The Fourth Estate is supposed to be a watchdog speaking truth to power--independent in its operations, but alas we find it is not always so. Dogs can be captured with the right incentive--mammon. Instead of the guardians of free speech operating a system that promotes competition, the system in place promotes monopolies with all the trappings that come with it. Few families control the Fourth Estate in the world with their outlets and reach being transnational and transcontinental. What this means is few families dictate what you read, hear and listen to. Politicasters, understanding the immense power wielded by the Fourth Estate as a branch of government with inalienable weight in lawmaking, in all acts of authority, find ways and means to align with these owners.
In many instances, the owners of the Fourth Estate are backers of politicasters and their campaigns. This unholy marriage between owners and politicasters is the bane of true news. This is what leads to the capture of the Fourth Estate. Instead of seeking the interests of the public and offering a variety of news coverage from all angles, the Fourth Estate find themselves prioritising the interests of firms or political groups over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. News-media agencies suffering regulatory capture are called by me "captured agencies" of the Forth Estate.The Illusion of Choice & the U.S. Elections
The idea that today's news media can be accurate and fair is thus an illusion. If there are specific folks who determine what is news and what is not, then where is choice?
A simple survey of all the big media outlets leading towards the presidential election will show how one-sided the reporting was in favour of Mrs. Clinton. When the establishment hated Trump, so did the news media it courted. Even their polls did not tell the correct story--leaving a large section of the global population feeling disappointed by the results of the election.
The global news media spearheaded by Western bosses had assured the masses of a loss for what the news media had painted as the worst possible president for the USA. The news media predictions failed woefully.
Each time a major news media outlet came out with a poll in favour of Mrs. Clinton, there were dozens of twitter polls by ordinary citizens that contradicted it.
What's worse is that much of the allegations against Mr. Trump were without solid basis whereas there were mountains of evidence supplied by hacks in Soros' organization as well as thousands of leaked emails by Wikileaks that highlighted great flaws in Mrs. Clinton, but the media did not seem to think these were news worthy.
To highlight my point, an Associate Professor at the MIT Media Lab, Ce'sar A. Hidalgo, who is a self-professed Clinton supporter, came up with an email visualization tool of the leaked Clinton emails.
Despite this tool attracting upon its release 300,000 views in less than a week; i.e., about 50,000 views per day, it received no reaction from the news media. The dead silence is telltale of a dependent (vis-a-vis independent) news-media establishment possibly under the control/capture of a few.
The tool became the top story of the Internetisbeautiful subreddit, and made it to Reddit's frontpage. It collected more than 3000 upvotes and 700 comments. Soon "a moderator single-handedly removed it in an authoritarian move". The interest of the public was unquestionable; however, the Fourth Estate of government deemed it not fit to report. The reputation of the U.S. as a bastion of freedom is brought into question by such occurrences. What's more, the Assistant Professor in question started being called a Trump supporter by colleagues and received some heat for setting up the tool. He then penned the following:
"[T]his election has muddled the gears of democracy. When we cannot learn from those we oppose, or agree when they have a valid point, our learning stops."-- Ce'sar A. Hidalgo, MIT Assistant Professor
The professor is of course right. Clearly the news media had a challenge with one of the candidates and were intent on one-sided reportage. Is this what the founding fathers envisioned--a society built on bias? I thought it was a government for the people and by the people, in which case, the news media should report what interests the people. It seems like it is now a government over the people and by transnational elites who act as backers of the political establishment. I wonder what Snowden would say about this.
What are the repercussions for the international systems and the nations within it? I honestly do not know but I presume it cannot be good. Why? America's policies affect other nations within the system. If the American political establishment and electorate cannot learn from each other or from an outsider even when he has valid points, they can definitely not learn from other nations in the international system that may have an opposing view to theirs. This is a frightening thought considering that we are talking of a nation whose capability/power is probably unsurpassed in human history.
It is presupposed the US is a democracy and the election results reflects the will of the majority and yet after the elections, the riots, demonstrations and #HeIsNotMyPresident hashtag reveals a deep-seated hate for the Trump faction by the losing side and their unwillingness to accept the will of the winning side. This unwillingness to accept other perspectives different from ours is dangerous.What Should The World Expect?
What would a Trump presidency hold for the rest of the world? Trump said in his acceptance speech, "I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone --all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).