2016 Presidential Election and the Media Hoopla

So, why am I writing about the 2016 Presidential Election now? It's 2018, President has been elected, inaugurated, and in office for almost 1.5 years now.

The reason for this post is how the mainstream media has been wrong in their predictions, assumptions, and claims. Their hoopla over Bernie Sanders, in retrospect, could have resulted in a disaster. The reason for this claim I'm making is I don't think it's right or fair of the mainstream media, which is regarded as the Fourth Estate, to disseminate its biased views.

There is no doubt that it is important that someone watches the government and its practices because obviously the government, especially President of the United States, has tremendous power to influence not only the lives of the citizens and residents of the United States but also the lives of people in other countries. When I was in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting a research project, in November 2016, almost everyone I met there asked me about the outcome of the election. They voiced me about their concerns that President Trump might re-introduce the racial segregation policies because he was portrayed as a racist and White supremacist. South Africans, both White/European South Africans and black South Africans, are living the legacy of apartheid even today. Their concerns were valid.

17 months later, President Trump might not be the best president that the United States has had, but I personally do not think he has been particularly underperforming, either. Maybe some people miss Obama and misplace their dissatisfaction on the "#45"? Who knows?

As the US-NK summit approaches - and this is one of the best examples of why the mainstream media should really be scrutinized - we have seen inconsistent statements coming from President Trump and the White House.  It was canceled once but was rescheduled for the same day. By now, a lot of people must think that this has been a pattern in President Trump's remarks: He says one thing and changes his mind. Well, is he trustworthy?

If he were my friend, I would stay away from him. I would not like someone who constantly changes what he/she says. But he is now a politician and an "influencer" with a strong background as a business owner. Should he always be consistent - would you if you were in his position - even when the external or internal situations change? I think it is reasonable to think that he is only demonstrating how he can negotiate deals with other "influencers" around the world. I think this is an important skill as a decision-maker.

How has the mainstream media been portraying him in the series of the news about the US-NK summit? I fully admit that I have not been following all the relevant coverage, but how have some of the online news agencies reported its cancellation decided on May 24, 2018?

Here is what VOX news said:







From Washington Post:









From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:












We know busy people and not-so-busy people often skip reading the actual content of the news. They make judgments on the news content by reading the headlines. Several studies have found that about 60-80% of social media users only read the headlines before they share, comment, or like the articles. Three headlines out of, I would think hundreds, about the summit cancellation, may not be representative of the whole tone of voice of the reporters around the world, but these headlines are among the first to appear in Google search results with the keywords: "north korea", "us", "summit", and "cancel."

Yes, the White House issued a statement of cancelation of the summit, as dictated by President Trump. But what has Kim Jong-Un done preceding to this statement? What about Moon Jae-in? Moon Jae-in is a known pro-NK, anti-US president of South Korea. Would these Korean leaders be credible and honest with President Trump? SK and China have secretly been financially aiding NK to dilute the effect of the UNSCR sanctions on NK.

Looking back, when the mainstream media was excited about Bernie Sanders' decision to run for the 2016 Presidential Election, about his manifesto and visions, I was one of them hoping he would change "something." I am now glad he did not win the Dem primary. His policies were strongly socialistic, supporting the "vulnerable" at the expense of the rest. But what socialist states have been successful? What socialist states have protected and empowered its ordinary citizens and residents?

This does not intend to say that President Trump definitely would, but at least he cares about the United States and its people's lives. We need to remember that not all "vulnerable" people are actually vulnerable, but can be manipulative.






Popular Posts