I am dismayed to say it: Don't believe the news.
The exciting news story is violence at Trump rallies. Trump wants it and the news media wants it. It justifies the 35 cameras at the event last night and the wall to wall coverage of Trump.
Trump likes it because it gives him someone un-sympathetic to attack: scruffy disrupters. Cable news likes it because it justifies "Breaking News Alert!!!"
On CNN right now there is a story about violence at Trump events, and it has been going on for over an hour. And when I turned on my computer this morning and went to Huffington Post, here is what I saw, Terror on the Trail.
Then there is reality, and what I saw with my own eyes was an evening performance of a rockstar, in an over-policed event, without alcohol, after a thorough search. My tiny foldable umbrella and water bottles were both confiscated. Prior to the event a spokesman came out and said there was a special area set aside for protesters (outside the venue) and that the audience was instructed not to confront them but instead to call to security by chanting Trump, Trump, Trump if someone began to disrupt. There were uniformed police everywhere, and security people did escort out two people prior to Trump's arrival. The spokesman made repeated references to public safety. The crowd cheered when two people left.
That was it regarding protesters.
 |
| Quiet Crowd, |
Trump commented on protesters first thing. He described the terrible people who defied free speech in Chicago, what a selfless hero he was in aborting the event. It was obvious that Trump relished criticizing protesters, whom he described as "disrupters". He returned to the subject mid-speech. Alas, for him and the media, the crowd was protest free.
It was a mellow grassy lawn with a crowd that stood for some 4 hours waiting for Trump. People wandered around with signs, hoping to be noticed, and I have examples of it below.
 |
| A portion of the cameras at the event |
Trump routinely calls out the "dishonest media", those "lying media people". Alas, sometimes there is some truth to it. The real story of last night was the opposite of "Terror on the Trail". The story was ample and very visible security, plus the standard Trump extemporaneous talk. He arrived in a dramatic helicopter lighting up the night sky to thundering heroic music. Trump will find the Marine Band doing "Hail to the Chief" something of a come-down, if he is elected.
He ended his talk assuring people that "You will start to win if I am elected. Win. Win. Win. You will win so much you will start to tire of it. But we will keep winning. You will call out to me, 'let's stop winning so much, we are tired of winning,' but I won't stop. I will keep us winning and winning."
 |
| Entrepreneur |
 |
| CNN international reporter with a Trump fan |
 |
| Big Trump Entrance |
The audience loved it and cheered. How can they believe such over the top claims instead of the sober reports of the news media? In part because the news media isn't trustworthy. The real news is that Trump adjusted his message on violence and he continues to present confident images of American wealth, safety, and international respect. And the public is eating it up. Is the news media investigating the plausibility of his argument. No. It is hunting for breaking news in the form of someone disorderly and Trump's response to it.
 |
| CNN interviews a man who opposes foreign competition |
3 comments:
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that ratings-driven media behaves in such a self-serving way. Even NPR can't seem to resist the call of the carnival barker. Perhaps it's more telling about us as media consumers.
Liberal Media Suppresses Trump (or Hitler) Victory Statistical Model
UpClose is right that Trump supporters don’t trust the media. Very few people believe they do, although experts tell us we delude ourselves with that belief. Just like media on the right, we would be naïve to think that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. don’t use very deliberate strategies for influencing what the left believes. The term “propaganda” is not a pejorative to political and social scientists, and it is not to me. It is simply a fact of American media culture. See, “Media's Use of Propaganda to Persuade People's Attitude, Beliefs and Behaviors” (Stanford, 2013) http://goo.gl/t0UD7u, and “A Virtuous Circle: The News Media and Democracy (Harvard, 2000)”, http://goo.gl/QIXZMO. Media propaganda is based both on how certain events are reported, and just as importantly, on how certain events are suppressed. Editorial boards decide that some facts are too dangerous for voters because of the risk they will give undue emphasis to those facts. In short, the media decides when voters can be trusted with certain facts. The empirical evidence that Trump will gain strength with a large cross section of the electorate is considered such a dangerous fact.
With small pockets of notable dissent, liberal mainstream media increasingly projects a belief that Donald Trump is an American Hitler. Whether the media actually believes this is debatable, for as part of the establishment, there are many more mundane reasons that industrial, political and media elites don’t want Trump disfiguring the status quo. But the conclusion that mainstream media on the left and right is intent on defeating Trump is not debatable. To me, one of the most fascinating recent examples of media suppression is the non-reporting of Professor Helmut Norpoth’s election model forecasting that if Donald Trump wins the necessary delegates for the Republican nomination, there is little statistical chance that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders could win. See, www.primarymodel.com.
In past elections, the NYT touted Norpoth as one of its forecast consultants, and the WP featured his forecasts regularly in 2012 and before. Thus, in “Most models say Obama will win”, Washington Post (Aug 31, 2012) https://goo.gl/3NZre2, it said of Norpoth: “The model forecasts Obama will get 53.2 percent of the two-party vote and Romney will get 46.8 percent.” The actual results were 51.1% 47.2%, Wikipedia https://goo.gl/iACNWK. In “The Magic Ingredient: Party Unity”, Washington Post (May 8, 2008) http://goo.gl/uzWjDy, it was reported that Norpoth’s model would “correctly identify the winner of the popular vote in every election since 1952”, the exception being Kennedy's narrow win over Nixon in 1960.” As for the NYT, in “How the Poll of Iowa Voters Was Conducted”, NTY (Jan 26, 2000) http://goo.gl/00Vsp6, it noted “Prof. Helmut Norpoth *** is helping The Times in its Election Day polling analysis.” Then in “And the Winner Is Gore” http://goo.gl/HJYjZD, NYT (Sept 4, 2000), it featured Norpoth projecting Gore winning the popular vote over Bush, which he did 48.4% to 47.9%. See Wikipedia, https://goo.gl/HpFFZZ.
The NYT, WP and LATimes now have a blackout on Norpoth’s 2016 projections with only lesser liberal media publishing the results. See, “Trump Near-Certain to Defeat Democrat”, Huffington Post (Mar 7, 2016) http://goo.gl/QCNJEM, and “Trump Will Become President, Says Extremely Accurate Statistician”, US News & World Report, (Feb 26, 2016) http://goo.gl/BZUUtp, noting Norpoth’s “statistical model has only ever been wrong once in 104 years”. Media on the right is also publishing Norpoth’s projections. See “Political Science Professor: 97-99% Chance That Trump Will Be President”, FoxNews (Feb 26, 2016) http://goo.gl/zgOZWs.
This is a new era in American liberal media. It is now in a desperate race against time to convince America that Trump is our Hitler.
Post a Comment