President Trump: It’s Your Fault Media!

By: Martina I

The election is over and it ended in a way that no one would have expected. Contrary to what all of the major polls have predicted, Donald Trump has become the president elect of the United States. Let me warn you, this article is biased, just like all of the American news networks. The reason for this, however, is a good enough justification: we are just human beings and we have opinions. Despite all our best efforts, our personal opinions will always, to some extent, influence the way we report or comment on events. If you were convinced that Clinton would win, there is a reason for it: the media, polls, and most people in power told you that you were right. This is exactly what brought Trump to victory. Even though “The Donald” is a bigot and a xenophobe, he was right about something: the media was “rigged” against him.

What can be said is that he represents a large percentage of Americans who are extremely angry at the system and the media has not given enough consideration to this anger. This, combined with the discouraging polls, motivated voters (mainly white males) to make sure they voted for Trump. The mistake made by the media has been to ridicule this man and treat him like a second-class candidate. Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone to ridicule him. If there were an international championship on self-humiliation he would win “bigly”. In fact, he would win so much he would get “sick of winning”, and all his friends would tell him “Donald, you’re such a big winner, unbelievable!”

See what I mean?

Even though any decent person would instantly dismiss this man, considering the massive support he had been receiving, it was wrong and unwise for the media to do so. In a sense, they allied themselves with the establishment that Trump supporters were so aggressively trying to fight, making many Americans their enemies. This resulted in them losing leverage and credibility when they reported on serious scandals that would have otherwise been considered much more heavily by Americans, such as the “Trump Tape” and all of his unacceptable comments.

There are concrete, undeniable reasons why Trump should have never been considered for the presidency, such as his stance on climate change, his abhorrent policy that doctors should be punished for performing abortions, his dangerously pliant gun control policy, his proposal to break up NATO, his ridiculous plan to build a border wall with Mexico, his willingness to provide countries such as Saudi Arabia and Japan with nuclear weapons, his idea to re-establish illegal torture practices that had been proven to be inefficient, his economically damaging tax plan, his idea to cancel Obamacare, leaving millions of Americans without insurance, and his lack of any proper plan to fight ISIS. This is leaving out his proposal to ban 1.6 billion Muslims from the US as he has backed down on this idea.  However, the sole fact that he ever proposed it, should be enough to make us question his candidacy.

The correct strategy would have been treating Trump like a serious candidate and disproving his claims with facts and logic instead of insults. At a certain point, it is normal to reach the conclusion that almost everything Donald Trump proposes is offensive and unfeasible, as well as damaging. This, at least, is what happens to educate people. What the media failed to see is that there were millions of people who did not reach this conclusion and needed to be explained with objectivity and clarity why each of his proposals was ridiculous. In the media’s defense, doing this would have taken centuries. Therefore, they should have quickly reported on (for Trump standards) “normal” controversies, focusing much more on the logistics of why his main ideas are inefficient.  Also, they should have highlighted the fact that besides some “not outrageous” proposals, Trump had virtually no good, feasible ideas to “Make America Great Again”.  Moreover, they should have concentrated much more on Hillary’s policies, many of which are smart and innovative. Instead, they treated this election like a reality show rather than an election, using it to transform their news networks into soap-operas and making the American people pay the price. All of this, because they chose to report on what would give them the broader audience (Trump) in order to benefit economically, assuming that America would still vote for Hillary.

I truly believe that it is the media who determines the outcomes of elections and not the candidates. Not everyone has strong, developed opinions. People: democrats or republicans, have their minds easily bent by hearing a so-called expert or TV anchor speaking positively or negatively about a candidate, assuming they are “unbiased”.

In this election, however, Trump used the truth to his advantage. The truth is that no news network is unbiased and every channel has a dominant political preference that is transmitted to its audience. In this election, most of them chose Clinton, and Trump opened people’s eyes to this, angering them.

If only he had also told them that educated people’s ideas are not based on superficial personal canons but on words and actions. News networks had every right to be against Trump, but they should not have denied it. If they had acknowledged it and told us why, treating him like what he was, a serious candidate with unserious proposals, he would have never won.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Stated in the article.

    “Even though any decent person would instantly dismiss this man”

    Does this mean that all the people who voted for him are not decent?

    As is written in the article the correct strategy is disprove with facts and logic not insults .

    The writer was perhaps overly driven by emotion.

    Like

  2. Though the term not “decent” may be a little harsh, our author did state that her article was biased. Furthermore, we encourage our writers to express their own opinions within their writing rather than reporting plain facts so that they can create conclusions that make their articles unique. Otherwise, what would be the difference between their article and a graph of data?

    Like

  3. Expressing your ideas and insulting an entire population are two different things. I am an advocate of democracy and as I recall the American people voted and Trump won by a large margin. The writer may not agree with the outcome, his politics, or any of his ideas but the people voted and whether they are right or wrong only time will tell. I find it interesting that he is being tried for his ideas and not his actions since he hasn’t even taken office yet.
    As for your comment at the end I would have preferred a graph of data. At least with the graph there would have been facts and a logical conclusion, not a biased article that was used as a platform to vent frustration.

    Like

    • Well in response to the “insult of the entire population”, as I’m sure you’ve heard on the news, Hillary Clinton won the popularity vote. The Electoral College and the inequality in electoral seats across states is what caused her to lose. Therefore, the state-by-state method the USA uses was what caused her lose not the population necessarily because if the population’s votes were the only defining factor for presidency then Clinton would have been victorious. Furthermore, Donald Trump has not only expressed his ideas but has also insulted entire nations (very blatantly). We accepted this article because it was a very opinionated and fierce piece (and many of our student body feel the same way if you recall the first day after Donald Trump had officially won). Additionally, Donald Trump is hardly being tried, that would need some sort of punitive action that he could be sentenced with. Just like Donald Trump, Twitter’s raves and Facebook’s rants are simply “freedom of speech”. He is experiencing the expected backlash a privileged white man who insults not only 50% of the entire human population but also entire ethnic groups and all immigrants (even though his own mother was a Scottish immigrant, his grandparents were German immigrants and his ex-wife was a Slovenian immigrant). And I’m sorry to hear that you did not like this article. Since you would like a more numerically based article, one of our newer writers Brian L. has been writing about economics if that would pique your interest more.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s