As far as I can tell there’s a huge gulf yet again between what people saw and what people were told they saw in last week's first Democratic Presidential debate. This week we’re starting to get poll numbers, and therein lies the problem.
The plan seems to be, and it’s obvious, to have as few debates as possible and then work the perceptions afterward.
In a way it’s not unlike the way Rupert Murdoch runs his RW disinformation media. Put out the most outrageous headline, blare it around the globe through your various channels and when called out on some or other erroneous grounds publish a correction buried in the back of paper or broadcast. The theory is don’t just tell a lie, tell a big one and keep repeating it. This is the way of propaganda. Then everyone in the media looks over their shoulder at each other and talks about how wonderful the emperor’s new clothes look.
If you're a poor working stiffs barely afloat in this ongoing slog of an economy who didn’t get the chance to make up your own mind, tough luck. Former Clinton national campaign manager Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in charge of the debates, and she doesn’t give a shit that you have three kids and are trying to balance the dishes, the checkbook and various rides for your offspring. Most people either are just not interested, too tired or plain overworked to watch the few debates that are scheduled, and that’s the point. If the poor working lackey, trying to keep abreast of real world problems, is resigned to say, "I'll read about it tomorrow," then that’s just the scenario the Clinton campaign wants.
Because the monopolistic nature of corporate news beholden to their advertisers and the peculiarity of the modern internet/social media age in which people think they're getting news even as they are only skimming headlines, is a potential disaster (or great opportunity, depending on your side of the fence) for a majority of people to be either misinformed or easily manipulated.
The fact that 3/4 of people asked in the CNN poll, which called Clinton the winner, did not watch the debate really says it all.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, the mainstream media not only props up the political horse race to a degree that includes manufactured controversy (such as HRC's emails and Benghazi) and sensational distraction (every next dumb thing Trump says) to the detraction of anything substantial and meaningful.
But they’ve also, in this case, seem to want to balance the scales a little, after successive months of Sanders climbing the polls with relative speed. Especially that his campaign is an existential threat to their livelihoods and politics as usual (no negative ads, seeking to end Campaign Finance, holding accountable the Economic Terrorists, etc). Not the least of it which, yes, probably contains a shred or an element of responding favorably, in this instance, to the big, well-connected political machine of the Clintons. It's pretty well-documented how they've operated over the years. If you don't think that's in play to some extent also you're deeply naive.
As for the debates themselves something certainly does smell funny. Sanders won in enormous percentages many of the online and focus group polls of people watching the debate live. For what it's worth, the pundits did completely miss it after the debates, as Van Jones just said, because "Bernie Sanders is on fire."
It’s just too intellectually dishonest to flippantly suggest, “I guess we’ll see when we vote,” and not even consider the influence of the mainstream media and political connections on the outcome.
The crucial component here is the shaping of public opinion.
Because whoever has the stronger channels/relationships with the media, The Ultimate Arbiter, is usually the winner. If it’s constantly reinforced that your intuitive feeling “wasn’t right” (read: as reflected in the majority of the public’s view, without ever considering how that view was gotten) but especially when all around is professional chatter and punditry and opinion pieces to the contrary. In turn, this is exactly why people don’t bother to show up to vote.
Indeed there actually were a few post-debate focus groups or viewer opinion polls. They showed that people who had been asked to watch the debates and give their opinions overwhelmingly preferred Sanders over Clinton. These might not be the kinds of “scientific” polls demanded by some. But only blind supporters will discard these at their peril.
As Egberto Willies said, “the American Corporatocracy is scared of Bernie Sanders.” Especially that his fierce and unapologetic populism is resonating so deeply with a wide swath of non-partisan folk, enough for him to have won the debate. Clinton’s campaign, and the oligarchs who are being challenged also, totally get this. They’re betting on the revamped Emperor’s New Clothes, satirized brilliantly by SNL:
“I think you’re really going to like the Hillary Clinton that my team and I created for this debate. She’s warm, but strong. Flawed, yet perfect. Relaxed, but racing full speed toward the White House like the T-1000 from Terminator.”
Clinton spoke in such finely-crafted platitudes that the nebulousness of it all could be misconstrued by the causal observer to actually have been something vaguely believable. The problem for the honestly-interested voter is that there was exactly nothing that you walked away that could remotely be remembered as conviction for or clear-eyed explanation of any policy position. Just a lot of sounding good, speaking toughly and confidently, and of course an appearance made-up perfectly to bolster the ever-present smile.
The bottom line is well-rehearsed and polished political speak may have been a tried and true tactic that worked for years. But in that sense Sanders is unlike any presidential candidate we’ve ever seen. When contrasted with Clinton’s hollow Hallmark sentiments that merely might “sound good,” Bernie’s inability to mince words or equivocate sets him apart from the all other candidates.
Having now heard the kind of unvarnished truth Bernie is putting out people want more of it (and in a similar way, though his bombast is strictly narcissistic and destructive, Trump is getting through). People are deeply skeptical of public relations-crafted political speak. But that's not what the punditry wants. He's not as tawdry and outrageous as Trump. He’s running a completely unorthodox campaign, and it's based on an integrity through and throughout.
Then there's that kind of genuine integrity you can't force. On the debate night we saw him come to the defense of his primary opponent in dismissing the controversy about her emails. Then he rescues reporter Andrea Mitchell from getting trounced by a mob of media circling around him. Earlier in the week the mother of Sandra Bland approached him in a restaurant, a moment that could have been transmitted far and wide to detractors.
This is the kind of stuff people notice, because it’s not staged. It’s who he is, and that kind of fairness, honesty and selflessness is never seen in the political world. That integrity wins elections. The Clinton apparatus doesn't want any of this to get traction, hence tthe absence of primetime debates going forward.
But back to the media framing.
The moral of it is this again. To the vast working-stiff peasantry:
- Don’t trust your instincts (especially if your idealistic dream has no chance of becoming reality)
- We always know what’s best for you (and will resort to many sleights of hand so that you are subconsciously nudged back toward the uneasy but familiar comfort of the well-trodden drudgery zone in which you passively accept anything dictated by “the news”)
- Until finally in the end you concede that your opinion/vote/demand is ultimately worthless because you’ve seen this game played over and over again (nevermind the Princeton study proving empirically that American democracy is flat out beholden to an oligarchy whose wishes consistently supplant those of voters, confirming that yes, your vote truly is worthless).
Tue Oct 20, 2015 at 9:23 AM PT: Thanks to GreatLakeSailor for a video explaining the above-mentioned Princeton/Northwestern study.
This is what Sanders is talking about, the study's conclusion, which is that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Should be seen far and wide.