The overall media coverage of the US presidential campaign has made it abundantly clear that Republican nominee Donald Trump was being targeted by several top journalists and news organisations in order to deliberately or inadvertently assist the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The evident bias is likely to impact the credibility of newspapers as well as TV channels once the outcome of the fiercely contested election is known in the coming week. The manner in which Trump has been attacked throughout the campaign would also raise many questions about the values connected with objective reporting which unfortunately has not been the hallmark of the coverage by the press.
Many surveys have indicated that people were aware of this prejudice against Trump and therefore regardless of the result, journalists may have much to explain post 8 November. According to analysts, Hillary Clinton was being seen as a nominee of the establishment as also of the Wall Street backed media. Her entire campaign was being propped up to create an impression that it was going to be a walk-away victory for her and “the uncouth Trump who is unfit to be the President” would fizzle out and fade into oblivion. The last few days have shown that Trump, despite all his idiosyncratic and erratic behaviour, was not a pushover and had in fact gained a 1% lead over his rival in the race that has seen many ugly and unworthy of remembering moments.
The third and final debate between the two candidates witnessed TV anchors and media leaders come to a conclusion that Trump had categorically refused to accept the mandate and had alleged that the polls could be rigged. The inference was drawn in order to put Trump at a disadvantage in the eyes of the American people, while all that the Republican candidate in reply to a query by the moderator had stated was that he would like to keep the suspense alive. Earlier, during the debate he had raised questions over the fairness of the polls in relation to Hillary’s campaign. The newspaper headlines and TV coverage made it look like that the unconventional Trump had become the first nominee in the history of the US presidential polls who had charged that the elections were being rigged and was thus reluctant to accept the results.
The interesting matter is that on the same day, Indian newspapers reported the debate with a more objective headline as compared to the US where the bias became extremely glaring. The Indian media has often gone wrong and has been unfair on many occasions, but this time it is about the US polls and how journalists there have been doing their utmost to ensure that Hillary emerges as the victor.
On another point, polls in the US, like everywhere else, have also in the past been “rigged”. The outcome of the 1960 presidential election, where John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in a closely fought battle, had raised a number of questions regarding voting in Chicago and the way in which the Democrats benefited from this supposed manipulation. The American election system is not fool proof and certainly needs reforms in order to set an example for the rest of the democracies around the world. For common people both in the US and outside, the victory of George Bush (Junior) over Al Gore in 2000 remains a mystery as it is difficult to adequately comprehend how popular votes could be trumped by electoral votes.
Well, this is something for the US authorities to figure out, but watching the campaign unfold, one both marvels at the stamina and resilience of the candidates and their supporters and to some degree the transparency which pits the two main contenders against each other in debates that are telecast live worldwide. It is something countries like India must take a leaf from this practice and prime ministerial faces of major parties should get an opportunity to question each other openly from a public platform to help the voters to make up their mind.
This year’s American elections have generated a lot of interest primarily because the White House could have for the first time a woman as the President. Simultaneously, a real estate tycoon with no political background and an unconventional-bordering-on-crass style of speaking has attracted a large number of US citizens, who are both concerned as well as wary of the growing threat from Islamic fundamentalists. Trump has promised to bring about major changes in the administrative set up and cleanse Washington DC of corrupt functionaries, who have developed a vested interest much above the interest of the nation.
Hillary is certainly the most qualified politician in the race for the Oval Office, but her past and certain indiscretions appear to be catching up with her. If elected, she may find herself in a piquant situation where her emails and the activities of the Clinton Foundation come under investigation by the FBI.
Following the final days of the campaign, one can conclude that if Hillary fails to win, then it shall be left to Michelle Obama, who has been evincing a pronounced interest in the political shenanigans to emerge as the next potential woman presidential nominee in the US. 8 November will see the collective wisdom of the American people prevail.