As media news outlets have become more entertainment centers or places where people go to ‘recharge’ their own opinion; kind of like a comfortable safe space where others are most likely just going to agree or cement your ideas, it is always interesting to see how much they differ in their opinions of the most mundane action.
Take the Trump-Putin-WWE-Smackdown-Macho-Meet-Up-handshake. When you watch the video which shows them meeting twice; once standing socially, once at a more formal meeting, it shows Trump and Putin shaking hands twice and exchanging some ‘banter’. Probably jokes about how easy it is to get elected, then making fun of those with everything on their side who still can’t get elected. Or jokes about
Logging on to the Telegraph they have rather wisely gone for a more psychological approach and taken upon themselves to analyse the taps and the positions of the hands to form an opinion based on the science of the mind. Whose hand is in control? Who appears relaxed? Who seems more at ease with the cameras and the baying crowd? They give all of these victories to Trump based on sound reason and the, well, science. Albeit it, not an exact science, but at least it’s based on something you can 9 times out of 10 trust.
Then we move over to the Guardian and their article. Predictably they go the other way, but what is it based on? Well, they give their own version of what happens, but alas they miss the point of journalism which is to remain neutral and present the facts and the piece ends up being somewhat of a diatribe against Trump, actually even having to praise Putin, just so they can continue their bias against anything and everything the Prez does. It’s a clunky roundabout way of looking at things and begs the question of how some people become successful journos. Throw in the odd unnecessary insult to really drive home their bias for the layman, it becomes somewhat of an embarrassment to read.
But how do we decide I hear you cry? Who really did win the Handshake of the Century?
Well, the BBC also ran a piece about the most talked about non-event since Simon Cowell started X-Factor and they did what any rational person would do; they remained neutral and level headed – despite complaints from both the left and right that they’re not (the fact they get complaints from both sides means they’re doing pretty well in their neutrality) – and hired a psychologist for the segment. Again, the psychological angle shows that Trump is the winner, never mind what you think personally.
So, why lie about it? Why contort it to please your own values?
It’s yet another example of the sad truth of today’s thought process and media, when the man you hate is correct or has done something well, you can’t even be grown up enough to admit it. If this is how our newspapers behave, why should any of us really give a shit either?
I find it astonishing that a reputable broadsheet would bend over backwards to praise someone like Putin just so they can stick the knife in Trumps back at any opportunity, and what’s more astonishing, it that most of the people who read it and clap, think twice about it.