Friday, December 11, 2015

media v. message

I reiterate that the more time in the election cycle, esp. the more time before primaries, the more time for media, new and old, hence the better it is for the likes of Trump, who feast on nothing so much as media possibilities.

As it is the nature of media, new and old, to feast on and magnify the likes of Trump, such being the nature of the electronic beast.

It may sound simplistic but it seems obvious that constricting the election cycle for president from what it is now — 2 long years? — would contain if not eliminate the viral possibilities and necessities of a Trump.

Is the media, then, the message?

Let me put it this way: shortening the cycle would squeeze media out to a significant degree and highlight message.

As it is now, message is underdog.


  1. So you see him as someone more motivated by media exposure at any cost than as someone motivated by the conviction of his beliefs? I also think the media have treated him differently than the media of past years would have done, at least with respect to seeing more critical and less "objective" reporting. My guess is that journalists, especially when reporting on someone as wealthy and as litigious as Trump, have been instructed to be extra special careful in reporting anything that could be construed as libel or slander. Fucking wusses, all.

  2. I don't disagree with what you said. I'm saying something simple about nature of the electronic cum digital universe: the more the election cycle stretches out the more media wins out over matter.

    It's a kind of McLuhanite formula.

  3. much agreed... there is also the cost issue, which rises as per the length, making the entry barrier so much higher. it can all change; limit the run to 6 mo.; large contributions eliminated (as per Sanders and others); set amount of exposure in the media paid by the public/tax as part of election cycle, etc; mandated third party in house and senate ;-}

  4. Agreed. I was trying to stress the availability of free media, as in coverage of debates etc.. Too much of it. And the republican candidates while enjoying it, show no signs of learning anything, including simple things, such as Hussein hasn't been king of Jordan since he died in 1999. But Chris Christie insists he'll have a good sit-down with Hussein when he becomes president (as through a séance, maybe?

    Remember, GW Bush attacked the wrong country
    in 2003. Whatever. Ted Cruz wants to carpet-bomb ISIS, wherever it is. How about in the Sinai? Is he going to bomb Sharm el Sheik?

    And which one of these ignoramuses wants to impose a no fly zone on Syria, which would entail shooting at Russian planes?

    They are not merely dumb but dangerous.