Sadly, we consume anything the US media feeds us, writes Elvis Masoga.
The 2016 US presidential election has, most fundamentally, exposed the imperfection and volatility of the discourse of political analysis and media reportage. Almost all the country’s political analysts, commentators and media practitioners greatly misjudged and misread the probable outcomes of the election.
The Democratic Party presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, was battling it out against the Republican Party’s firebrand, Donald Trump, for the US presidency. Throughout that presidential campaign, the global media was vividly and evidently biased against Trump.
On November 9, the Politico Magazine published a greatly insightful article, “How Did Everyone Get It So Wrong?: Opinion Polls And Predictive Models Failed To Predict Trump’s Electoral Strength”. The piece, written by Kenneth Vowel and Alex Isenstadt, correctly noted: “Everyone got it wrong. When election day dawned, almost all the opinion pollsters, media, analysts and political insiders in the US had Clinton waltzing into the White House.”
American media powerhouse CNN, the British BBC and the global media directly waged a viciously biased media onslaught against Trump. The media coverage and political commentary dispensed by CNN and the BBC was dismissive of Trump.
Late last year, American media outlets reported that Trump was seeking to banish and bar all Muslims from entering the US. This week I decided to carry out an extensive verification of the apparent controversial statements made during the campaign. Contrary to what the media reported, this is actually what Trump said: “There are good and honest Muslims who love our country. But there are some extremist Muslims who employ terrorism to harm and endanger the lives of Americans. Therefore, we must consider a total and complete shutdown and barring of all extremist Muslims who seek to destroy our country.”
The liberal Democratic establishment colluded and connived with mass media with the sole conspiratorial aim of paralysing the presidential ambitions of Trump. On many occasions, the global mass media reported favourably and positively on Clinton. When it came to Trump, supported by analysts and opinion pollsters, the media were unrelentingly scathing and excessively hostile.
Personally, I still hold a view that Clinton was better, more mature and globally more knowledgeable than Trump. But as an analyst, I should not have allowed my personal opinions to cloud and compromise my professionalism.
In South Africa, both the press and digital mass media unwittingly became an intrinsic part of the syndicated global media onslaught and conspiracy against Trump.
The SABC, eNCA, ANN7 and radio stations gullibly consumed any news and reports from the American media.
Even the country’s leading dailies and weeklies were also gullible victims to the spin from the US. The South African media became a convenient conveyor belt of the US and British media powerhouses. The Anglo-American mass media persistently bombarded the world with claims that Trump is inherently racist, misogynistic, patriarchal, Afrophobic and minimally informed.
The most telling question is: did the global media undertake a corroborative study to scrutinise the authenticity of American media reports on Trump and Clinton?
As analysts, we greatly failed to apply interpretative doctrines and verification models when dealing with the US media reports about Trump and Clinton.
Just like our fellow media outlets in the country, we (analysts) regrettably and gullibly consumed and believed anything the American media fed us.
Unlike journalists and news presenters, the primary role of analysts is not “to report it as it is”. The most prolific duty of any political analyst is to observe, dissect, analyse, critique and reconstruct the dynamism of political trends, incidents and phenomena. Against monumental odds and in the face of tremendous media onslaught, Trump weathered the thunderstorms and prevailed in the 2016 US Presidential Election. On the morning of November 9, the world awoke to the highly unanticipated news that Trump had defeated the media darling, Hillary Clinton.
To win a US Presidential Elec-tion, a candidate needs to secure at least 270 Electoral College votes out of a total of 538 votes.
The victorious Trump amassed 306 electoral college votes against Clinton’s unimpressive 232 votes.
Out of a total of 50 states in the US, Trump triumphed in 30 states and Clinton in only 20.
Trump’s most brilliant camp-aigning strategy was based on concentrating in swing states such as Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Clinton’s powerful mistake was to campaign massively in states that are customarily considered strongholds of the Democrats.
That ultra-consequential error of judgement severely compromised Clinton’s macro-political strategies and presidential prospects.
The 58th US presidential election has just produced, in Donald Trump, the 45th president of the world’s most powerful and highly industrialised nation.
On January 20 next year, the universe will bear witness to a presidential inauguration of a man who the world never thought could become the US president.
* Masoga is a political analyst.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent