posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 03:53 PM
Unless we’re lucky enough to see the man live and in person, there is, at all times, a wall of screen between us and the president. In that sense we
are that far removed from the reality. But there is also an increasing amount of words and opinion distorting it further.
There is so much reporting on Trump that only the comatose could never come across it. It becomes increasingly more difficult to see him unfiltered
and unedited without active research, but all the more necessary.
That leaves us susceptible to misinformation. It has become par for the course for Trump watchers, both pro and anti, that they get their doses of
Trump not from the man himself, but from an army of commentators who wax lyrical on this their favorite subject.
This does a disservice to the claim that Trump is dividing the country, because most of us engaged in politics receive our information from those
tasked with informing us, the media, and not Trump.
There are a myriad of other problems with this approach that leaves the viewer unarmed to the commentator’s opinion, and bereft of his own.
Trump's speeches and press conferences are often long but the commentariat delivers us a tiny fraction of it, padded by their own framing and
opinion. This isn’t just a matter of concision for broadcasting purposes but also an effort in omission, cherry-picking, selective reporting and
card-stacking. A single example will suffice.
The issue of Trump’s “many sides” controversy, which a segment thought revealed his racism and white supremacy, also revealed their own
ignorance. What was remembered of the speech are those two out of context words, the commentary, and little else. The language of unity (“No matter
our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first”, “we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop
right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection-- really, I say this so strongly, true affection for each
other.”), was omitted in favor of exploiting their viewer’s malleable emotions.
It is because of this and a litany of other examples that it is safe to say that whole gaps exist in the narrative and thus in the knowledge of the
lucrative anti-Trump business, the commentariat, and their base. The sudden realization of the absence of this knowledge should make them pause and
rethink their efforts, at least to allay the pains of dissonance, but the routine nature of this activity only seems to harden the credulity while
continually weakening the skepticism.
Both fans and enemies of Trump need to embrace the power of their own abilities to interpret the facts on their own, without the crutch of someone
else. This requires watching a speech, a press conference, or tweet in its entire context and coming to one’s own opinion before the well is
poisoned by propaganda and spin. Only then will we be informed enough to make an informed opinion.
If we do not, we can be sure that what lies in the gaps of knowledge is pure wind.