Replies

I thought it was good, but I kept seeing the panning of the audience that was full of delegates who were mostly not Trump supporters. I think that ruined it.

The media are majority leftists, and the cameramen or director most likely were the ones who controlled the camera angles, not the Party.

I noticed how many persons of color (POCs) were shown by the cameras on the first and second nights of the convention, due to several factors, such as the POC's set forward by nominating delegations to take the microphone. But towards the end, either because:

• some POCs could have left before the entire convention was over because it is expensive being a delegate and paying to stay for a week, or
• because the rebellious delegations of Utah and Colorado were seated down front, or
• a different cameraman or director came on board, or
• because the cameramen had mastered the learning curve as to where the most while people were concentrated in the arena,

... what viewers saw in the final two nights did indeed seem "whiter."

There is also a general ignorance in the public about how being a delegate works. It's not a process where persons of color are hand-picked to give a good show of politically correct racial balance; in most states, delegates have to have been involved in the state party and have experience with running for an elected or appointed delegate poslition. Minority communities may not be up to speed on these processes yet; nor have state parties had the money to put the appearance of racial balance in the forefront. Therefore the racial composition of the delegates is likely to lag behind the actual demographics of the electorate; but it is not necessarily because of an intentional non-inclusiveness. This is the hardest aspect of multi-racial society: the dominant group will simply be blamed and shamed, no matter what.