'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

Angry Old Men - Quo Vadis America?

America is in danger, but not as you might think: Not from the outside but from within. There is a movement, strike that, a momentum of Angry Old Men in America, as I want to put it. It seems, they are very concerned, as America is changing too quickly for them to adapt. And surprise, surprise, most of the Angry Old Men are white considering themselves either actively as part of white supremacy or supporting the notion of an America dominated by white men passively, wether or not they are white men themselves or just backing this ideology hegemonically. But in recent years America has changed a lot.

So those who are not bright and flexible enough in their minds are not able, even more so not willing to adapt to this change, as they see the USA - the way they knew it - in decline. But it is not the USA that is in decline, but it is their rule, and an America of the past, in which they were in charge undisputedly without any separation of powers in terms of sharing power with other colors and groups in society.

Of course the Angry Old Men now see America suffering from an erosion of their predominance as the USA individualizes herself, becomes more and more heterogeneous, liberal, as well as inclusive and cooperative in people's mindsets.

So the Angry Old Men see their sinecure increasingly washed away in the stream of time and get more and more angry. They shout out loud their anger, as they want to live their lives with force, fear, violence, and in full control, as they were used to, in order to push back or at least to contain any developments of democratization and advances in making the respect of human rights an experience in our daily lives.

It seems as the mouthpiece of this movement and momentum is Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner in the race for the White House. Trump is definitely not the oldest, but the loudest of these Angry Old Men.
As we can explain many phenomena of our adult lives through analyzing our early childhood and youth experiences psychologically, the one million dollar question is: Which trigger experience in his early childhood or youth made Donald Trump so angry? In other words: What drives Trump psychologically to act like a loose cannon?

Systemic Analyst
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann