1. What is the future of "the media?"
One of the reasons this election was so interesting was that with the involvement of non-establishment candidates, the messages Trump and Sanders wanted to convey had to be delivered through a combination of old school grass roots stumping to build passion among a loyal base and new-school social media savvy to circumvent the establishment media. In my other post today I detailed the massive disadvantages Trump faced in terms of a political machine, campaign staff and budget. On the other hand, Trump mightily benefited from new media and the rising stars of the so-called alternative right - as well as Wikileaks who is simply dedicated to transparency in government. In doing so, they revealed the collusion between Donna Brazile at CNN and the Clinton campaign - and in the aftermath of the election, the DNC is pretty pissed about it.
If this election was a referendum against the neocon and neolib establishment status quo (I mean for Christ's sake, the script obviously said Bush vs Clinton again), nobody was in better position to pull back the curtain on the establishment than the alt-right internet personalities.
The old media is a dinosaur. Newspaper is dead and TV anymore is just about news analysis - spun to the desired advantage. It's slow and predictable. The internet guys are also massive winners in this election and were a yuuge asset to Trump.
Guys like Milo, Paul, Steffan and Cernovich tirelessly amalgamated and shared news that refuted the MSM narratives, and people like Bill Mitchell who's 77 million page views on election night tells you just how plugged in America really was to the fact that a Trump win was really not that surprising. People did not become discouraged by exit polls which have become as irrelevant as they are inaccurate.
Journalism is not dead though. However with Trump's election, one would assume the Net Neutrality regulation effectively is. So, presumably, the internet is and shall remain a fertile ground for uncensored information
As the dust settles, what is the future of media? Are these internet guys considered legit newsmen now? Does a new network that reflects this new movement rise up? How does the dinosaur media compete going forward? Will there ever again be a truly neutral media ethic?
2. Trump isn't an idiot, but he played one on TV.
Trump perfected the rope-a-dope political strategy. A good analogy I saw was that if you imagine a big stick fight.... everyone brings a stick to fight with. But Trump noticed there was no rule against bringing a flame thrower to a stick fight and lit everyone's sticks on fire. His shoot from the hip style contained enough mis-steps that it threw people off the scent that he actually expected to win this thing. Not saying his mis-steps were intentional strategy - just that he knew he would make some and didn't give a shit because he knew it would just give him cover.
The guy was a cut throat business man negotiating with debaters. Debaters play by the rules, and cut throat negotiators play to win. In retrospect, it's pretty obvious how he did it - but give him credit for recognizing a void for a populist anti-establishment candidate, filling that void and playing by a different set of rules that set him apart, gave him free exposure and made him the story every time.
I think he will continue to surprise people who've underestimated him.
One of the reasons this election was so interesting was that with the involvement of non-establishment candidates, the messages Trump and Sanders wanted to convey had to be delivered through a combination of old school grass roots stumping to build passion among a loyal base and new-school social media savvy to circumvent the establishment media. In my other post today I detailed the massive disadvantages Trump faced in terms of a political machine, campaign staff and budget. On the other hand, Trump mightily benefited from new media and the rising stars of the so-called alternative right - as well as Wikileaks who is simply dedicated to transparency in government. In doing so, they revealed the collusion between Donna Brazile at CNN and the Clinton campaign - and in the aftermath of the election, the DNC is pretty pissed about it.
If this election was a referendum against the neocon and neolib establishment status quo (I mean for Christ's sake, the script obviously said Bush vs Clinton again), nobody was in better position to pull back the curtain on the establishment than the alt-right internet personalities.
The old media is a dinosaur. Newspaper is dead and TV anymore is just about news analysis - spun to the desired advantage. It's slow and predictable. The internet guys are also massive winners in this election and were a yuuge asset to Trump.
Guys like Milo, Paul, Steffan and Cernovich tirelessly amalgamated and shared news that refuted the MSM narratives, and people like Bill Mitchell who's 77 million page views on election night tells you just how plugged in America really was to the fact that a Trump win was really not that surprising. People did not become discouraged by exit polls which have become as irrelevant as they are inaccurate.
Journalism is not dead though. However with Trump's election, one would assume the Net Neutrality regulation effectively is. So, presumably, the internet is and shall remain a fertile ground for uncensored information
As the dust settles, what is the future of media? Are these internet guys considered legit newsmen now? Does a new network that reflects this new movement rise up? How does the dinosaur media compete going forward? Will there ever again be a truly neutral media ethic?
2. Trump isn't an idiot, but he played one on TV.
Trump perfected the rope-a-dope political strategy. A good analogy I saw was that if you imagine a big stick fight.... everyone brings a stick to fight with. But Trump noticed there was no rule against bringing a flame thrower to a stick fight and lit everyone's sticks on fire. His shoot from the hip style contained enough mis-steps that it threw people off the scent that he actually expected to win this thing. Not saying his mis-steps were intentional strategy - just that he knew he would make some and didn't give a shit because he knew it would just give him cover.
The guy was a cut throat business man negotiating with debaters. Debaters play by the rules, and cut throat negotiators play to win. In retrospect, it's pretty obvious how he did it - but give him credit for recognizing a void for a populist anti-establishment candidate, filling that void and playing by a different set of rules that set him apart, gave him free exposure and made him the story every time.
I think he will continue to surprise people who've underestimated him.
