Shrinkage

   The amateur psychologists are on the loose among the punditry, spouting many theories on what makes the candidates tick.
   Certainly the GOP nominee is a ripe target for all this speculation, and many potential voters have formed their own ideas and conclusions. But what happens when talk-show hosts and their guests indulge in wallowing through the many variations on how and why Donald Trump says and does what he says and does.
   There was a time when professionals also chimed in and consented to be interviewed about the actions and comments of a presidential candidate, but that stopped many decades ago, when the professional organization recognized the harm that such talk can do. Especially when the analysts lend their credentials to the psychoanalysis and it later turns out they were wrong.
   So now the amateur speculation and comments as to whether a particular candidate is a certifiable loony is just that -- speculation, by amateurs, who are not licensed to certify anyone.
   Thus, it's left up to the campaign teams to spread their gossipy, sometimes slanderous cracks about the opposition. The problem becomes one for the journalistic enablers who provide a platform, a microphone and a video camera for them.
   The situation is then complicated by the biased platforms offered by partisan media outlets masquerading as news operations, reinforcing the views already closely held by the loyal cadre of viewers.
   Moreover, the problem exists at both ends of the media spectrum, with some outlets clearly liberal and other clearly conservative in their presentations.
   Somewhere in the middle, there are news outlets that try to take a neutral presentation, without mixing opinions into their reports.
   But no matter how hard they try, the tough but fair questions asked by neutral reporters are resented and attacked by some candidates and their supporters, who brand them as unfair, biased, unprofessional, prejudiced and other negative terms. Usually this happens when the candidate is unwilling or unable to respond with a well thought out policy position.
   Typically, the candidate then blames his poor performance on someone else.  A debate moderator, for example, or a reporter who presents a balanced story.
   Whodunit? Who's responsible for the poor performance report, the performer or the reporter? An insecure performer, whether in the theater or in politics, will often blame the reviewer or reporter, rather than accept the reality of a performance that was not what it could or should have been.
   Journalists have thicker skins than that. They know that the subjects of their reports will often disagree with the presentation or the depiction, and sometimes the conclusions in the report, blaming the writer rather than the experts and their analyses quoted in the report.
   People who enter the public arena, whether politics, show business, literature or any other field, should know going in that there will be critics who will say negative things about them and their work.
   Conclusion: If you're that thin-skinned and insecure, don't enter the public arena. Either that, or don't read newspapers and magazines or watch television.
   Stay home and sulk.