Geopolitics/Global Market Analysis by Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann, Knight of the Order of St.George.European Order of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine: Dipl.Hypno/StressCoach_Author/Essayist_Dr. of Philosophy_Dr. of Education/HR OD@UniGraz Powered by SystemsScience_ParadigmShift_Self-Organization_Philosophy of Mind/Science/Language _Psychogeography_NewCybernetics/QuantumPhysics_Flow/Creativity_MassPsychology_Critique of Ideology/Politics
Freitag, 18. November 2016
'Out-Of-Touch-Media' out of Control
The result of the US presidential election 2016 - factoring in the reports and coverage before and now after the election on November 8th - show that obviously the so strongly preferred candidate of most of the media hasn't won, does not bear the title president-elect, despite large parts of the media were saliently and strongly biased.
And over all most of the media turned out to be obsessed with data, engaged in an obscure love story with data, their own data notabene, which turned out to be collected by either biased or wishful thinking scientists and pollsters.
Data, polls, studies, which show that figures - even if they are neutral themselves - don't matter, since it is all up to the pundit, scientist, the data-guys and what they do with the numbers they collect, and even more importantly, how they retrieve their data, their numbers, how they get their numbers, meaning on which premises they collect their data.
This is crucial and all influential for all the latter analysis of the data, no matter how accurate the analysis might be. So it is all important what you collect, what you read in and what you read out from the data, what leads you to even start a poll, a study etc. So the data-result you get is hugely dependent on your premises and your state of self-reflection as a numbers guy.
So in short: Data is not data and definitely not neutral or objective itself, when it comes to work with the data. But whether or not biased, or solely data-obsessed, the results of the 2016 US presidential election show that the complete election cycle was covered by a mainstream media, which was throughout ideologized, to a degree that it was mostly disgustingly biased and hyped by a media, who picked its candidate right from the get-go and picked on the other.
So dear media, I hope you learn from this, you do your soul-searching, and you don't think that your data is THE data, and I further hope that you are intelligent enough to self-reflect and not to further degrade yourself to propaganda stations of the establishment.
If you are unwilling or unable to do so and to be self-critical, please don't expect from anybody to listen to you ever again, to give his or her precious attention to you ever again, unless s/he wants to get ideologized in the misused name of objectivity, which gets perverted by those chief ideologists, who according to the world they want to see think, if they shim their positions with data as they want to see it, that would do it and that would result in a world they want to see and live in.
If you decide to go on making this mistake, don't expect to ever get your credibility back. So be aware that nobody else than you yourself stripped off your credibility with your excessive and overbearingly tendentious view and coverage during the whole election cycle. An election cycle which was based seemingly solely on biased coverage and relying on the premise that the belief in holding large parts of the information and broadcasting monopoly as well as the strong belief in to be the 'good ones', who behold the truth aka as the own ideology backed by yes-men and some data-guys and eggheads with blinders on, obsessed by their interpretation of the data they collected and declared for the truth in which all humanity has to believe in.
If you don't want to self-reflect, just go on with your ignorant, arrogant, egotistical and highly ideologized and missionary thinking and behavior, and so history and mankind will tell that you, the majority of the media, in effort to reach the world you want to see and impose it on everyone else, just have buried your own grave.
A grave in which it will be dark, cold, in which you you will be on your own, all alone, a grave even smaller than your out-of-touch bubble or some say echo chamber you are living in for quite a while now, from where you interpret the world and illegitimately declare and establish your view as the truth, as objectivity and facts.
Oh and it starts to begin all over again, when I observe you drawing the wrong conclusions out of the mess you are part of creating it. Wrong conclusions in that way that you mostly shrug off your shoulders, seek the flaws in others and stick with your ideology, which you think is in line with objectivity.
In case you are too much obsessed by yourself and your ideology to understand what I am talking all about, for you I put it very simple now: As a philosopher trained in logic, ethics, philosophy of language, mind and science, and criticism of ideology I diagnose you to have lost all your credibility, your neutrality, objectivity via your politically hyped, highly politically-motivated, strongly tendentious and manipulative covering throughout the whole election cycle.
Through your consistently biased coverage you gave the American public and the whole world deep insights into your bubbles surrounding your broadcasting stations and as a sad consequence thereof with your out-of-touch coverage you not only betrayed huge parts of the American people but also yourself and last but not least of course the once honorable profession of journalism.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to silence large parts of the American people by abusing your monopoly position in order to force your point of view on the American public, and even if you insist on not having a monopoly, the oligopoly you, the majority of the media, or should I say, the 'Out-of-Touch-Media' hold, doesn't make the whole thing better in any way.
Systemic Analyst and Philosopher Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann