Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton Promoting Love, Kindness, Truth. The Media? Not So Much

Remember the GOP ads against the ACA? They couldn't find real disaster stories so they used actors and fiction. The lie was quickly unveiled. Then they used a real woman, but she lied, which was easily proven. It's par for the course for GOP ads. But not for the Hillary Clinton campaign. They don't have to use actors and screenwriters to make up fiction. They can draw from the truth, as they have in the above ad. You can't make that stuff up.

There's nothing of the compassion Hillary Clinton has shown for that cancer patient in a recent New York Times article Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask The Ultrarich. It alleges that she's more comfortable among wealthy people than the ordinary Joe, and opens herself up to them more. Where Trump spends his time giving rallies and talking to the press, Clinton is keeping her distance but making herself omni-available to "some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves [who] are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally."

The article drips with innuendo so explicit it verges on the overt; Clinton doesn't care about "ordinary" people. In this political climate, when populists are more driven by viciousness than a genuine desire for a better life, the title and matching piece are to people who oppose Hillary Clinton as a red rag is to an angry bull that's been harpooned one too many times by a picador with a huge arsenal and a taste for torturing animals. It's Trump's modus operandi.
The piece mentions in passing that Hillary Clinton is also focused on raising money from small donors but it's like a shard of dull glass among a bowl of glittering diamonds.

Populism has become a dangerous tool this election. On the ultra left, Bernie Sanders. On the other side, Donald Trump. Four things these two branches of populists share is that they've tried to raise themselves up by destroying Hillary Clinton; they've failed; they've hurt themselves in the process; and they've eroded America's chance to preserve democracy, protect and build on Obama's legacy of improving life for all. Putting the imminent and long term future of America at huge risk.

The common idea is that this brand of populism is driven by honest frustration with the system, and with the politicians who have allowed it to develop and that the purpose is to forge a better life.
If that were the truth, Bernie Sanders and supporters wouldn't have tried to succeed by destroying Hillary Clinton using unsubstantiated, highly provocative accusations as weapons of truth. Donald Trump's supporters wouldn't be turning a blind eye to his unethical business practices, his failures, overt racism, misogyny and megalomania and the fact that he is supported by white nationalist groups, the KKK and by Vladimir Putin and Kim Yong-un of North Korea. Not to mention his sexual attraction to his daughter.

Frustration plays a part, but I think the core driving factor of populists on both sides is a vengeful, mean-spirited desire to hurt somebody. Any weapon will do, any lie that can be spread around like a toxic virus. It's reminiscent of Roman days when people would watch Christians being torn apart lions and enjoy the sport.

In such a climate, when so much is at stake, the NYT article is irresponsible journalism. Particularly since Hillary Clinton is the candidate who has a history throughout her life so far like no other previous presidential candidate, of working for minorities, women, children and  equality. And who is reaching out to small donors. As it happens, according to Politico, in July 2016 the Clinton campaign raised $58.5 million, 58% of which was from donations under $200. So half the article should have been about those donations, right? Wrong. And it has nothing to do with the truth about Hillary Clinton. Does it have anything to do with what attracts readers—or what the NYT editors believe readers want? If it is, it proves rather unequivocally that the bias rests with them. Caught by thine own springe.

The Clinton ad is a lot more moving than the NYT's piece. And a whole lot more truthful. If you don't trust it because it's an ad, here's the story of another cancer patient who reached out to her, James Grissom, whose Facebook post has had 158k likes and over 66k shares.

I think about what it would be like if Hillary Clinton didn't win. The day after the election is called and reality hits home. All the so-called liberal journalists, editors, media outlets, TV anchors and hosts; what will be they be thinking, and doing? Staring at the TV in shock. How did it happen? Those of us who rely on the media for information will be the same, if we've bought their crap and haven't used our own discrimination. 

And it will be too late for regret. We'll all be plunged into chaos. 

Seasoned journalist Steve Majerus-Collins wrote a prescient account of what it would be like; a small gem of a book worth reading, a satire that chills you to the bone. Trump: An American Presidency. It's only 99c and it's worth its weight in gold. Trump for President? I hope not. For the sake of America. For the sake of the world.