Press-Stress/Stress-Press.

Started this a few months ago.  I've added to it whenever the mood struck, so if it seems a little sporadic, that is why.  

     On Monday, I began my time in Computerland, on AOL.  One of their top stories, in AOL News featured the headline: "Obama reveals candidate GOPers should nominate," with a subtitle, " The president said he hopes that the Republican party nominates someone more moderate than the current front runners in the 2016 election.  Past nominee he compared him to".  No candidate was ever named.  In fact, I clicked on the link to be whisked away to the complete Politico interview with Obama, and it was about the President's thoughts on Iowa, Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders.  The highlighted "Politico" is the link, if you'd like to read the transcript or watch the video.  The president never names a GOP candidate.  He does talk a bit about John McCain; and how despite differences between them, McCain never denied climate science.   Not only does he not "reveal a candidate that GOPers should nominate,"; he doesn't reveal his pick between the Democratic nominees.  Which is no surprise to me.  The President has a tad more important things to do, than get caught up in that drama.


    Below is a diagram showing how the ownership of media has changed over the years.

     Just something to consider.
   
     Back in October, there was Joe Biden had an interview on 60 Minutes.  He shares what led to his decision not run for president. 
     After I saw the interview,  I came to understand a couple of things:

1) I was mistaken, or rather taken too easily.  See-> Thinking About Joe ,It's Friday Again, Decision Made

2) Reverted back to my Words of Wisdom, to keep in mind: that all news is biased, and to look very carefully for who's in charge and what is their motivation.

     For example; I really should have considered what Maureen Dowd's motivation was to writing "What Would Beau Do?"
     Especially considering that Maureen Dowd was on of the press members that broke Joe Biden's "scandal" in 1987.  Especially considering that Maureen Dowd most likely does get under the President's skin.  And especially considering that she is clearly not a fan of Hillary Clinton.

     My motivation is not to vent about Ms. Dowd.  That's just a perk.  What is my motivation is to shine some light on some "news", and to theorize what motivation is behind it.


      Photos should be a way of calling attention to an article, or TV news bit, to let the viewer/reader know as to what subject that bit is about.  However, I've noticed lately the chosen photos are conveying sometimes quite the contrary.
      Consider this photo:

LAUREN VICTORIA BURKE/AP PHOTO

       At Huffington Post, the photo is used to accompany this headline:
"Sen. Sherrod Brown Endorses Hillary Clinton."

     Really?  Would you expect to read about Sherrod Brown's endorsement of Secretary Clinton or more likely, for it to be to be a photo for, "Sherrod Brown accuses Hillary Clinton of (something)"; or "Sen. Sherrod Brown Shares Inappropriate Dirty Joke With Hillary Clinton."

     Just consider the photo included in the next story you read in a magazine; or one that you click on.

Does the photo match the story?  Does it have the people alluded to by its title? 

     Anytime I wonder why the heck the media are discussing something, that I don't perceive as newsworthy; I think back to a year ago when they were so desperate for a topic, that this photo

took the media by storm: 

Now, it is early May 2016.

     Donald Trump has just sewn up the Republican nomination, after a win in Indiana. 

What I would give for the press to be discussing those dresses above.

     Bernard Sanders also won Indiana and West Virginia.  So, no doubt, we can count on MSNBC, CNN, and others will be hosting "exclusive" (wink wink -exclusive means you will see it rerun on every news channel on TV and on every possible website, for the next 48 hours, or until the next "exclusive" interview) interviews with Senator Sander, his wife Jane, his manager Jeffrey Weaver, and his very well paid chief advisor Tad Devine.  Despite the fact that Sanders is still trailing Hillary Clinton by more than 3 million American persons' votes, and about 300 pledged delegates.  If you'd like to add in the Super Delegates, then it's more than 750. 

     But what of it?

     

     The man pictured at the top is the 2016 Republican nominee for President of The United States.

     While I do believe that The RNC, is largely to blame for why we have an over grown Oompha Oompha as one of the main representatives of the United States, as I vented in It's Their Own Damn Fault; I also hold accountable the press and media.

They legitimized him. 

     They repeated, every single foul statement that Donald John Trump stated to such nauseating degree, that one would either have to be under the age of 2, have suffered loss of hearing and sight, or live under a rock, not to know and to be able to recount every insult that he's made since last spring.

     Bernie Sanders has greatly benefitted from the press's efforts as well.  Despite common sense, as articulately stated by Mike Johnson in Face The Music Senator Sanders, I don't get the sense that the press sees that it's in their interest to hone in on the many accomplishments of the front runner.  Rather they continue being awed, and airing interview after interview of this expert and that, about the senator from Vermont's chutzpah. 

     What I find to be humorous now is that last Friday, Sanders unloaded his thoughts on Corportate Media to Rachel Maddow.  I don't think this thought is new for Senator Sanders.  But I have not heard it, in any of the many, many, many, one on one interviews with him, that MSNBC has had on in the last 10 months.

     I find it interesting that he states that now in May, towards probably the close, at least for now of their symbiotic relationship.  Still to me it's just yet another thing that Sanders rightfully, but frustratingly annoyingly, gripes about.  

     This is not a post about Sanders; there's enough on my site about him, Donald, and Hillary.  Although considering these candidates, there's the one who's been a shock a moment type of personality throughout life, has had bankruptcy after bankruptcy and is infamous the world over.  That is not spin; that is fact.  I just hope... Would it be too much to report as such? * 

      I can't help but wonder; what would have all the candidates' campaigns' fates have been if we did not live in a 24/7 news cycle world?  

     

     Today, just for fun, take notes on what photos you see, that spark interest and what headlines they go with, and save in a file, or jot them down on a piece of paper till July 12th.  Two months.  Should be interesting to see what came of each story, and if it had any impact on anyone. 

Only time will tell. 

*UPDATE: GOING AGAINST MY NO SWEARING POLICY, BUT IN INTEREST OF CLARIFYING:

 ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT WOULD VOTE FOR DONALD JOHN TRUMP.