Category Archives: media news

Trump vs. Kelly: Round Two

donald

It fascinates me to no end to watch Donald Trump lash out at the media.

The leading Republican presidential candidate (depending on whose poll you believe) is going after Fox News’s Megyn Kelly yet again.

He’s chiding her for not citing a poll she once cited when his poll standing was slipping. Now that he’s back up again — for the life of me, I don’t understand this — he’s calling out Kelly for ignoring the survey data.

This begs the question about how Trump might react to media criticism in the event hell freezes actually over and he gets elected president of the United States a year from now.

What on God’s Earth is he going to do when the heat gets really, really hot and he makes a serious blunder and insults the wrong individual here at home or abroad?

And as every president since the beginning of poll-taking has observed, their approval ratings go up and down. President George H.W. Bush was at 90-plus percent approval — remember? — when he launched the Persian Gulf War and our troops kicked the invading Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

That was in early 1991; the president lost his bid for re-election the following year.

This is a strange political season. The kinds of insults and personal attacks that used to scar candidates for life now have  become the preferred method of campaigning … or so it appears.

What has become of us?

 

Hey Democrats, get ready for softballs

201204-omag-maddow-949x534

A reader — and an occasional critic — of this blog has just given me a valuable piece of intelligence that, frankly, got past me.

I chided Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz for suggesting that future GOP presidential debates be “moderated” by folks more friendly to their cause.

This reader said I got my “tighty whiteys” into a knot over it. Then he informed me that the next Democratic event, which occurs this Friday night at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C.,  will be “moderated” by Rachel Maddow. It’s being filled as a “forum,” and not a “debate” sponsored by the Democratic National Committee.

Whatever. It serves the same purpose.

You know who she is, right? Maddow is an MSNBC commentator and host of a nightly cable TV talk show. She’s a flaming liberal. I mean, man, that she’s on fire with her progressive views.

She’ll have three Democratic candidates standing in front of her Friday night: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

All three of those folks are tacking left — to their party’s base — just as the still-huge GOP field is tacking right, to its party’s base.

Should we expect Maddow to get tough with the candidates on the debate stage later this week? I’m not holding my breath. Put me down as one who doubts Democratic Party primary voters are going to learn a single new thing about any of the candidates.

Just as the Republican candidates were whining about the questions they got at their most recent joint appearance, if only the Democrats would be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and occasional harshness their GOP colleagues got.

 

New polarization: pols vs. media

mainstream-media

I hear it from time to time. People I meet during a given week occasionally engage me in a conversation that begins: Do you think the nation is more polarized than ever  before?

My short answer generally goes like this: Well, maybe not since the Vietnam War. But we got through it. I believe we’ll be OK.

The polarization today, though, seem to be taking on another dimension.

Politicians, chiefly those on the right, now are taking dead aim at the media. Oh, I forgot: the mainstream media, those folks with the liberal bias.

Ted Cruz is the junior U.S. senator from Texas. He’s running for the Republican presidential nomination. He took some reporters pheasant hunting with him in Iowa this weekend.

Cruz scored plenty of points at the latest GOP presidential debate by taking aim not just at CNBC, which moderated the event, but at “all media.” The crowd in the Boulder, Colo., hall roared its approval — as did conservatives all across the nation.

The media now are seen as the enemy of the right. The left-wing, liberal media are out to “get” those who hold different views, say Cruz and other politicians on the right.

Cruz then took his beef an interesting step further. He suggested — with a straight face at that — that GOP debates should include “moderators” more friendly to their cause. He mentioned Fox New commentator Sean Hannity as one who he’d prefer to “moderate” a debate among GOP presidential candidates.

I agree with my pals on the right on this score: The establishment media — and I include conservative-leaning journalists in that group — have become legends in their own minds. They at times interject themselves into the stories they are covering. They become confrontational and snarky when neither is warranted. I believe we saw some of that from the CNBC moderators.

Then again, have our Republican friends forgotten — already! — what happened at the first GOP debate that Fox News sponsored. Fox’s Megyn Kelly got things started with a question to Donald Trump about the candidate’s history of anti-female statements. It went downhill rapidly from there.

The Republican presidential field of candidates has done a good job of demonizing the mainstream media as a tool of the left. It has cast the MSM as an institution to be loathed and mistrusted.

Are we polarized? Yes, we are. I’ll stand by my short answer: We’ll get past this … eventually.

 

Let’s allow Dems to face media grilling

media

All this talk over the past few days about the alleged mistreatment of the Republican Party presidential candidates by the “mainstream liberal media” brings something to mind.

Let’s suppose as we travel down the primary campaign road that the Democratic field — or what’s left of it — decides to debate among themselves in a nationally televised event.

