RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Candidate Nullification – Vacuum-Based Perception – The New Media Debates

Print
Written by Andor Carnes   
Monday, 22 October 2012 17:00
Simply an opinion:

“Lying” is a pretty big accusation when the untruth is not always perceived as such by the deliverer. For political candidates, if they have a small/poor enough grasp of a subject, speak in generalities and constant platitudes and still believe themselves in the right, then they will not actually believe they are lying. It’s been proven time and again that no more information is needed to keep them convinced of such.

If a candidate says whatever they need to for support (it’s a cliché for a reason), regardless of the truth, we assume that is “business as usual” for politics. Therefore, that sounds like we would be ready and resistant to the lies and misdirection’s they would attempt to feed us. It sounds prepared, healthy and proactive. Yet, if behaving this way gets the candidate coverage for it the same as if it were true, and they are never held to the fire for it in a damaging, sustained public way way, then they will continue the practice to the detriment of our civil society. Curiously, even though we say we all know they are lying for gain, we do nothing about it. We just take it in the media.

Telling a liar they are one, with no consequences, is like telling a would-be suicide bomber they are bad. It means nothing to them because in their world the results they see prove stunningly otherwise. If a terrorist does not care if they die, then it is almost impossible to defend against them. If a liar simply and consistently counters with lies, whether they believe them or not, and they are never held accountable, it is almost impossible to counter them. Telling a bigger lie works. Telling a bigger truth does not.

When a society has reduced themselves to a diet of large quantities of so little information as to believe that the candidate with the best demeanor is more qualified than the one who has better experience, sound facts and consistent honesty, we are in collective jeopardy of losing real choices. When we, the public, criticize a truthful candidate because they are aggressive from being clearly incensed at having to listen to the other’s lies, then public discourse serves little more of a purpose than entertainment. We actually elect our officials this way thinking we are just evaluating them.

We see and hear the obvious but can only concentrate on the superficial, all the while believing the opposite to be true. Our leading media, with I believe generally good intentions, does this akimbo. When the circus tent burns to the ground, there are always people, us, who die simply because they think the smoke and flames were part of the act.


The public sees and hears what it is given and loses a sense of fairness, as right and wrong are distorted beyond recognition, when no one calls the wrong for what it is in as publicly accountable and immediate way as the show itself. In this way we cease to see missteps and lies as tells of character and manipulation for gain and ultimately the threats they are. In fact, we stop looking for them. We effectively nullify the obvious that should have warned of problems. Thus, many times later, after they take office, we are buried when the real tent falls with beautiful but real fire.

When we see a candidate lie to gain and who is not held in the public stock for it, we curiously learn to trivialize huge differences in character between candidates and concentrate on the minutia that we can easily understand. Coincidently, that is the set of details that the media concentrates on.

Case in point:
There are literally countless and documented examples of important substantive blunders and lies on the 2012 Republican Candidate’s record and during public, televised debates, and it makes no difference. He is not held accountable by anyone.

It’s the three-second rule in training horses. You need to be kind and caring in your direction of them, but when they do something they should not, you need to re-direct them within three seconds of what they did or they are off on another thought and will never couple your redirection or criticism with their action. It is hard sometimes to train a horse in this. It is harder to train their owner. It is one second for candidates. For those candidates, in the second-second of getting away with it they are training. By the third second, they are trained. The problem is that the public is in lock-step with those seconds. Logic does not work with them either after one second. Lies can take their time. Truth must be swift. If the truth is not fast, history proves in debates, “what’s the point?”

For instance; thousands of times the Republican candidate says that job creation is worse now than four years ago and cites statistics to reinforce his claim. No one cares to hold him accountable for the untruth and to point out that the spread between the jobs being lost four years ago and those being created now has been not only consistently positive but went from hundreds of thousands of jobs lost per month to hundreds of thousands gained per every month. That is massive job growth but the lie resonates, the truth does not. The reward is that his three seconds passes every time without incident. No one ever says to him, “Just because you say it does not make it true.” That is what the public would understand but they never get it.

Why, one might ask, are these clear, blatant false campaign statements always continued? It is because we do not punish them for saying such, and neither does the other candidate. When the lying candidate treats us as idiots, we take it, when the truthful candidate treats us as more logical than we are, we listen to the lying candidate. What a system!

The public in essence tunes out the truth and concentrates on the easy. As long as we do that, the liar will be far better and more understandable entertainment. We never call it publically for what it is. We never demand better.

Years ago, I sat in a town meeting, called by the city Traffic Engineer to explain to the surrounding, mostly older, home owners why building a new large shopping center in the middle of their historic neighborhood should not concern them.

He proceeded to tell the interested, concerned and packed house that the reason they should not be concerned was because there would be a zero sum impact on their community from all the cars of the shoppers. He said that even though 700 cars would enter their neighborhood a day, 700 would leave; therefore, there would be no impact. Clearly realizing that the statements were wholly disrespectful, insulting and patronizing, without a word, more than half of the audience got up and left. Then one gentleman still seated in the audience said that if the engineer treated them as if they had brains and they cared maybe the traffic department would not be so mistrusted by the neighborhood. Then almost everyone else left, and the meeting was over. A healthy dose of persistent mistrust and action toward a proven lie never hurt a voter. Taking the same rhetoric over and again does hurt.

In campaigns we cannot walk away like that and let everyone else know we are leaving and why. That is only possible with the vote. The lying party, regardless of their party affiliation, always knows that. It’s really a tradition, and we accept it and the media perpetuates it. The endless polls that are taken are the documentation of the myth that political polls sample and foster fairness. Rather they underscore only what is reportable and not what is true. To report anyone is “ahead” to people who have not yet voted is a corruption of the system because telling that to people who believe that style over substance wins a Presidential debate is a wholly unfair fight.

Here we have a Republican candidate who illustrated on a nationally televised Presidential debate that they do care about the Auto Industry and personally illustrated it by explaining how they helped a family who had been in an automobile accident. No one held them to that absurdity or that they felt we, the public would buy it, which apparently we did. No one held them accountable for the thinking, inappropriate for a Presidential candidate and also an insulting treatment of the audience. Not a single comment or accountability for this statement. In stead, the poll numbers actually went up for that candidate. His performance was preferred over content or truth.

Effectively, the other Candidate, the President, was nullified by the media and the public to the point that such a statement was not the tell it should have been. It meant nothing to the media or the public. The “nullification” of the other candidate, the President’s experience, record and logic was complete in the media. For instance, the “47%” comment should have nailed the coffin shut for whether this particular wealthy individual could empathize with the public and keep their interests at heart. It did not. He was still reported as winning the debates.

I cannot help but believe that the few really caring and great politicians out there from all walks and parties everywhere are scratching their heads wondering how we go so far down the road expecting so little, delivering even less and desperately trying to dress it up as more.

“700 cars in, 700 cars out”….. However, do not worry, the flames are awful pretty.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN