No matter what else you read today THIS would have to be the read of the day.
Jennifer Oriel skewers the media. No matter what you think of Trump or how you take your take your politics, this read is instructive.
If you never understood the phrase “The Long March Through The Institutions” (and the media is one of the key, institutions) the overt manifestation of the orchestrated media campaign over the last 6 months, culminating in the last 10 days, is exhibit A.
Basically what we’re witnessing is a total, full on, frontal assault and destruction of democracy.
If you don’t understand that, then your not paying attention.
“….We know how Donald Trump’s presidency will end. The process is familiar. It begins with a politician elected by the people to introduce secure border and rational immigration policies that benefit the national interest. Said politician is conservative and patriotic. He is Christian. He is proud of his culture: Western culture. The PC establishment despises him. The left media class undermines him. A mob of wreckers forms to destabilise his government. The wrecking crew comprises faceless men who leak to the press with impunity; publicly funded activist networks in the media, academia and NGOs; supranationalist organisations such as the UN and EU; and professional protesters. If Donald Trump wants to know what is coming, he should study the rise and fall of Tony Abbott.
The call to impeach Trump is the climax of a long campaign to prevent his presidency and to spoil the election result.
Many media outlets have a professed philosophical view. However, when that view influences the content of news reporting in favour of bias over fact, the credibility of the media comes under attack. If the media cites anonymous sources as though they are impartial and credible, the reader should know whether the source has a vested interest in ousting a democratically elected leader. For example, does the source stand to gain professionally or financially if the coup against an elected head of state succeeds? How many of the anonymous sources cited by the The Washington Postand The New York Times vote Democrat? How many were appointed by the Obama administration? How many stand to gain professionally or financially if Trump is ousted? Perhaps the reader should be given such information so they can make a more informed choice about the anonymous reports.
Trump-Russia conspiracy stories share an abundance of anonymous officials and paucity of hard facts. The same was true of stories that fuelled the campaign against Tony Abbott. The leaders were given a veneer of authority by the designations “officials”, “insiders” and “experts”. Their anonymity was protected as though they were whistleblowers, but insiders who engineer coups against democratically elected heads of state are not whistleblowers. If they were exposing corruption, they would tender hard evidence. No hard evidence has been tendered to justify the investigation into Trump’s presidency. No proof has been issued. No valid defence has been mounted. No empirical facts have been established. At what point do we call such news propaganda?
Many Trump voters view the investigation into his alleged ties to Russia as a continuation of the establishment campaign against his presidency. It is a zero-sum game. If the political and media class succeeds in replacing Trump with its preferred president without a solid case, liberal democracy will appear as a fallacy concealing a big lie. If the dream that democracy exists is shattered, voters will cease to trust the media and government. America’s silent majority already feels excluded from the institutions supposed to put the liberal in liberal democracy: the law, academia and media. If their last chance at representation, the democratic vote, is trashed by the establishment, middle America will be pushed to breaking point.
The single point of difference between traditional media and emerging alternatives is trustworthiness. People pay for news they can trust. While journalists make mistakes, fake news does not arise from human error. It is propaganda with a predetermined conclusion in mind. The media cannot serve two gods. The choice is between truth and propaganda….” Media’s choice is between truth and propaganda