TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
A week+ later, sorry if the response is disappoint.
There are two aspects which turn in my mind as I attempt to respond. First, who said it. Second, what's being said vs what I can see with my own eyes.
You frame it as 'our president has labeled every institution as corrupt and our media as fake'. This is also the man whom I can't take seriously 90% of the time because he has the worst case of cant_shut_ups that I've seen since a major coke party back in the 00's. The vast majority of what he communicates is confusing at best, and self-damaging most of the time. Verbally, he repeats himself (sacred incantations only come true when you chant them repeatedly) even when the statement seems off the mark or addressing a question not asked. In tweets, he seems to focus more on delivering a message, but it's like he's hammering a nail and smashing the fingers holding it as he pounds the point home, causing a lot of extra noise and discomfort for all involved. That said, I only catch what audio clips or tweets get some media coverage as I'm not really paying attention to any sources with earnest (an indicator on why some of my views aren't real deep or developed, and I've got more concern on MY life than what is moving around me - I've survived a half dozen Presidencies, my full attention is required on me, not politics).
But to my first aspect of 'who said it', I think it (media bias, gov't corruption, etc) has been there for a long time but Trump is the first to take it on and call it what it is. I think he's likely one of the few that would be willing to do so, to take on these entrenched beasts, unlike anyone else who would just try to fit in and navigate their way through the existing infrastructure rather than take it on and risk the opposition for it. I don't have a Psych degree, and long ago gave up trying to determine if he's the evil manipulating genius or the bumbling fool, and take him for what he appears to be - a force to be reckoned with, which brings both good and bad. As I've stated elsewhere, I like an underdog, I like people who challenge the status quo. So for that, he has my attention and support. Another interesting aspect to this is that he has no support. By this, I mean the media will obviously fight him and undermine him simply for opposing them and trying to expose them for being biased liars. Similarly, those in un-elected gov't positions, career bureaucrats, will fight to hold what they have and to not lose power. Democrats as a whole have been attempting to destroy him since he started his campaign run, and the Republicans remain strongly silent without a lot of support or criticism of the man, only pushing back on Dems when it really hurts them as a party and not the President specifically. The only avenue I can see Trump having for any sense of support is direct to the public, which is why I believe he relies so heavily on Twitter = unfiltered, his view, direct to the people....and maybe he has supportive retweets, and we know he has detractors firing back, but I think his head-heart are thick enough and self absorbed (ahem, Presidentially focused on the mission at hand....lol) to where he believes he is doing right. He may even take support from the push back he gets from the media and gov't institutions as the validation of his goals. If he were wrong, they could just prove it, no? And if faced with an undeniable fact, I don't think he'd accept it, but he'd change his point of attack to something else and skip acknowledging he was wrong.
The second aspect - what I hear VS what I see. Media bias has been visible, for those that pay attention, for decades if not going back to the beginning of America (early newspapers WERE run by political parties with obvious bias and slants against their opponents). It is a historical truth in our first century as a nation. However, me growing up through the 70's-80's-90's I didn't pay attention to 'news' and took the bits I got at face value and processed them as best I could. I took it as 'here are the facts, you decide'. Now, if I go back and watch those newscasts, I can see the obvious reshaping of messages that I was oblivious to then. Was it because I was young? Most likely. But what about America at large? Did they take it as fact, or opinions on facts? I can't speak for those older than myself other than to have no recollection of people challenging the 'news' as not being fair and honest. Then again, what could they compare it to? NBC vs CBS vs ABC? For print we relied heavily on local newspapers with damn few trying to cover things nationally. Would we know if there was a local slant being applied if we only lived in that sphere of reality? Those were your news sources, and if they aligned, it had to be true, right? There was no internet, there was no alternative sources, no voices on the ground or in the middle of an event able to tweet out or livecast what was actually happening. No fact checking capability for the public, you HAD to take the 'news' as fact. The internet, and my own growing up and starting to question what I'm told, have really changed the game for me. Of course, the internet allows for a million opinions on the same base set of facts to exist and compete. You even have opposing 'news' sources that compete for your attention (advertising dollars at stake!) so who to believe? What to believe? (HoleePhuk what a TLB;DR tangent).
IMO, the ideal is to get info from a variety of sources, know that each one is working with an agenda and can't be taken at face value. I don't care who you use as a news source, there will be something omitted or spun in a way to shade the situation. Any news source is catering to it's readers who are looking for a certain view on the facts in an effort to hold a sustainable following. Simply put, I trust no-one. There are major news outlets that have been documented changing their messages (see headlines rewritten, tweets edited or deleted) when their initial attempt to be >first< misses the mark of their follower's expectations. And, there are many 'articles' which if you read them, you can see a framework of factual events but such a layering of what those facts mean you are left with the author's opinion on what happened, not the base facts of what happened and you left to determine their meaning. If you want the truth, you have to read articles from both sides of the situation, see past all the opinion, take the common facts as true and the inconsistent facts as questionable (to be verified with other sources, but be careful that qty does not fully justify quality or truth, specifically if several of your referenced sources are nearly identical or have a history of pushing out the same message as if fed from a common agenda).
Back to the question you asked 'how to determine what is legit when the Pres says it's all fake'? I think he put a spotlight on it and encouraged (caused?) many in the public to question these things if they weren't already questioning them. But the affect of Trump being the one saying it is minor. For me, I can see the spin and honestly believe there is corruption within that has grown unopposed over decades (both parties being in power).
I always push back on absolutes. Your statement indicates half the country (his supporters) will take anything as 'legit' even if it's not. I hate broad-brushes, but acknowledge there's an element that will feed on conspiracy opportunities and will indicate he's only touching on the tip of the iceberg. However, I don't believe that's the bulk of his supporters. Let me flip it around a bit:
For those who lean left - do you take everything he says as 'fake'? Is there no truth in anything he says?
For those who lean left - do you believe all the MSM are honest and truthful? Or are they spinning their angles?
For those who lean left - do you believe the gov't has no corruption? That career bureaucrats are doing what's best for the country, first and foremost, always?
= = = =
Odd thought occurs as I wrap this up. Is there any support (and if not, why not) from the Antifa far left wing seizing upon any of Trump's statements of gov't corruption as a reason for their cause? Would it not also align with their view that gov't is bad and needs to be broken apart? This is likely unrelated to anything else in my post, but it struck me that if they want anarchy and no gov't...wouldn't a corrupt gov't be a crack in the establishment they would want to exploit? Or are they not that organized? Or are they so anti-Trump they can't see the alignment (I honestly don't think they care about Trump per se, but perhaps they care about tearing down the President as a gov't figure)? Idunno.
Last edited:
