If only one happy fact emerges from the 2016 US election it will be that the corporate media almost lost – almost lost its ability to determine the outcome. Come 2020 no chance, bye-bye, propaganda monopoly kaput – the indi-media will prevail. This radical shift is something progressives the world over should be heeding, celebrating, and working to consolidate. If this sounds like an exaggeration please read on.
It is a fitting mark of the inadequacy of the UK mainstream media that most British citizens have no clue as to the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton. Since the election cycle began, the accepted Manichean narrative is that November will be a contest between Trump (boo!) and Clinton (hooray!) with Clinton the likely winner – and the world heaving a huge sigh of relief. And if by any chance Trump does win, a time-worn explanation is to hand. A Trump victory will be due to the stupidity of Americans – gun-toting, flag-waving Americans – an enduring stereotype that chimes comfortingly in the minds of thumb-sucking flag-waving Britons, many hiding a secret and envious crush on the US.
The problem with this narrative however is that it is baseless. If Hillary loses in November it will not be because the American citizenry is stupid, it will be because they are repelled by her conduct. Her approval ratings started out dire and have proceeded to get worse. She has the lowest approval ratings of any candidate ever put forward by the Democrats. She has the second-lowest approval ratings of any person to run for President - second to….guess who? That is the Democratic Party’s strategy for defeating the most unpopular Presidential candidate of all time: Fielding the second most unpopular candidate.
While we’re at it, here are some more interesting facts that you would never glean from the voluminous scribing of Anthony Zurcher or James Naughtie:
1. Bernie Sanders came from nowhere to almost win the Democratic nomination. It was a blistering reversal of original polls and predictions. He might well have won it if some of the following factors were better known, or had not been at play:
It is a fitting mark of the inadequacy of the UK mainstream media that most British citizens have no clue as to the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton. Since the election cycle began, the accepted Manichean narrative is that November will be a contest between Trump (boo!) and Clinton (hooray!) with Clinton the likely winner – and the world heaving a huge sigh of relief. And if by any chance Trump does win, a time-worn explanation is to hand. A Trump victory will be due to the stupidity of Americans – gun-toting, flag-waving Americans – an enduring stereotype that chimes comfortingly in the minds of thumb-sucking flag-waving Britons, many hiding a secret and envious crush on the US.
The problem with this narrative however is that it is baseless. If Hillary loses in November it will not be because the American citizenry is stupid, it will be because they are repelled by her conduct. Her approval ratings started out dire and have proceeded to get worse. She has the lowest approval ratings of any candidate ever put forward by the Democrats. She has the second-lowest approval ratings of any person to run for President - second to….guess who? That is the Democratic Party’s strategy for defeating the most unpopular Presidential candidate of all time: Fielding the second most unpopular candidate.
While we’re at it, here are some more interesting facts that you would never glean from the voluminous scribing of Anthony Zurcher or James Naughtie:
1. Bernie Sanders came from nowhere to almost win the Democratic nomination. It was a blistering reversal of original polls and predictions. He might well have won it if some of the following factors were better known, or had not been at play:
2. Hillary’s electoral lead over Bernie was never as strong as the media fudged it to be. From day one they added the predicted votes of Superdelagates to the running total. This made her modest lead look unassailable from day one, and presumably dampened hope and dissuaded many from bothering to get involved.
3. Hillary didn’t win. She didn’t even muster enough votes to reach the required 2,383 delegates. At this week’s convention she will have to rely on support from the party grandees to nudge her over the line.
4. Many of Hillary’s multiple ‘decisive’ victories, such as the one in in New York, were all but a foregone conclusion. In NY you had to put your name down by the previous October to be allowed to vote. So anyone who ‘felt the Bern’ after October 2015 had already missed the chance to vote for him in April 2016. And who’d heard of Bernie in October 2015?
5. The Democratic National Committee is banned from taking sides in the nomination contest but as any sentient observer could tell, and the Guccifer 2.0 leak confirms, the DNC has in fact been campaigning for Hillary from the start. The DNC has neither denied nor confirmed the content of this leak. How might that bias have effected Bernie’s chances?
