Whose Truth?

Like sharks that smell blood in the water, the mainstream media is having a feeding frenzy on the candidate they created

And he hasn’t helped himself, has he? In the last three weeks, he has invited Vladimir Putin to hack into Hillary Clinton’s email account, insulted the Khan family who lost their son, a U.S. soldier, to a suicide bombing in Iraq in 2004, and “dog whistled” to his followers that someone ought to assassinate Hillary.

Quite a streak, but is this the whole true story or what certain folks want you to believe? Was it exactly as the mainstream media described it?

Let’s be objective and concede a couple of things. Trump is an amateur politician who has had the temerity to challenge the powerful political establishments of both parties. He has a communication style that is obviously powerful or he wouldn’t have defeated 16 qualified candidates in the Republican Primary, right?

But, and it’s a big “but,” when he tries to be funny and tries to speak casually during his speeches, he deviates from his message and comes across as a locker-room crony and it’s killing him. He’s a communication coach’s nightmare.

Words do matter and they must be clearly spoken, especially if you want to lead the free world.

Hillary Clinton has had a field day hammering home the idea that Trump is too dangerous to be president; he doesn’t have a “presidential temperament.” And armed with this ammunition, it would seem that she is pulling away from Trump in the race for the White House

Her longtime media lapdogs, many of which have kept her career alive lo these many years, gleefully pile on and chant the same narrative – all day, every day. They keep dropping words like “treason” and “unbalanced” into their Trump analysis.

But what if it’s not true?

How people interpret Trump’s statements absolutely depends on where they are coming from politically and, frankly, how willing they are to accept blindly their favorite form of media’s narrative.

Let’s take the latest speech where he allegedly winks at his gun-toting following and seems to be asking someone in his following to step up and “do the right thing.”

Here’s what he actually said: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick —[crowd booing]—if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

In the August 9th edition of the Nation, George Zornick explains: “The straightforward reading of these comments would be that he suggested assassination, if even in a joking manner.”

That’s magnanimous of him. Here’s an alternative explanation: The straightforward reading of these events is that Trump is warning his voters that if they value their Second Amendment rights they’d better make sure they work for his election.

That wasn’t so hard to see, unless your assumptions are that Trump’s minions are Americans who believe in their Second Amendment rights and are unhinged, uneducated gun nuts, which means that you’ve bought a media-created narrative.

Furthermore, why would a billionaire businessperson insinuate assassination of another politician? And spare me the Hitler analogies, please. I would argue that Trump’s ego seems to suggest that he would assume that he could win this election without “bumping” someone off!

But no, the mainstream media, which is largely made up of liberals or what they call “moderates,” has made the narrative and there’s no going back once it’s out there. They just keep building on it. It’s a 24/7 news cycle, after all, and airtime must be filled.

There are two equally–valid views on many issues, but, often, Americans are only given one…again and again and again, until it becomes the single narrative.

Need another example? Here’s one closer to home.

One of our regular contributors, John Feehery, wrote an article back on July 28th, about the deep differences between the two parties and I recommend you read it. It is a respectful view of both conventions but it ends with him saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that for those who think the parties are really the same, it’s not true this time around. There’s a “stark” choice in November.

Okay – Feehery is moderately conservative and you can see that in his writing, but his writing is balanced and not insulting to liberals. His portraits of Republicans and Democrats do not demean either party or its members.

Let’s contrast this with a Vox video that appeared on August 9th on their homepage – go ahead and watch it (the video, not the article) – I’ll wait.

All right, are you back? What you see is a reasonable and sensitive young man arguing that this election is different. It’s not the usual conservatives versus liberals or Republicans versus Democrats, it’s between normal and abnormal.

Seriously, he said that. He characterized the Republican process as “abnormal,” including their candidate, Trump. He cited lots of examples.

He went on to say that the Democratic Convention and their candidate were “normal.”

As long as you weren’t one of the Bernie delegates like Political Storm contributor Cindy Matthews (see Cindy Matthews’ article about the convention). Maybe you should also listen to Kasey Carpenter, another Sanders delegate who streamed live on Political Storm from the Democratic Convention. Doesn’t sound “normal” from their perspective, does it?

Or perhaps you believe that the Democrat candidate lied to the nation about classified emails or to the parents of soldiers who died at Benghazi. But maybe that’s “normal.”

The problem today in America is that the mainstream story is that one side of the country is normal and the other side is not. The young man talking in the Vox video sounds so reasonable – as long as you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Don’t believe me? As an experiment, try to keep this in mind when you partake in your choice of media outlets. Take the opposing side’s view in some news or opinion piece, assume it’s not absolutely wrong, and see what you think of the narrative you’re being fed.

Look, until we get out of our respective echo chambers and engage in dialogue, we will never break the political and social logjam our nation faces.

But it starts with believing that the person you disagree with is as sane as you are and has a legitimate claim to their beliefs…no matter how wrong you think they might be. That’s the beginning of the dialogue we need.

That’s why Political Storm is here.