Are you better off?
The phrase, "perception is reality" has taken flight among US press organizations, ignoring factual information and relying on public opinion and the viewpoints of the most extreme partisan pundits as the basis for its news coverage.
The founding fathers viewed the press as so fundamental in the political process that they gave it special privilege and protections under the Constitution. The press is afforded the opportunity to shine a light on the government and investigate claims made by politicians -- and to reveal truths not otherwise available to the average individual. But today members of the press happily enrich themselves by advancing corporate propaganda on a wholesale level. Their only measures of success are opinion polls and their bottom line.
Like the media, Congress is merely another operative -- a tool of a corporatist government profiting through propaganda. But that's another article.
The way the media operates today is an obvious disservice to the country. It's bad because in this scenario we are not holding a president accountable for his actual performance, but for his (and your) ability to manipulate public opinion. Wouldn't it be nice if public opinion was informed by actual facts instead of the viewpoints of the loudest voices?
Every time I hear a political news story, I find myself begging the reporter to stop telling me what other people think. Don't merely influence my opinion with other opinions. For instance, on the economy, give me objective economic metrics so I can make an informed choice in November.
The only thing polls are good for is to show how well the propaganda is working. Paid pundits then report cherry-picked poll data that parrots their propaganda, creating the perception of a populist guideline for the people to follow.
The theme for this year's presidential election is the now-familiar recycled catch phrase coined by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
That's not even mildly clever, but for reasons I don't understand, that's now the political measuring stick. In today's media environment, we now weigh the success of the president by the viewpoints of survey participants and not the actual vital signs pointing to the health of the country.
Mitt Romney is delighted to play this game and is obviously hoping your answer to the questions is no, the people do not think they're better off, that it's time to replace the President. While that's simplistic, it's probably effective and compelling to the intellectually inept. This invokes a vision of the man wearing a cowboy vest and a hat fashioned from a cardboard 12-pack beer box sitting in the audience at the 2012 Republican National Convention.
But if we are introduced to nearly any economic metric, we begin to see that the country is actually healthier than it was four years ago. Unfortunately nobody is talking about that.
The economic indicators were bottoming out by the end of 2008 and have been on a gradual recovery since then. Unemployment was at 10.2% and that is objectively improved today at around 8.2%. The job creation index saw a low point four years ago, but has been on the rise since. Consumer daily spending was at an all time low at the end of the Bush administration and has risen from $59 to $74 over Obama's term. Even the confidence index is much better; it tanked to -60 at the end of Bush's second term and is now at a four year high at -20.
Corporate media, you are all so quick to slide the soapbox over to paid campaign consultants and party cheerleaders -- people who are obviously not guided by thoughtful and impartial analysis of available information, but by bought loyalty. What those people have to say is tainted and definitely not useful in the election process. You would rather set the stage for conflict that generates catchy headlines for the sole purpose of attracting an audience and improving the bottom line. It's a pity you don't provide a service directed by integrity.
So #usmedia, please report objective metrics comparing the nation's economic state four years ago to today instead of are-you-better-off polls.
The founding fathers viewed the press as so fundamental in the political process that they gave it special privilege and protections under the Constitution. The press is afforded the opportunity to shine a light on the government and investigate claims made by politicians -- and to reveal truths not otherwise available to the average individual. But today members of the press happily enrich themselves by advancing corporate propaganda on a wholesale level. Their only measures of success are opinion polls and their bottom line.
Like the media, Congress is merely another operative -- a tool of a corporatist government profiting through propaganda. But that's another article.
The way the media operates today is an obvious disservice to the country. It's bad because in this scenario we are not holding a president accountable for his actual performance, but for his (and your) ability to manipulate public opinion. Wouldn't it be nice if public opinion was informed by actual facts instead of the viewpoints of the loudest voices?
Every time I hear a political news story, I find myself begging the reporter to stop telling me what other people think. Don't merely influence my opinion with other opinions. For instance, on the economy, give me objective economic metrics so I can make an informed choice in November.
The only thing polls are good for is to show how well the propaganda is working. Paid pundits then report cherry-picked poll data that parrots their propaganda, creating the perception of a populist guideline for the people to follow.
The theme for this year's presidential election is the now-familiar recycled catch phrase coined by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
That's not even mildly clever, but for reasons I don't understand, that's now the political measuring stick. In today's media environment, we now weigh the success of the president by the viewpoints of survey participants and not the actual vital signs pointing to the health of the country.
Mitt Romney is delighted to play this game and is obviously hoping your answer to the questions is no, the people do not think they're better off, that it's time to replace the President. While that's simplistic, it's probably effective and compelling to the intellectually inept. This invokes a vision of the man wearing a cowboy vest and a hat fashioned from a cardboard 12-pack beer box sitting in the audience at the 2012 Republican National Convention.
But if we are introduced to nearly any economic metric, we begin to see that the country is actually healthier than it was four years ago. Unfortunately nobody is talking about that.
The economic indicators were bottoming out by the end of 2008 and have been on a gradual recovery since then. Unemployment was at 10.2% and that is objectively improved today at around 8.2%. The job creation index saw a low point four years ago, but has been on the rise since. Consumer daily spending was at an all time low at the end of the Bush administration and has risen from $59 to $74 over Obama's term. Even the confidence index is much better; it tanked to -60 at the end of Bush's second term and is now at a four year high at -20.
Corporate media, you are all so quick to slide the soapbox over to paid campaign consultants and party cheerleaders -- people who are obviously not guided by thoughtful and impartial analysis of available information, but by bought loyalty. What those people have to say is tainted and definitely not useful in the election process. You would rather set the stage for conflict that generates catchy headlines for the sole purpose of attracting an audience and improving the bottom line. It's a pity you don't provide a service directed by integrity.
So #usmedia, please report objective metrics comparing the nation's economic state four years ago to today instead of are-you-better-off polls.