What might happen if the moderators all  turned out to conservative-leaning journalists? Believe me, there are plenty of them to go around.

Imagine a panel comprising, say, Britt Hume, Jennifer Rubin and Byron York grilling the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders.

Hume is a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday; Rubin is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post; Byron York is a long-time conservative columnist whose work is syndicated in papers across the country.

They’re all smart and savvy political hands.

I’m trying to imagine how the Democratic National Committee might react to the tough line of questioning that such a panel would bring to a Democratic candidates debate.

I’m not sure the DNC would allow such a panel to present questions to their candidates. Yet the Republican National Committee signed off on the recent CNBC-sponsored debate and the moderators chosen by the network to quiz the candidates on the debate stage.

Still, there’s a part of me that wishes the DNC would agree to such an event, with that party’s candidates facing sure-fire relentless questioning on a whole array of issues facing the nation.

I know it won’t happen. But I can dream … can’t I?

 

Trump blackballs Fox … or did Fox blackball Trump?

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 04: Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly attend the game between the New York Knicks and the Cleveland Cavaliers at Madison Square Garden on November 30, 2014 in New York City.NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and/or using this photograph, user is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

Donald Trump is mad at Fox News.

Fox is mad at Trump.

Trump says he won’t appear on Fox “for the foreseeable future.”

Fox says it has disinvited Trump.

My head is spinning.

Trump vs. Fox News might be the most interesting fight yet in this still-entertaining Republican Party presidential primary campaign.

But here’s something to ponder, even though just thinking about it gives me the heebie-jeebies: Suppose Americans have gone totally insane and actually elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. What in the name of all that is holy would a President Trump do whenever some media outlet criticizes a policy decision? Is he going blackball them?

My strong hunch is that a President Trump won’t have any media covering anything he would do.

Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly had it right: “He wants people to like him. When people criticize him, he takes it personally,” the host of “The O’Reilly Factor” said. “So I just think this is just a extension of his reality show, ‘The Apprentice.’ This is just theater right now.”

Actually, Trump’s presidential “candidacy” has been nothing but theater from the moment he announced it.

Given this latest stunt with a major media organization, this man’s presidential candidacy cannot possibly be taken seriously.

‘Mainstream media’ becomes a four-letter word

mainstream media

My galaxy of friends, acquaintances and professional colleagues runs across an enormous political spectrum.

They range in ideology from avowed Marxists to borderline John Birch Society members.

I cherish them all.

My wife and I caught up this week with one of our longtime friends, someone we met when we moved from Portland, Ore., to the Texas Gulf Coast more than three decades ago.

She reminded me of her right-wing views, which she acknowledges run counter to those with whom she used to work in print journalism. I guess she was referring to me as one of those lefties.

Then she expressed her frustration with what she called the “mainstream media.” She suggested that those who believe as she does no longer have a place where she can get the new without being offended by what she described as “liberal bias.”

I was taken aback a bit by her observation.

My first reaction was to remind her that the “mainstream media” also includes a number of conservative sources. Fox News? It’s as mainstream as, say, CNN or the New York Times — the two media outlets my friend alluded to when she threw out the “mainstream media” label.

But eventually, during our brief visit, we came to agree on one important element about media of all stripes: Broadcast media in particular hardly ever deliver merely the “news” without adding commentary, punditry and opinion representing someone’s point of view.

Political coverage? It is full of analysis about who’s up and who’s down and why.

As we enter the next political season that will result in the election of a new president, I think it’s important to take hold of the idea that “mainstream media” isn’t just a supposedly liberal phenomenon.

My friend is an intelligent and well-educated woman. She worked for many years seeking to inform the public about events of the day. She was a pro and she succeeded famously in keeping her own political bias away from the news she was reporting.

I didn’t say this to her, as time was short and we had a lot of catching up to do, but I’ve long acknowledged by own bias. I lean left. My friend referred to herself as an “extreme conservative.”

Perhaps there’s hope that we can get past the vast chasm that divides Americans these days — if only all of us recognize within ourselves that we all carry bias, which isn’t just a malady that afflicts those on the other side.

As for her inability to get the “news” the way she prefers it, there are plenty of outlets that are suited to her own bias.

 

Conservative talk show host finds friends on the left

hugh hewitt

Hugh Hewitt is feuding with Donald Trump.

Hewitt is a well-known and high-demand conservative radio host. Trump, well, I’m guessing you know who he is.

An interesting back story may be developing here as Hewitt and Trump duke it out rhetorically. It is that Hewitt is finding new friends and allies — in the liberal media.

Trump’s description of Hewitt as a “third-rate radio announcer” came after Trump fluffed a question from Hewitt over his knowledge of an Iranian terror group leader. Hewitt said he wasn’t asking a “gotcha” question, but Trump said he did exactly that.

