After the mainstream media went all in for Hillary Clinton — only for her to lose abysmally — the media has been left to its own devices to recover from their incorrect predictions. Now, they must deal with their worst nightmare: a soon-to-be President Trump.
The problem with the mindset of the latter publication is that it seems to make two assumptions: (1) that Trump’s appointment is a one-off event and (2) there are no underlying causes that led to the rise and popularity of a candidate like Donald Trump.
It should be noted, of course, that Trump did not take power through a military coup. He was elected by the American people. Therefore, regardless of one’s views on how ludicrous America’s endorsement of this wildly racist billionaire may be, the problem of why he was appointed in the first place will still be there — no matter how many anti-Trump articles the Guardian publishes. Take one glance at the comments section on a pro-Clinton Guardian article, and you will see what I am referring to.
Russell Brand aptly explained this paradigm in a recent video posted to his Youtube channel. He stated:
“There’s no point reacting to: ‘What? Donald Trump is the President of America?’ Yesterday, the conditions existed for it to happen. It did two days ago. A month ago. A year ago. For the last ten, twenty years. They’ve been building towards this moment…The political system doesn’t connect with people.”
The problem is that whether you agree with the election outcome or not, the mainstream media refused to listen to the views of the American people — and publications like the Guardian continue to do so even to this day.
The mainstream media rammed Hillary Clinton down people’s throats despite the fact there is an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that if Bernie Sanders been the Democratic nominee, Trump would have lost.
Perhaps the issue, then, is not that the people wanted a President Trump, but that this is how badly they did not want a President Clinton. Hillary Clinton, with her proven track record of mass murder and corruption, tainted by her marriage to an alleged rapist and mass murderer, does not represent the people. In that sense, the Clinton strategy of “let’s hype up Trump so they vote for me instead” backfired enormously.
As noted by British journalist Peter Harrison:
“Donald Trump’s victory should probably not come as much of a surprise as it has, given the tsunami of so-called shock election outcomes and revolutions around the world in recent years.” Rather than examining the underlying causes behind the Brexit decision earlier this year, the mainstream media ultimately decided to disregard the causes of the country’s vote to leave the European Union. In a similar vein, they ignored the reasons that ultimately led to the country’s fervor for someone as dangerous as Donald Trump. Instead, they campaigned for Hillary. Had one examined the underlying sentiment behind the Brexit decision, they might have learned a thing or two about American politics, as well.
Harrison continues [emphasis added]:
“The Brexit vote was largely – I believe – a reaction by a disenfranchised section of British society who felt unrepresented, ignored and dismissed by a middle class political elite who were used to running things their way. So arguably – whatever one thinks of the referendum result – the legal challenge to Brexit is in itself a dismissive response by the very same middle classes to disregard what these same disenfranchised people called for when they took part in the referendum and voted to leave the EU.”
The same could easily be said of the current election outcome.
Clinton’s entire election strategy relied on an almost “I’m not him” style of debate, which largely failed to resonate with the American people. A recent survey demonstrated that most Americans do not feel represented by Democrats orRepublicans. What must have stolen the win from Clinton, therefore, was the fact that Trump was offering alternatives to the current status quo, which has currently made them increasingly unhappy and marginalized. Meanwhile, Clinton appeared to present more of a Barack 2.0 style approach, only more hawkish (if that is even possible). With that in mind, it is no surprise that Sanders provided a more viable alternative given the fact he proposed a number of suggestions to reform the current system that differed from Clinton immensely.
Yet, according to Media Lens, Hillary Clinton had the support of 57 of the United States’ 100 largest newspapers (ranked by paid circulation). Globally, she had the backing of 500 outlets. Donald Trump had a mere 26. In this context, is it any surprise the Guardian is now practically begging for donations?
Trump’s victory, no matter how terrifying, signals the end of corporate journalism and the beginning of the era of independent media.
The media outlets we previously trusted refused to believe a President Trump was possible. Now, we are all paying the consequences. Despite the fact that Bernie Sanders decided to reverse all of the positive policy proposals he put forth by fully endorsing Clinton after his defeat, the evidence suggests he was more popular with the people than both Clinton and Trump. Obviously, the DNC is also to blame for this conundrum, but their effort to oust Sanders in favor of Clintonwas carried out in tandem with the mainstream media — and now we all have to deal with a Trump regime.
Perhaps the corporate media should reassess its approach and start listening to the people. Whether or not the people want to elect a misogynistic tyrant or not, their views should not be disregarded. Once the reasons behind their proposed desire to appoint such a tyrant become clear, steps should be taken to learn what it is that is making the people feel disenfranchised from the system in order to ensure this never happens again.
If the media does not learn the lessons from this election, we can kiss democracy goodbye for good.