FLIP-FLOP or CHANGE??

Most Americans (Ones who follow the News Media) are aware that politicians are infamous for “Flip-flopping” with respect to public and open commentary, most of which is televised and recorded.

The Media relentlessly refer to video coverage that reveals differences of opinion, social position, political stance and more, exerting pressure on a designated, embarrassed individual. Various forms of denial are presented by the subject targeted by the probe, many of whom claim that their statement(s) was or were taken out of context. Others blatantly refute the evidence altogether, confident their followers will provide loyal support during a “biased attack on the integrity of a public servant…..”

Is there an underlying purpose of the Media in perpetuating the analysis of political statements or positions? If not for the Media; would a discerning populace become aware of these inconsistencies? When the Media programming “experts” provide and cast opinions with regard to verbal gaffes; is their purpose to embellish the issue and instill personal opinions in the minds of their audience? What is the true motivation for the pursuit of this exposure?? The Media lives and dies on ratings; the incessant search for controversy is constant, and politicians are a never-ending source of material.

Flip-flops of the past are not as enticing as the present, and the Media therefore concentrates on the volatile, colorful subjects of today. The lies and distortions committed by former Presidents or members of congress are not current and are of no concern in daily life. Unfulfilled promises of yesteryear made in the successful quest for office are acceptable history, described as “Just Politics; we know they all lie.”

However; does the Media distort the term “Flip-Flop”? For example; they point out that in 2008, Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage but is now in favor of the concept. It is cited that Rand Paul has a different opinion on various topics, assuming a stance contrary to prior claims. Even religion-influenced candidates have been denounced and accused of waffling regarding abortion and homosexuality. Why can a reversal of thought or reason not be described as CHANGE, and NOT “Flip-Flopping”??

It is virtually impossible to imagine any aspiring candidate, running for any office, that does not base his or her entire campaign on CHANGE. Do they not all spout the same verbiage? WE need change… I will make changes… Change is my priority… Change is necessary….Change will strengthen us all…. Do you have any change? ….What is wrong with a candidate changing his or her opinion on any position? Should election criteria be predicated on the wishes of the constituents or the position of the candidate? Why should a candidate not change to align with the hopes of the People? If the majority are in favor of a social, general notion; should a candidate not change his or her approach in the attempt to be elected?? Wouldn’t real CHANGE be great??

Does the Media invent and extend these controversies? Can these contrived methods be described as Propaganda?? Will the Media in the Greatest Country in the World consider reporting the news, rather than generating rating-based, embellished content???
More questions to come from…