6. If the goal is to defeat Trump, Bernie is far and away the safest bet. Nationally he canes Trump by double figures. As I write, Hillary is scraping a perilous 2.7% lead over Trump. In May she actually fell behind Trump in national polls. Come November?
7. Clinton’s campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street and every other dubious business interest you may despair to mention. The average donation to Bernie’s campaign was $27 – small donations from a mass of everyday people. Whose interests are likely to be served by each of these candidates upon them winning?
8. During the campaign Hillary was the subject of an FBI criminal investigation. That fact alone would have forced any other candidate to withdraw.
9. The email scandal is not over. If it doesn’t bring her down before the election it is very likely to do so soon after.
10. November will not be a two horse race – very likely there will be four contenders.
11. Bernie supporters are not, as the DNC was banking, ‘falling-in-line’ behind Hillary now that Bernie has endorsed her. They are swapping in large numbers to the two independent candidates.
Now, how on Earth might an ‘umble Limey like me have acquired all this startling information, information which seems to have eluded the cream of British journalism? It certainly wasn’t from watching mainstream US news like MSNBC or CNN (both organizations sank vast amounts into Hillary’s campaign, and are now waiting for their payback). All the above information has in fact come from independent media – YouTube channels, for want of a better term.
Bernie is a great inspiration, a once-in-generation progressive, loved by millions, but he would be the first to admit his success has depended on alternative media – alternative voices challenging those multinational voices backing Clinton. If you’re not already familiar, why not try The Young Turks, The Humanist Report, The Sane Progressive, Socially Unacceptable, Jimmy Dore, Tim Black, HA Goodman. (While in the process of posting, I notice that there have been significant developments concerning point 5, above, so where possible I have linked pieces relevant to that ongoing scandal.)
As you can see, these are hugely varied formats, born of very different production values. Some resemble the BBC’s Newsnight, only with more swearing; others look more like a Skype call from your Auntie in Vermont – only with more swearing. Some are ostensibly comedy but with a sharp political edge; others are simple video diaries by sincere, politically driven college students. Nevertheless, it is no exaggeration to say that these and other plucky young men and women came close to getting a Democratic Socialist on the Democratic ticket, and perhaps into the White House. Even without that crowning miracle their achievement has been astounding.
In the next post I’ll take a closer look at the methods they have employed, and what we might learn from them. Here though I’d like to close by launching an appeal. I’d like to boot this American football high into the ashen British skies, and challenge like-minded British political progressives to run and catch it (careful not to bump heads).
Politically, we live in dire times. We have just inherited the most right-wing government this side of the First World War. It is currently working to sever our connection with the EU and leave itself free to apply its Thatcherite fundamentalism undisturbed. As we teeter on the edge of an environmental precipice we find ourselves governed by a cabal of climate change deniers. This week alone £200 billion that could have been spent on finding intelligent solutions to this impending catastrophe has instead been pledged to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. And more than half of our sagacious opposition party voted with the government, to push this madness through parliament.
Meanwhile, BBC news has ditched any semblance of impartiality – it is absolutely off the leash; a rabid attack dog that sleeps at the feet of the government. Any opposition to the Thatcher-Blair consensus is savaged, its proponents slandered, demonised, variously accused of cowardice, bullying, idealism, naivety, cynicism, sexism, anti-Semitism, you name it. If a Blairite says it, the BBC runs with it.
We need a counter-narrative. We need to hold the mirror up to the Gorgon. We need to unpick the lies and shame those telling them – using the same media. Like Steve Austin’s handlers, we have the technology. For the first time in a century of broadcasting the individual now has the exact same global reach as CNN or the BBC (quite a thought!). As Britons we are, apparently, unusually tech-savvy, and we certainly have a longer, deeper tradition of left-wing politics. We must tap these excellent resources, take inspiration from America’s digital revolutionaries, and create our own spectrum of alternative voices.
No comments:
Post a Comment