detailed analysis on their own, but this week I am focussing on the role of the mass media in the U.S. propaganda system on selecting the next President. Both the issues of Iran and Cuba, however, provide additional and generous evidence of the false narrative carried out dutifully by our corporate owned, mass-media.
Regarding the first Republican Primary Presidential debate hosted by FOX, it didn’t take a psychic to predict that even the conservative “news” channel would attack Donald Trump in particular. Hence, the first question from Megan Kelley to all the candidates, was whether or not they would all rule out a third party run, should they not get the Republican nomination, and would they pledge to support whomever the nominee turned out to be. This was a thinly veiled, repackaged question that was put to Mr. Trump earlier in the week, in which he gave an answer that sent shivers down the two-party system’s corrupt spine: he would not rule out a third party run. What the media and two-party system of business elites call a “spoiler.” Or, what I can an independent, unsponsored voice. It doesn’t matter to the Establishment whether that independent challenger is a conservative, a liberal, an in-between, or rouge billionaire. Just ask Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, or now Donald Trump.
It didn’t take a psychic to predict the attacks that zeroed in on Donald Trump for the duration of the debate. Megan Kelly also asked a version of the question that had already been asked and harped on in the media leading up to the debate, asking Trump if some of his more colorful insults and name calling in public, specifically females, was presidential. Mr. Trump made a joke of it “only Rosie O’Donald,” and then went on to complain of a too politically correct culture. He was right on this in my opinion, and I would ad that a lot of the outrageous things he said that Mrs. Kelly was referring too, was said in the context of the Donald being a reality tv entertainer who oversees a real-estate, casino, and branding empire that capitalizes on his pop-culture “reality” tv personality. Of course, it the argument can be made that this was a legitimate question that was bound to come up sooner or later. But again, this question had already been raised in the media before the debate, and Fox and its owners didn’t like the answer the first time, so they asked it again, worded slightly different, in front of a larger audience, in a blatant attempt to make Mr. Trump look bad.
In the coverage following the debates, in the major news papers and tv networks, the analysis, editorials, and pundit judgements all agreed that someone other than Donald Trump won the debates. Most all, in one way or another, found a way to marginalize Trump’s debate performance, seeking in no uncertain terms to explain over another reality the Establishment does not like: Donald Trump’s standing in Republican Primary voter polls, post the debate, still has him in first place.
The media is of course, pairing each reporting of Mr. Trump’s sustained, early front runner status, with the same accompanying editorial as they are with reporting of Bernie Sanders’ surge in the polls: with condescending and dismissive explanation of why these facts will not matter in the final outcome of the Presidential election, because one of the well financed puppets will win. The reasons the political columnist and tv pundits present, is equally condescending to the voters and their readers and viewers. The term “populist” is brought up, as if they are holding their elite noses as they say it, to save themselves from the stench of what the term “populist” translates to in reality – “popular,” or dare we call it, “democracy.” Another reason they offer is that the voter is “cynical” and wanting to “give the finger to the political establishment” or “make a statement.” All of these reasons are presented with subtle and sometimes not so subtle disdain. Then the pundits predict, in the end, when we voters get closer to voting – they dismiss the validity of polls when they don’t like the results – that although we emotionally support these other candidates, we will get “serious” and ask ourselves if either Trump or Sanders can actually hold the office of the President. Because, following their logic to it’s end that they want to beat into our brains, the only extra special person that will be able to do that job soberly will be one of their well rehearsed puppets.
Bernie Sanders continues to draw even larger crowds, some now topping 12 thousand attendees. When this is reported reluctantly in the media, it is always with the dismissive attitude that Sanders, like Trump, is “striking a nerve” of us discontent voters, but can’t be taken seriously because in the end of course, we will do as we are told we will behave, and vote for one of the two corporate, Super Pac, media celebrated, sponsored by the oligarchy candidates, Puppet 1 or Puppet 2. You know, when we get “serious.”
If you listen closely and carefully to how the editorial pages of the major newspapers read, from either a cheerleader for the republicans or democrats, or the tv pundits, you can hear hear the subtle contempt that the true owners of the country have for the rest of us, especially when polls show us listening to one of their outside-the-elite sponsored club candidates, and daring to vote independence. This contempt for our popular support for “populist” candidates, exudes from both the right and left corners of our mass media. Don’t prove them right.
Many of you have seen this video from George Carlin before, but it is worth watching again or for the first time: