If celebrity endorsements are essentially worthless for the long haul, does that mean newspaper endorsements put a candidate in the red?
Given the growing mistrust of the media, in my mind, these endorsements are like the “kiss of death”. Given that premise (which may be faulty since it’s personal perception) one wonders if it’s deliberate and the intent is to kill their chances of being nominated.
If people don’t trust the media why would they listen to their choices or even to the ones who get most of the media coverage?
Now, considering this is a personal perception and I hold a total lack of respect for 95% of the media regardless of its medium, I am rather happy that my chosen candidate isn’t doing well in their polls. The almost blackout of coverage of him in the media lends itself to this perception and is something that might should be celebrated instead of bemoaned. Perhaps they’re doing him a favor not covering him much and what little coverage they do give tends to be on the negative side.
Perhaps he has realized something the rest of us are just acting upon: The media is not our friends. They want conflict and sensationalism because it sells better. Why would they want somebody in office that might could end the turmoil which makes them so much money? What happens when a candidate shows an independent streak?
Consider also, for the Democratic side that the media has turned fairly negative towards Clinton lately while ignoring the truly glaring negatives of Norman Hsu and other bundlers supporting her campaign. Perhaps the media realizes also that they aren’t trusted and are using the negative to ‘herd us in the right direction’.
Quite a conundrum, isn’t it?