In 2016 US Presidential race, NYT says, it seems, truth is in the eyes of the beholder
A small extract (2 sentences) from the New York Times article, Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth, in the 2016 Race, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/us/politics/candidates-stick-to-script-if-not-the-truth-in-2016-race.html, dated Nov. 7th 2015:
Deep disregard for the news media has allowed candidates to duck, dodge and ridicule assertions from outlets they dislike and seek the embrace of those that are inclined to protect them.
Today, it seems, truth is in the eyes of the beholder — and any assertion can be elevated and amplified if yelled loudly enough.
--- end extract ---
I felt it appropriate to share edited versions of recent comments of mine on my Facebook post, "What a vetting process the (top) USA presidential candidates go through! Dr. Ben Carson gets a rough time from the media!", https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1676259222590648:
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
In my neutral informal-student-observer role of this US presidential election I have to view Republican arguments as well. And ---snip--- does seem to put out the Republican arguments and seems to be favoured by most Republican candidates. Note that in both USA and Indian democratic politics, it is the perception that is created among the public that seems to matter far more than the reality, in the decision making process of many voters. I think this is an inescapable reality of democratic politics in most parts of the world today. And, it probably was worse in the decades and centuries previously, as the media was far more controlled then than today.
---
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
I think you may be right from your perspective. But in the election it is the perception of large number of people that counts. In the course of this study of politics both Indian and USA, I have been able to confirm my view that the perception battle is perhaps the biggest battle in democratic politics today. That seems to have some parallel with the brand/image battle in the marketing world involving giant corporations.
---
[I thank New York Times and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above two sentences from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Deep disregard for the news media has allowed candidates to duck, dodge and ridicule assertions from outlets they dislike and seek the embrace of those that are inclined to protect them.
Today, it seems, truth is in the eyes of the beholder — and any assertion can be elevated and amplified if yelled loudly enough.
--- end extract ---
I felt it appropriate to share edited versions of recent comments of mine on my Facebook post, "What a vetting process the (top) USA presidential candidates go through! Dr. Ben Carson gets a rough time from the media!", https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1676259222590648:
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
In my neutral informal-student-observer role of this US presidential election I have to view Republican arguments as well. And ---snip--- does seem to put out the Republican arguments and seems to be favoured by most Republican candidates. Note that in both USA and Indian democratic politics, it is the perception that is created among the public that seems to matter far more than the reality, in the decision making process of many voters. I think this is an inescapable reality of democratic politics in most parts of the world today. And, it probably was worse in the decades and centuries previously, as the media was far more controlled then than today.
---
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
I think you may be right from your perspective. But in the election it is the perception of large number of people that counts. In the course of this study of politics both Indian and USA, I have been able to confirm my view that the perception battle is perhaps the biggest battle in democratic politics today. That seems to have some parallel with the brand/image battle in the marketing world involving giant corporations.
---
[I thank New York Times and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above two sentences from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment