Scrappy Earthling | No Homeland

wish to be essayist, storyteller, poet-singer, filmmaker, social entrepreneur, originator and ward off (evil) …

Follow RSS Atom

News outlets and the difference between [the so called] dictators and democrats

2 years ago | Observation

I always admired journalists, and it was a hard choice for me to accept to publish Sarah González’s article which claimed those working on the media these days are “Prostitutes of Wisdom” but now more than ever it seems to be true.

This is how The New York Times reflects on latest revelations by Wikileaks in an article with the title “Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street”:

Reflecting in 2014 on the rage against political and economic elites that swept the country after the 2008 financial crash, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that her family’s rising wealth had made her “kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class.

The article sounds as if the fact that Hillary Clinton has no ties with the general public and doesn’t have the faintest idea about how the life of such people actually feels, is the side-result of 2008 financial crises.

This is the full passage of her speech as leaked via an email revealed by Wikileaks:

I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.[1]

She is simply explaining how did it happen, that she never felt and nor could relate to what most of middle class working American population feel or think. Yet, it is all fine. Some are given more by God, some less. We don’t need to question why me or why her, as The New York Times’ reporters Amy Chozick, Nickolas Confessore, and Michael Barbarooct have tried to research and present to the audience.

What hurts is that an individual who is fully aware of her conditions and that of the middle class member of the society and of her inability to relate to their concerns, issues, way of seeing the world and etc is trying over and over again to represent that very group of the population. Such attempts when described very genuinely would rather be labeled with terms such as “living a lie” or even more precisely “deceiving the typical working class members of the society in an strategic and organized series of actions over the years”.

As the public opinion goes, most people lie on a daily basis but organizing a whole series of actions years over years based on a lie is incomparable with when the guy next door asks you out and you say “oh, I have to go shopping with my friends tomorrow.” You run a whole campaign on an organized lie, a lie so big that would have changed your political career forever. Simply no human being would ever chose an individual as their political representative, who clearly can’t make any connection to them in respect of their concerns, wishes, dreams and so on … How could such a person be entrusted as the leader of the nation? Such an organized lier about such basic stuff?

But The New York Times reporters have an amazing tendency throughout their piece in appearing as blind intellectuals with good hearts and sound knowledge:

Citing the back-room deal-making and arm-twisting used by Abraham Lincoln, she mused on the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues.

That’s the whole passage as leaked by an email revealed by Wikileaks:

You just have to sort of figure out how to – getting back to that word, "balance" – how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think – I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work.

The real trouble in such passage is not regarding how Hillary Clinton has understood the history of the United States in respect of the actions and intentions of its political leads but the sheer fact that how she defines political success”. For Hillary Clinton political success is one in which she herself wins and not the necessarily the public.

Real politicians know that “the back room discussions and the deals” can go all the way wrong. Just ask Tony Blair regarding the war in Iraq. Iraq still hadn’t seen the glimpse of democracy which the United States advocated to be the side-result of its invasion. Does Secretary Clinton has forget that?

Of course not, of course what she is saying put plainly means: “actually I believe in myself and any place where public opinion differs from that of mine, I will rather cheat the public because I am so sure that I am right and at the end “we usually end up where we need to be””.

This is not it, Hillary Clinton. This is exactly what you are criticizing all other governments around the globe who doesn’t have strong ties to you for doing. Do you think Bashar al-Assad[2] or Ali Khamenei[3] thinks any different than this?

At least about Ali Khamenei I can tell about my own experience, over and over I heard him telling “I/we know something that you (that specific group of the public) doesn’t know.” And over and over I told to my friends who supported him: “Okay, we have a brain too. Why doesn’t he tells what he knows and I/we don’t, maybe after all we understand and agree with him.” But as far as I can remember such revelations never came to light, as long as I stayed in Iran.

If compared on paper, I believe the Iranian head of state would be way more democratic than you, Hillary Clinton, cause at least he tells that he has a different opinion than that of the some popular groups in the public and that he is going to go after his own opinion because he believes to have access to informations and knowledge that others don’t, but you Hillary Clinton prefer to lie to your very own people and deceive the public presumable for their own good. I mean Ali Khamenei uses the same excuse, but at least he doesn’t lie to the publicly, he just doesn’t tell you the reason behind his decisions and actions, but he doesn’t live two faces, one for the public and one for the back rooms as you and few of your colleges does.

A word with young intellectuals in the [so called] West

So many journalists wrote about the fact that they wondered how would Trump raise from the best nation of the world. But the truth is that when those who bear the duty of being the eyes and brains of the general public turns into magicians and entertainers, a con man will raise to the top, cause that’s exactly where he belongs.

Yes, journalists, you have turned into magicians. Just like the Magicians who direct the attention of their customers to where nothing is happening, you direct the attention of the public from what matters to irrelevant side-facts. Instead of dismantling Clintons empires of lies, the first paragraphs of all major media outlets is devoted to reporting on allegation made that Wikileaks is tied to Russia. Let’s face it, even if these documents were officially released by the Russian government, it does not give Hillary Clinton the permission to deceive the population. You know what you are doing looks like? It is as if that child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen be criticized by the audience because his father comes from the neighboring kingdom. Who that child is born from, won’t cause the Emperor not being naked.

Yes, journalists you have turned into entertainers. Your money comes no more from the value of what you write but the value you have for your owner. You are owned by a number shareholders, who consider no other value for you than being an assets, whose measure of usefulness is in amount of profit it generates. Just as the animals in a circus are not regarded as alive being who deserve respect and dignity but mere assets who apparently their single purpose of existence lies in making the pocket of the owner of the circus heavier.

Is there any need to wonder, why you are rather entertainers and magicians than journalists?

[1] The highlights are by the author of the email.

[2] Head of Syria

[3] Head of Iran