Hewitt isn’t a fly-by-night right-wing blowhard. He’s a savvy political analyst. He also is one of the go-to guys among conservative mainstream media talkers.

Now, though, he’s finding allies among those in the other conservative media outlets — those that tilt to the left. They’re taking up for Hewitt and defending him, just as many of them have defended Fox News’s Megyn Kelly in her feud with Trump.

Come to think of it, I’ve been defending them, too.

I’m proud to stand with them.

 

Jorge Ramos: advocate or journalist?

Illegal-immigrants-2

Jorge Ramos sought to call Donald Trump to account for the Republican presidential candidate’s controversial views on illegal immigration.

He stood during a press conference and peppered the candidate with questions about his plan to build a wall along the nation’s southern border. Trump then called a bodyguard over to escort Ramos from the room.

It was an unattractive scene, to be sure.

Then Ramos, a noted news anchor for Univision — a leading Spanish-language TV network — went on ABC’s “Good Morning America” the next morning to discuss the incident. He said a curious thing, in my humble view.

GMA host George Stephanopoulos asked Ramos if he was acting more as an advocate than a journalist. Ramos responded by saying “journalists must stand for something.”

His answer had me scratching my noggin.

Journalists, as I understand the meaning of the term, basically fall into two categories: reporters and editorialists. I spent most of my nearly 37 years as a full-time print journalist on the opinion side, writing editorials and commentaries for publications in two states.

But on occasion, when the opportunity presented itself, I was able and willing to write news copy for those publications. I was able to set personal bias aside and deliver information for readers to consume — and for them to make up their own minds about the topic about which I was writing.

I don’t know if at the press conference, in which Trump was fielding questions from reporters, whether Ramos was representing himself as a reporter or an editorialist.

His answer to the question, then, on GMA was incomplete.

A journalist, if he is writing or broadcasting opinion, is certainly entitled to “stand for something.” If the journalist is there to report on a story, well, then he or she should stand for nothing.

Jorge Ramos doesn’t think a 1,900-mile-long wall along our border is practical or even feasible. He doesn’t think Trump’s idea of rounding up 11 million undocumented immigrants is possible without breaking up families and causing considerable heartache and grief.

If that is what he believes, then he should simply state it.

If, however, he is asking a serious question on the issue, I believe he should do so without inserting his personal views on the matter.

Perhaps his effort to “stand for something” ought to include fulfilling his entire obligation as a journalist — which includes reporting the story and leaving his own bias out of it.

 

‘Like members of the family’

alison and adam

A USA Today article spells out a grim truth about the latest tragedy that has gripped the American public.

Alison Parker and Adam Ward, two broadcast journalists who were slain on live TV this week, were like “members of the family.”

That is why their deaths in Roanoke, Va., has body-slammed the community they served.

Think about that.

Television news viewers invite the people who deliver it into their homes. The reporters and camera people who provide the information are in viewers’ homes because the viewers want them there.

Thus, when they’re taken from viewers — particularly in such a graphic fashion — the public reacts perhaps a bit more viscerally than it does to reports of other tragic events.

Do no misunderstand my point. I am not downplaying other tragedies as being less worthy of public grief. The Sandy Hood Elementary School shooting in Connecticut — in which 20 precious children and six educators were gunned down — drove millions of us to tears … and one American in particular, President Barack Obama, couldn’t restrain his own personal grief while commenting on it to the nation.

Yes, there are many other events that affect us deeply.

The deaths of two journalists who were just doing their job on what was supposed to be a “routine story” and who were transmitting their story into people’s homes at the very moment of their death just hits us so very hard.

They hurt us so very deeply.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/journalist-killings-like-deaths-in-the-family-for-viewers/ar-BBm980G

 

Trump to apologize for dissing Kelly? Yeah, right

Donald Trump arrives to his Comedy Central Roast in New York, Wednesday, March 9, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Sykes)

Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes is demanding an apology from Donald Trump for his gratuitous criticism of network anchor Megyn Kelly.

Good luck with that, Roger.

Or, to paraphrase a hackneyed film line from the 1970 film “Love Story”: Arrogance means you never lower yourself to say you’re sorry.

Trump dissed Kelly upon her return to the air after taking a brief break. Kelly had the temerity during the initial Republican primary presidential joint appearance to ask Trump about comments he’d made about women that many had considered to be misogynistic and sexist.

Trump then ripped into Kelly for asking the question. The Trump vs. Fox feud has been boiling over ever since.

Ailes is right to demand an apology. He won’t get one.

It’s not Trump’s style.

As Trump himself keeps telling us: Why should he change a thing? Those polls give him all the affirmation he needs.