Time was, a standard caution to politicians and corporate types was, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
Reason: Reporters and editors exercised what was known as news judgment to filter what public figures said, selecting, choosing and emphasizing what was newsworthy and what was not.
Unfortunately, that caution no longer has the clout it once had.
Today, candidates manipulate the media so that TV news channels carry their speeches live and in full, so the message goes direct to potential voters. In addition, candidates launch volumes of comments on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, which also go direct to the faithful. And news channels pick up and repeat these postings, so the master manipulator gets maximum exposure with minimum expense.
That way, even when traditional print media run stories that are counter to the tales of sound and fury told by a candidate, the media manipulator can dismiss the story as a dismal effort by "a failing newspaper."
That was Donald Trump's description of the New York Times, which has been running exposes of the candidate's more outlandish claims. And the outlander does this on his social media postings as well as at his campaign rallies -- which are dutifully carried and broadcast by the all-news TV channels.
However, newspapers and magazines retain some influence among those who read them and devote some think time to the information and the potential consequences of the positions -- if any -- taken by the candidates. And part of the function of the print media is to point out when candidates talk a lot but say little.
Today, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Trump's candidacy for President, and major news channels carried the announcement as well as a longer speech by Trump that followed the endorsement, live and in full, without comment or analysis, and without filtering out the dross and chaff.
Meanwhile, the tabloid New York Daily News ran a Page One headline "Trump For Prez," alongside a picture of a white-hooded Ku Klux Klansman, and attributing the endorsement to David Duke, a former chieftain of the KKK, and a quote: "He's just like us."
So while demagogues may appeal to the many, there remain many others who read and think over the consequences of electing someone of Trump's ilk.
Moreover, there is hope. While there is a possibility that Trump may actually win the Republican Party's nomination, he still faces a general election come next November, and would have to persuade many voters other than his devoted followers to nudge him into the Oval Office.
Once there, moreover, he would have to persuade a majority in Congress to actually consent to his proposals. And without that, little gets done.
This has happened before, currently with President Barack Obama. Whatever he proposes, the Republican-controlled Congress says no. In fact, the GOP has refused to even meet with or discuss any potential nominee for the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the upcoming general election could well bring a sea change in the makeup of Congress, with a majority of Democrats who would then block any proposals by a Republican president, especially if he should happen to be Donald Trump.
Or American voters could elect a Democrat to the Oval Office, as well as a solidly Democratic Congress. After all, the entire House of Representatives will be up for re-election this year, as well as one-third of the Senate.
Could it happen? Sure. Remember Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected President in 1932 and had the solid support of a Democratic Congress to approve his many plans to rescue the nation from the Great Depression?
So American voters have a clear choice: That of electing a demagogue with no experience in government and give him solid support of a like-minded Congress, or elect someone with long experience and qualifications and give that new President the support needed in a Congress dominated by members of the same party.
It's a bigger story than just the presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment