'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

Presidential Election 2016 and the American DNA

After intensive observing and assessing for the last months or so and factoring in history, recently I came to the conclusion, that unless some major events occur it is most likely that Donald Trump will win the race for the White House, this 2016 elections, an election season so historic and notorious, that many historians to come will have work to do, and so in the coming days, on November 8th, to be specific, I think he will be announced President-elect of the USA. Why, but why do I come to this estimation, leading me to this conclusion?

A good question, but answered easily. According to what is widely considered as 'progressive' the American people has never been as progressive as many of them thought they were, they overall tended to be conservative, so why should it be different this time, or should I say this time again, since president Barack Obama only could get elected after the Bush years, as sheer reaction to the two preemptive wars, in which under false premises then president George W. Bush had led the American people into and under which so many Americans lost their lives and their loved ones as a result of that.

So my premise is that under 'normal circumstances', meaning under a 'regular president', who hadn't dragged the American public into two preemptive wars under dubious premises, resulting in a huge mess in the Middle East along with radical cuts in personal freedoms through the Homeland Act, president Barack Obama never would have had a shot to become president and to be seen by so many Americans as an extraordinary relief from the predecessor and as a possibility to truly turn the page.

And now we are in the final days of a fiercely fought and by far the dirtiest election in American history, at least in living memory, in which Hillary Clinton, as a key factor of the administration of president Barack Obama, is running against Donald Trump, who many consider to be the anti-establishment change agent rallying with slogans like 'Drain the Swamp' referring to the seemingly corrupt lobbyist system in Washington, D.C.

But besides all that, why for heaven's sake should the USA, a country in which many of its states stick to their guns, fight for keeping their laws like 'Stand Their Ground', hold their death penalty regulations dear, even in states with democrats as majority such as California, why should this county, so much known for - if at all - making two steps forward, followed by one step back, why should the American people vote for Hillary over The Donald, giving her the much needed 270+ in the electoral college?

Because if they did so, if the majority of the American people elected Hillary Clinton for president this time round and not Donald Trump, the American constituency would not only make a third step forward, after having taken two steps at once with the first African-American president, but even jump forward.

In other words, it would mean the following: The American people given all its described characteristics, after having made history with Barack Obama, and already having taken two steps forward at once, by electing Hillary Clinton for president would not need a single step back anymore, not even to consolidate. So the American electorate would vote against their whole way of thinking and their cultural DNA, and I have to say the third time in a row (2008, 2012, 2016) in electing right after the first African-American president a woman into the Oval Office, as first female president.

Given the history of America, do you really think that will happen? Do you really think that would be likely? I doubt it.

It would be very surprising and in stark contrast to the many aspects of the Union, which in many cases is deeply based in the Old Testament, and predominantly never has made the jump successfully even to the New Testament, not to mention to the Human Rights declared in the various existing charters.

So why now should the American people jump into a situation of having the first female president right after having had the first Afro-American president in the White House?

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Philosopher and Systemic Analyst