Sunday, October 9, 2016

Donald Trump- the first president of the social media era

More employers are turning to social networking sites to find additional information on potential candidates – and they’re not entirely impressed with what they’re seeing.

The quote above is from a Career Builder post from 2014 about how employers scan the social media accounts of applicants, looking for disqualifying information, including things like “provocative or inappropriate photographs or information,” “information about them drinking or using drugs,” “discriminatory comments related to race, gender, religion, etc.,” and (my favorite!) “poor communication skills.”

There’s an entire generation coming up behind me (get off my lawn!) made up of millions of people who have no qualms about posting photos of themselves passed out drunk, getting trendy tattoos, taking shirtless selfies, and so on. The Jerry Springer Show was on the air when they were born. Today these people are mostly looking for work (although many of them are still living with their parents), and the employers who are scouring social media who are “not entirely impressed with what they’re seeing” are doing the hiring.

But there’s going to come a point where the Shirtless Selfie Brigade is in charge of doing the bulk of the hiring. Mores change over time. What’s unacceptable today is acceptable tomorrow and vice versa.

“Hm… This applicant is highly qualified for this management accounting position, but she’s posted a selfie of herself on the toilet having diarrhea. LOL— that kind of thing takes me back to my own rowdy social media history. HIRED!”

Today, everyone can achieve at least some small measure of fame via social media. How much fame depends in large measure on how much of yourself you’re willing to share. Your neighbor can have 2,371 Instagram followers because of one well-timed cat picture. Periscoping a violent political protest can turn you into a superstar, even if only for a little while. Almost everyone in America carries with them a camera, and access to a social media account.

We could, and some of us do, film almost every aspect of our lives.

 Will Donald Trump be elected President?...

Donald Trump has been a celebrity for forty years. Mic’ed and camera’ed up for an alarming portion of that. He’s boastful and coarse. And he hasn’t had a secret service or political establishment to cover for him.

This Politico article says that 2008 was “the so-called Facebook election of 2008.” That’s only partly correct. Obama, for all his “newness,” was still very much firmly in the political establishment. He had a press that largely covered over gaps in his story, while mercilessly mocking John McCain’s age. The L.A. Times actually suppressed a video of Obama toasting a former PLO advisor.

So 2008 was the so-called Facebook/Mainstream Media Election. 2016 is something else entirely.

Hillary Clinton, the political establishment figure, is running with the help of her federal government/banking/plutocratic allies— that includes the mainstream press, who seem utterly disinterested in examining what’s coming from WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 about her and the Democrat party. The head of the FBI literally said that if anyone else besides Hillary Clinton used a private email server to avoid FOIA and government oversight, they would be prosecuted. In the political class, there seems to be very little interest in the implications of this extremely disturbing turn.

But Trump’s 2005 hot mic talk about grabbing the pussies of groupies? That’s the real scandal— at least to the mainstream media (which we know, thanks to Wikileaks, is often working in conjunction with the Democrat party). Trump doesn't enjoy the protection of the establishment. However, thanks to social media, information unapproved by the political establishment is getting out. And people are breaking through the barriers. CNN, the Today Show, and Fox & Friends have all featured crashers shouting or carrying signs with the message “Bill Clinton is a rapist!”



Contrary to what many people believe, the president works for the American people. S/he is hired by us, via our votes. Everyone knows that human beings— including the human beings elected to serve the people are their elected representatives— are vulgar, crass, and flawed. Hillary Clinton is alleged to have said horrendous things to secret service agents, the victims of her husband’s sexual predation, and so on. But there’s been no tape of any of it. Or if there is, it’s been suppressed— like the 30,000 emails that Clinton deleted before turning them over to the State Department.

Have we reached the point where the people doing the hiring of the president will shrug their shoulders about the buffoonish boasting of the pussy grabbing audio? Or is this disqualifying information? To the general public, the idea of a “public” versus “private” persona is merging. This is new thinking. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that Hillary Clinton still believes that politicians should have separate “public” and “private” positions on important policy matters.

Which is worse? Who will the Shirtless Selfie Brigade vote for, and are there enough yet to make a difference in the election?

...This guy will decide. (Source)

No comments: