Select Page
Mark Latham gets it. Totally skewers the issue and pricks the “insider” media bubble…
“….Never have so many paid political “experts” been so wrong so often about a political candidate.
To listen to their partisan bluster, Trump should be 30- 40 points behind Clinton in the polls seeing as his -campaign has collapsed every day for the past 500. The fact Trump is still on his feet is remarkable. No candidate in American history has been subject to more media sensationalism and bias. Comparisons to ¬Hitler and Mussolini have ¬become commonplace.
The Clinton campaign and Leftist media have perfected the politics of personal destruction, turning private indiscretions into public issues — something Bill Clinton himself railed against in his 1998 defence of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Trump’s ¬decision prior to the second presidential debate to hold a press conference with three women allegedly sexually abused by Mr Clinton, was an amazing moment. The evidence suggests Mrs Clinton ran a protection racket for her husband against these allegations — hence her hypocrisy when speaking on “women’s issues”.
Despite the biased moderators, Trump wiped Clinton in the debate, proving he’s a more formidable figure that his critics concede. Traditionally, candidates for high office have played the media game. They form a symbiotic relationship with selected journalists and editors, feeding them confidential information in return for -favourable coverage. I
In our country, Kevin Rudd was a master of this approach, with veteran reporters playing along. The press gallery covered for him, for fear of losing a valuable source.
Here and in the US, the symbiotic media model is ¬ethically unsustainable. It undermines the first duty of good journalism: to find and publish the truth in all circumstances.
It’s part of the artificiality of machine politics, whereby candidates lie, spin and manipulate their way to the top.
Clinton embodies this approach, telling her corporate donors, “you need both a ¬public and a private position (on issues)”.
By contrast, Trump refuses to play the politicians’ game. He detests the mainstream media and says so at his rallies, describing journalists as “the lowest form of humanity”.
In the past any candidate saying these things would have been crushed by the weight of media retaliation.
The more the media attack him, the more his supporters dig in to vote for him. This says something the commentariat rarely acknowledges: in the Information Age, when people are better educated and more widely informed, the public is less trusting of big, concentrated centres of power — big government, big business, big unions and big media.
In the US, trust in the media has collapsed over the past 40 years, falling from 72 to 32 per cent.
Why wouldn’t people be cynical about so-called newsmakers? For decades journalists have complained that politicians are too artificial — dominated by spin and choreographed campaigns. Yet when a non-politician like Trump comes along they ¬attack him more than ever.
In the late 1970s, post-¬Watergate, the media became a participant in political events rather than an independent observer/reporter.
Large parts of the US electorate have now seen through this fraud, assuming that when the media says something, the opposite is true.
When historians come to write the story of the 2016 presidential election, they will note something special about Trump. He is the first viable candidate for high office who is institution-free.
The Donald is unbeholden to the conventional institutions and pressure groups of politics: his party, the media, the PC-outrage industry, big business and the foreign policy/defence establishment.
He’s the ultimate free agent. In this campaign, the elites think that if they can defeat Trump, it will destroy his kind forever.
But once more, their predictions are skew-whiff. Win, lose or draw, Trump is not the end of a new style of politics. He’s just the beginning….”