Between A Rock and A Hard Place: The U.S. 2016 Presidential Elections

          The United States of America, a land built on principles emphasizing the importance of the individual and the power of the people. It is a nation that has stood as a beacon of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world ever since it broke free of British rule at the end of the Revolutionary War in 1778, and at the head of this esteemed nation is the position known famously as the President of the United States. This person is supposed to be an overall representative of the people of America and ensure, as the head of the Executive Branch of the government, serve the very citizens that voted him/her in to office to the very best of his/her ability. While no president is perfect, they often have at least some desirable traits that make them fit for office. However, unlike all elections that have come before, both of the primary political parties in the U.S., the Democrats and the Republicans, have failed to present the people with a candidate worthy of the presidency.
          On one hand, the most likely presidential candidate to win the Democratic primaries is Hillary Clinton, who, when she was discussed in class, was rightfully referred to as a "wash up from the Clinton presidency in the nineties." This statement refers to the presidency of her husband Bill Clinton, who served as the 42nd President of the U.S. from 1993 until 2001. After several failed attempts at the presidency and numerous scandals, Clinton is finally on the verge of at least having an actual shot at becoming president. One such major scandal that was uncovered was her illegal, private email server in which she illegally discussed classified information with colleagues. This actually led to the discovery of countless more scandals, including information pertaining to the infamous Benghazi incident in 2012. Someone as corrupt as Mrs. Clinton may have a place in politics, but in no way, shape, or form does she belong in the oval office.
           Meanwhile, over in the Republican party, the winner of the Republican primaries has been chosen, and it is none other than Donald Trump. As discussed in class, the man is nothing short of a clown. He revels in the spotlight as one gigantic joke. Every comedy show on television has at the very least, had several Donald Trump-centric comedic bits. Besides being the class clown of the presidential elections, his policies are absolutely absurd. His most prominent is to reinforce the U.S.-Mexico border with a gigantic wall, and on top of that, he plans to have Mexico pay for its construction. The wall aside, however, there are still many, many, many more proposals that he has made that are also ludicrous. Another such proposal that came from Trump was made in Bismarck, North Dakota. It was there he declared that, if made president, he would increase the amount of fossil fuel drilling and reduce the number of environmental regulations currently in place. To add to this, he also said that he would go back on the Paris climate change agreement. No one as hell-bent on disastrous policies as Donald Trump deserves to become the President of the United States, yet he is already one step closer by securing the Republican nomination.
          How is it that, in a country supposedly devoted to its citizens, people such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have risen to become the primary candidates for the presidency? How is it, in the greatest country in the world, the beacon of Democracy and the importance of the individual, that the people of this great nation have no suitable choices of whom to lead them?

Chomsky and Herman, Am I Convinced?

     After reading both an excerpt from the book Manufacturing Consent about the Propaganda Model and the transcript from a follow up interview about this model that was conducted 20 years later. In both of these writings, I was educated on something that Chomsky and Herman called "The five filters." These filters were, according to the two authors, limiters on what content was allowed to be broadcast on a mass media news network according to this Propaganda Model. When going through, the follow up interview piece, Chomsky and Herman verified that these filters within the Propaganda Model are even bigger and more concentrated in the 21st century then they were back in 1988, when Manufacturing Consent was written. I found these readings overall to be interesting and enlightening, however, does this mean that I was convinced by these readings to believe that what these two authors have said is true? For me, this answer is a resounding yes.

     While going through these pieces, I remained unquestioningly critical of them in order to ensure that I would either be genuinely persuaded by Chomsky and Herman, or be able to disprove them through any holes they left in their arguments. At each point they made, or in this case, at each filter they discussed, the two made sure that no question remain unanswered. They did this by applying each filter to historical events that occurred and how specific media companies treated them. In this case, these companies would be large news corporations following the propaganda model such as the New York and Los Angeles Times. An example of this can be found when, in the excerpt from Manufacturing Consent, the two are discussing the fourth filter, flak. Flak is essentially an opposing response to a news article or statement. For this filter, one of the companies they talk about is the flak-oriented, government funded company Freedom House. This company generated flak in whatever way was favorable to the U.S. government. In both 1979 and 1980, Freedom House sent election monitors to the Rhodesian Prime Minister elections. The first election in 1979 was overseen by the politician Ian Smith, it was rated to be "fair" by Freedom house and it's monitors. However, in 1980, when someone else was elected, the elections were overseen by the British. These elections were rated to be "dubious." This caters to the favor of the United States government since it denounces a foreign nation (that isn't the U.S.) stepping in to ensure that the elections went a certain way that the U.S. did not want. This example is only one of many used by Chomsky and Herman to persuade readers that the Propaganda Model is real and has been in effect for almost as long as mass media has existed.

Excerpt from Manufacturing Consent: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html 

Chomsky and Herman Interview: https://chomsky.info/200911__/