2 years ago500+ Views
Social scrutiny from mainstream media on the presidential campaign
Everywhere I look, it seems the internet is cluttered with worthless posts full of memes, challenges, and people complaining about their relationships with other people. Even in the Youtube world there are people bashing each other with their mean comments after hearing a word, or stopping halfway through a video to express how one small detail is wrong and the person who made the video should slit their wrists as a favor for humanity. It's normal, and I don't tell them to stop what they're doing because that's what they like to do and it's their opinion. However, the only time I get bothered is when the media decides to put on a different show in an article about something big going in the world and remove any traces of truth to get the story out and replace it with some slapstick. One thing going on right now is Bernie "Bern" Sanders running for the democratic primary, and it seems people are not on board with him over such misinformed, not to mention, weird comebacks about his appearances and how his mental capacity is as compared to the other candidates Clinton, and Drumpf (See, even my own piece of scrutiny can't hold back when it comes to that smuck).
So, what the hell is going on with the media and their approach on Sanders nowadays?
I think I know a couple of reasons why.
The first thing is change. One source that comes to mind is from The Washington Post, who have been making false claims on Bernie Sanders during the Democratic debates, taking his points of view and congealing them into what Hilary had originally stated. The Washington Post has recently been, and is still making, false stories about Sanders with a total of sixteen posts.
And it's not just these statements, but the whole concept of becoming president of America is all about American standards that must be followed and not reciting what our founding fathers have made. When something you didn't say or do that causes the media to go haywire and decides to up the ante by adding a bit of gossip to the mix, that's not reporting a story, that's a way to persuade people from looking at the real story.
The second reason is looks. The face of a running candidate can say pretty much everything. Have you seen when of those graphic posters of a popular face with the word "Hope" written on it? It's all about who is easily recognizable. But what about what they have to say about world problems? It's all locked up in the head, and when speaking the truth, especially about America in general and what's really wrong and/or dying, that's when everyone gets squeamish. They ignore the problem and say, "You're not good enough, you don't have the face of righteous." Bernie is old, but that doesn't mean he can't run because he might die within the first week in office. In fact, age doesn't matter, nor how handsome and beautiful you are. What really matters is how brave you are to point out flaws in American society, and all over the world and the ones who procrastinate not doing anything about it and saying it's nothing to worry about.
It is something not to worry about.
I'm not saying this to let everyone go and support Sanders and I'm not trying to change the opinions of others because it's what should be done. Everyone has their own right to support him or not. I'm saying how it bugs me how The Washington Post can go out of their way to make terrible inaccuracies over a man who has real meaning behind his policies, and how he needs to help general public.
Honestly it makes me so frustrated when I see the "news" discussing the appearances of candidates. They do it with Bernie, they do it with Hilary, they did it with Fiorina, and they do it with Trump. That's not news unless you're a fashion-oriented outlet. We should be critiquing the content of their speeches and their record when it comes to the work they've done. That's what makes a candidate fit to serve.
2 years ago·Reply
Yes appearances should never be a part of a political debate, but some form of independence of political view point, should some how exist within a society that has to vote, any media which has direct ownership is not independent, its to easy for producers editors and reporters to be influenced if they know there job is working for someone with a particular view point.
2 years ago·Reply
I mean, this is the reason a lot of people loved Kennedy...he was good looking, and a good person. But you know, anyone running against Nixon would have had my vote.
2 years ago·Reply