The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank (10/2/15) said he would eat the page on which his column was printed if Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination. “The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary,” tweeted the New York Times‘ Ross Douthat (9/25/15).
It was the ill-advised, incessant focus on Trump by everyone in the media that paved the way for a Trump win. While saying, "It won't happen" they were making sure it did happen. Exactly what they were saying was of little consequence. When the spotlight is on a person as fully as it's been on Trump, it is inevitable that that person will gain popularity, twisted as it might be. It's been the same with Clinton. Conversely, the lack of focus on Sanders has been a huge part of the calculated attempt to keep him down.
We are so manipulated by bought and paid-for media, "talking-heads", and pundits, its a wonder people get any straight truth at all.
Any "democracy" is dependent on an informed electorate, as well as educated, and absent those essential elements is easily subverted/controlled. The part the "Fourth estate" was to play is to inform - to provide (hopefully) The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth! We have all been betrayed by politicians tolerating/aiding, being complicit to, the subversion of "democracy" by big-money and self-interest undermining/destroying a free and independent press! Our "public" airwaves were sold-off for pennies - vital news and analysis turned into vapid scandal and celebrity rubbish - intentional ignorance, lies, and diversions rule the day.
This election cycle is a primer on corruption of our Fourth Estate - its premediated destruction, manipulation, party control and focus on the most base among us.
The only candidate speaking to real issues rather than infantile schoolyard bullying, political rubbish, evasions, and diversions is Bernie Sanders (and Jill Stein) - and they both are victimized, as are we all by a press/Fourth estate AWOL from their responsibility.......
From the article:
“At the very least,” wrote Greenwald and Jilani, "when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error — or casting blame on others — before quickly moving on, in the hope that it’s all forgotten."
Let's examine this in the context of OTHER quite important events and phenomena:
Those who "got it wrong" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the canard that Saddam Hussein was behind the 911 catastrophe have also remained in their media and other niches, and most are vastly rewarded.
Those who "got it wrong" as per the collapse economy in 2007-2008 mostly got slaps on the wrists, tremendous bonuses, and the chance for their big banks to grow even bigger!
Those who "got it wrong" about global warming (by filling the media with skeptics and finding the 1 scientist in 100 who decried the FACTS of global warming) are still instrumental in defining America's Energy (and foreign) policy.
Those who "got it wrong" in shooting down unarmed Black kids (and men) typically are still in uniform and very few have suffered any significant penalties.
Most of the mass media's Talking Heads are there to repeat specific stories and all conform to the same narratives.
Robert Parry has pointed this out with respect to the collective demonizing of Putin, and how the Ukraine tale as told by U.S. corporate media turns the aggressor into the defender.
Author and lecturer Janine Wedel has an interesting insight which bears on this subject. She explains that Neocons always "fail upwards," meaning that it's not their prognostic powers that are lauded but rather their loyalty to a Cause. And that cause largely comports with a general New World Order where corporate moguls have more power over human lives than entire governments.
Here is a link:
I think this is just a typo... but it should read premeditated.
That TED talk is well worth watching. Thanks for posting! It provides clear insight on the far-reaching web of influence the Neocons have woven across the globe. The diagrams are particularly helpful for seeing the big picture.
Somehow they missed it that Trump was careful never to insult white males as a group, the one demographic group he really needed to get the nomination.
Your analysis is only part of the picture.
The real question is what is all this control of narrative really about? What is the purpose of deception?
And the answers are:
- To convince a virtually enslaved People that they are free
- To sell war as much as toothpaste
- To retain a status quo that privileges less than 1% of the global population while spreading misery, war, poverty, and disease amid the rest
- To control what people think is true
There are a number of posters who take all of these controls to be ONLY about capitalism or the pursuit of profit. What they leave out is the LONG historical narrative that is always about a few controlling the many.
There are 4 major tiers to how the controls operate:
- Economic constraints and lots of carrots and sticks to keep a population compliant... so that it can earn its food and shelter
- Political constraints... controlling the range of the possible through the types of narratives and politicians placed before the public under the guise of "choice"
- Religious constraints... setting up beliefs like Original Sin and guilt to keep the pack quiescent and obedient to authority (and/or authority figures)
- Cultural conditioning: What is shown to the People as normative
Families typically teach their children to conform to the existing system, so The Family as tool of indoctrination is another major component of this 5 pointed star.
Did you watch the BANNED Ted Talk given by Rupert Sheldrake on science as dogmatic orthodoxy? Another brilliant one.
Too many in this forum repeat the same tired lines without educating themselves beyond the parameters of their own preexisting prejudices. Also possible, of course, is that they are just following orders in the form of posting the same redundant Talking Points.
Your entire post masks the fact that the logistics you describe exist for a reason: and that reason has to do with SETTING an agenda. It's far more than pushing detergent. And you know that.
How many primary election outcomes has a figure like Nate Silver been wrong about? And his errors were persistently biased against Bernie and towards Hillary, by a suspiciously large amount. Has he paid a price? Has he been discredited as a reliable source of election predictions?
Once you're part of the big, corrupt club, and as long as you never bite the master, you're set. You can be wrong-wrong-wrong-embarrassingly-wrong-outrageously-wrong so long as you err on the side of the powers that be. You'll keep falling upwards along your punditry career until you reach a perch of eminence at the Washington Post or New York Times, where your CIA operative co-workers will giggle with you by the water cooler about the starving hoi polloi rioting in the streets below.
It's a dirty propaganda matrix, run by and for sociopaths.
Premeditated, premediated -- it works either way. I think I actually prefer premediated.
What really matters is that the Republican establishment didn't take Trump seriously. If the had they would not have let him run as a Republican. The Democrats let George Wallace run in their primary in 1964 and then wised up and did not let him run in 1968. He ran instead as an independent and won five states. The Republicans are too weak minded and did not say no to Trump. Their next mistake was being sure he would self-destruct. When he started making a series of what for any other candidate would have been self-destructive statements lo and behold his poll numbers went up. When it was too late the Republican establishment finally realized that those hoards of Republican voters did not really care that much about conservative ideology after all. Apparently what they really wanted was a strong man who would look after them by keeping Muslims out and sending illegal Mexican immigrants back to where they came from. And he would tell the Chinese where to go and get jobs back from China. And he would create more jobs by gutting environmental regulations. So in return for their votes these people would be getting safety and jobs. And Trump would also get rid of political correctness. Finally people could again say what they felt and not have to be careful about every sentence they spoke in case they offended members of one group or another. America would be great again.
A successful pundit in today's media environment NEVER lets facts get in the way of a good story.
It doesn't make sense to say the only person other than Jill Stein is Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. You already mentioned her at the outset.
Very right - that error brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department........