Title Fight: Hillary vs. Trump!

Here’s a quick piece of information that is too long for Twitter, but just obvious and long enough for an annoying comment on a Facebook page: The media doesn’t care about you, your vote, what you think, progress, and this country. Back in early March (Or was it late February. Who cares?), CBS Chief Les Moonves said, “I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us... Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going… It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Don’t believe me? Look it up. Smarter people than myself wrote about it. Anyway, let’s make some assumptions. Moonves is not alone when it comes to this type of thinking. Let’s assume that most CEOs of major news outlets believe this. Why should we make this assumption? Because news isn’t about news, but about YOU reading the news. That’s it. This means the news has to get your attention. You demand something to read (and hopefully for free), but your desire to read something must be somewhat relative to reality; otherwise, you and masses of people wouldn’t pay much attention to it. How does this news get your attention? Blood. Death. Fear. Guns. Terrorists. Name-calling. Insults. Nudity. How does the news not get your attention? Policies. Legislation. Laws. Rational discourses (not debates). Discourses on the existence of the news that would potentially undermine the news’ position in your lives. Why do they want your attention? When you click on their site they can sell you stuff. Try reading a Forbes article with an Ad-Blocker. It won’t let you because Forbes wants to sell you stuff. What kind of stuff? Stuff you’re guaranteed to like because the site works in conjunction with your browser to produce algorithms that produce ads to your liking. The hopeful outcome: You buy stuff. What do they get? Money. That’s it. That’s all. However, we strayed from that first assumption onto a slope… Was it slippery? That depends if you believe in all the steps taken to get to the money conclusion. If you don’t buy it then you’ll probably think I placed you on a steep hillside with banana peels for shoes and pushed you downward. If you’re still reading and you still have Moonves musings in mind then the logic might be clear to you: Trump V Sanders doesn’t sell. People will pay less attention to Mayweather V Bradley, but they’ll dish out loads of money to watch Mayweather V Pacman. People will dish out money to read Trump V Clinton. The media knows this. You notice how Hillary Clinton is kind of annoyed that Bernie Sanders is still in the race? She is no where near as annoyed as the media. Sanders is a waste of money to them. The longer he’s in, the longer the fight of the century is delayed. They’re itching to realize their currently imaginary headlines: “You Won’t Believe What Trump Just Said About Hillary!” Click. “The Hillary Speech Against Trump You’ve Been Waiting For!” Click. “Title Fight: Hillary vs. Trump!” Click. See what I did there? And here you are, trying to figure out if I’m going to play the reality-TV game and see if I “talk shit” about a candidate. No, just the media. Sanders, Kasich, and Cruz are delaying Moonves and other media CEOs from doing whatever it is that wealthy people do with money. I was going to make a joke about that but as I sit on my 5 year old Ikea couch with a warm cup of Cafe Bustelo Instant Coffee next to me, I can’t fathom what a wealthy person does with so much money. All I know is that if they did care about you or me, we would be talking about how Cruz is about to face Sanders in a race about the growth of new political movements, on the right and left. Trump would have already been skewered by the press; not with questions, but by lack of attention. He would have been ignored and dismissed as a slow, orange, racist, rich, lying asshole. Clinton wouldn’t be the inevitable nominee in a democratic process through which superdelegates and media dictate the momentum. Instead, the media (if they cared) would talk about how the superdelegates aren’t supposed to be factored into calculations until the convention and that the distance between Sanders and Clinton is about 350 delegates, not almost 1,000. They would talk about how factoring in superdelegates is misleading to the American public because it showcases an illusory inevitability that isn’t consistent with democratic ideals because it misleadingly convinces the average American that Clinton is the candidate with the only viable chance. Instead of all that fairness shmairness, we get the match up of the century and you click, you see the ad, you hopefully by the new Avengers movie Blu-Ray and you click on something else. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Always Repeat. It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for business.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.