Who's To Blame for Trump?

Who’s To Blame for Trump?  That is a popular question making the rounds these days, with the mainstream media taking most of the blame.  For certain, there are some considerations that need to be taken into account before we settle this issue.

First off is the use of the word blame; using this word implies either fault or error.  Not sure there is any fault or error here.  Any fault likely lies with the process or system; not those who represent the process or system.  If we are going to indict the MSM for Trump coverage, we must also examine their coverage of other presidential candidates; particularly the Democratic ones.  Is there a significant difference in the way Trump has been covered as compared to, say…Clinton…or Sanders…or Cruz?  I have never been one to defend the pathetic, shameless, self-righteous, and unethical profession known as modern day journalism; but in this instance, I suspect they are being unjustly chastised.  The function of the media in presidential election politics is to put the product(s) out there for examination; to show the various aspects of each candidate and allow the voters to make their choice based on observations of those aspects.  The really good journalists are the ones who ask the questions that we ourselves would ask; they tend to hone in on the concerns of the common citizen.  However, once the questions are posed, it is not their job to serve in a district attorney or prosecutorial role and conduct open verbal warfare with the candidate. Please don’t tell me what to think; just tell me what to think about.  Through the use of question content, the use of video archives, and the use of good and simple language, the media can serve their function by asking the right questions and letting the public themselves judge the value of the responses.   Many media personalities have been elevated to a level that seems to imply that they are the moral and ethical compass for society and are uniquely qualified to vet the office-seekers that come before them.  As unbelievable as it sounds, many of these media folks have an arrogance quotient that exceeds even that of the politicians they interview.  This particular trend is troubling, but it does not seem to be unique to Trump coverage; they act this way in a pretty non-discriminating and bipartisan manner.   As long as they ask the same questions in the same condescending way to all of the candidates, I can live with their pompous style; at least for short periods of time.

As I have referenced before, Orwell was quoted as saying “Propaganda is as much a matter of what is left out, as of what is actually said”.  Clearly, the individual media person can control the amount and content of candidate material that they themselves make available to the information consumer.  The content portion is the part that is probably the most controversial.  Those opposed to certain candidates always say that they are spared the difficult questions.  There is the age-old softball interview that allows the candidate to highlight their talking points and escape acknowledging the inconvenient truths that exist in their resume.  In this area of journalism, we probably see the largest extent of regression in the profession.  It has become accepted practice for networks and media personalities to promote their own agendas and views under the guise of journalism.  They are piously indignant when confronted with these facts and hide behind the tissue-thin cloak of journalistic integrity when defending their profession.  The fact is that the line that once separated opinion from news has been blurred to the point of non-distinction and the only practical remedy to deal with it is to make certain that you receive approximately equal portions of each position or philosophy.  In my opinion, herein lies the greatest threat to our youth and young adults becoming responsible and informed citizens.  Their apparent inclination to select one or two media outlets for their news and opinion; their insistence on receiving sound bites instead of serious analysis; and most troubling of all, their apparent willingness to accept the journo-babble as gospel is morphing them into marionettes of the media.  Back to point: If we are going to evaluate the media on the issue of content fairness, I really have trouble seeing any discernible difference in how the various candidates have been covered.  The voter cannot escape accountability by saying the media did not give them enough information or told them the wrong thing.  The ultimate responsibility for becoming an informed voter lies with the individual doing the voting.  The media will ebb and flow, they will pick their favorites, they will follow their agendas, and they will recline comfortably on their lofty pedestals; but we each have the ability to change the channel, turn the page, click the mouse, and move on to a different perspective.  Consider the source.

The one area where I think the media has erred in its coverage of Trump is in the amount of coverage they have provided.  The simple truth is that when a large number of candidates vie for a nomination and many of them lack national recognition, the mere seconds of national media coverage is an invaluable commodity that should be doled out on an equal basis.  Setting aside the content of the Trump coverage (with which, once again, I have no issue); there can be no doubt that the amount of coverage featuring Trump has far exceeded that of his opponents.  Although this disparity does not, in and of itself, spare the voter of their obligation to inform themselves, the fact is that media coverage is a form of force feeding and over time, a steady diet of any subject will have a significant impact.  Trump’s reception of multiple times the amount of media coverage as compared to his opponents has, without any doubt, resulted in aiding his candidacy and has put his rivals at a strategic disadvantage.  This media abuse in the area of amount of coverage comes with the easy deniability clause that the content was no different than that of other candidates.  That is bunk; the amount of coverage is a totally separate issue than the content of coverage and the media fully understand this.  Their apparent incredulity when confronted with their disproportionate amount of Trump coverage is amusing and demeaning.  It makes them look very foolish and exposes them for what they have actually become: A collection of heavily cosmetized, extremely costumized, and overly sensationalized entertainment personalities who are blinded by grandiose notions of self importance and infallibility.  Come to think of it…when considering that last statement, is it really any surprise that these folks would gravitate to Trump?