EVEN WITH A PIECE OF NEWS

So if I write
“I’m waiting for the news
I’m waiting for”
have I not posed a  phrase
that’s verbally
so ill-conceived,
so silly in redundancy,
that it displays
my gross incompetence
in writing what I claim
is stellar poetry
not to mention saying
what I want to say?

And if I speak
of “blessed words the world should hear”
but fail to mention what they are,
have I not, once again,
composed some lines
whose meaning is opaque
and totally unclear.

So what is to be learned from this
about the way to write
a piece that shows not tells
and makes the muses proud?
It surely is that my endeavours are
ungifted, poor, and paltry guides
for writing well.

Dear Baldwin,
People are poor and are waiting
to receive the news awaited.
They are waiting to receive the news they have been awaiting for long.

But that's not what you said.    Besides that, the expression "the news awaited" is deictic and meaningless.  You need to spell out what this news is for a reader to be able to determine not only what your claim is,  but also to determine whether your claim has any validity.

Very dear Baldwin,
This is rhythmic poetry. Surely, you know that. Read the poetry of the greatest poets, and you will find more than that.

The "greatest poets" did not engage in deixis.  And the issue isn't whether your piece has meter.  It's whether it makes sense and does not leave unsaid what needs to be said for it to do so.

What would an aspiring poet learn about how good poetry is written from your piece?

I don't want to answer your question, but l really have great confidence in what l am doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

But, as has been pointed out to you,  what you are doing is to compose all tell, no show sanctimonious, preachy pieces in which you not only adopt a posture of being more knowledgable about the ways of the world than anyone else,   but also implicitly (as well as explicitly)  claim that it's legitimate to use inversions, forced rhyme, poor syntax, bad grammar, cliched speech,  unimaginative vocabulary, and deixis, among other linguistic infelicities,  just so long as your lines measure up to a chosen rhythm.  Do you really think that aspiring poets would learn much about writing well by following your example?

And BTW,  this line

"it will freshen what days have staled "

is not "rhythmic

it scans " IT will FRESHen what DAYS have STALED".

Nor is this line

"which can be a piece of good news. "

since it most naturally scans  "WHICH can BE a PIECE  of GOOD NEWS".

So it also appears that aspiring poets would not learn much about consistent meter from what you write.