Category Archives: media news

‘Fair and balanced?’ Yes on fair, no balanced

I have plenty of friends who follow this blog, right along with plenty of foes and critics.

Many of my critics happen to be friends. Some of them are good friends, too. One of those friendly critics has chided me because my blog isn’t “fair and balanced.” I’ll answer my longtime good pal here.

High Plains Blogger strives for fairness in its criticism. Whether it achieves fairness, I suppose, depends largely on who’s reading it. As you know, a huge chunk of the criticism of late has centered on Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president. I detest the idea of this man representing the nation I love dearly. I am unapologetic in my harsh feelings toward him.

My friend thinks I should be more “fair and balanced.”

I’ll ponder that for a moment. OK. I’ve pondered it. This blog will continue to strive for fairness in its criticism of any public official. However, the balance isn’t part of the equation. I wear my bias proudly and do not shy away from it. It’s a blog intended to comment on public policy and politics.

Still, I have pledged to compliment the president when opportunities present themselves.

I can think off hand of two such occurrences: the president’s decision to launch missiles at Syria in response to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons; and the president’s signing of a veterans administration reform bill into law that protects whistleblowers who tattle on VA officials who mistreat veterans.

I should add here, I suppose, that not a single regular or frequent critic congratulated this blog for its complimentary tone on those instances. Hey, no worries. It goes with the territory. I believe that’s what I’ve cautioned the president as he rails against critics of his public policy.

So … the beat — and the criticism goes on.

When did ‘fake news’ become what it’s become?

Once upon a lifetime or two ago, back before the Internet or even before the rise of some of current contemporary politicians, I used to think of “fake news” as something that bears little resemblance to what it means today.

That was before we even coined the term “fake news” as it has come to be known these days.

If someone were to present an item as “news,” but it turns out to be false, you’d just call it what it was: a fabrication, a prevarication, a lie. Thanks, though, to an adroit politician — who hates to be called one, even though that is what he is — many of us toss the term “fake news” around recklessly. If it’s negative, it’s “fake.” Even if it tells the truth, it’s “fake” in the eyes of those aligned with the target of such truth-telling.

Donald John Trump, the nation’s 45th president, has now turned the term into something of a rallying cry for the shrinking — but still substantial — base of Americans who still believe what he says.

The president’s standing among Americans is around 38 percent — give or take a point or two — who think he’s doing a good job. The rest of us, um, think a lot less of him. The Trumpkins of this nation glom onto the “fake news” mantra to discredit any news report seen as critical of their guy.

They don’t get the irony, though, of what they say about the media. If you want any clearer example of what I used to think of as “fake news,” you need look no further than the man who’s made it the rallying cry it has become.

Donald Trump is the king of fake news. Call him King Donald the Faker. To wit:

He perpetrated the lie that Barack Obama was constitutionally unqualified to hold the office of president; he cited a phony instance of “thousands of Muslims cheering” the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11; he said President Obama bugged his campaign office after the election; he said “millions of illegal immigrants” voted for Hillary Clinton and gave her the 3 million popular vote plurality she scored over Trump, despite losing the Electoral College vote; he implied there might be White House recordings of conversations he had with fired FBI Director James Comey.

What, I ask, do all these instances have in common? They’re all demonstrably false. They’re lies. They are made up events.

They are “fake news”!

Still, the president gets away with it in the minds of those who stand by their man.

I get that Donald Trump changed the rules of politics when he ran for and won the presidency in 2016. Brother, do I ever get it.

What continues to boggle my mind, though, is the very idea that this guy gets away with hanging the “fake news” label on media and news reports while being cheered on by those who ignore his own tawdry record of dishing out lies.

No longer missing the sniping from left and right

I once posted a blog item about two fellows with whom I had a sort of professional relationship.

One is an ultraconservative firebrand; the other is an ultraliberal firebrand. I offered the notion that I must be doing something right to have angered both of them for essentially the same reason: I tilt too far the other way.

Here is what I wrote in July 2010.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2010/07/barbs-from-the-left-and-the-right/

I was working full time at the Amarillo Globe-News then, as editor of the Opinion pages. I would leave that job about two years later. I’m still blogging my brains out.

What I find refreshing about blogging in this context — as a retired former journalist — is that I no longer have to argue with critics who say I tilt too far in the opposite direction.

I tell people now — and I’ll reiterate it here — that I am now free to speak without apology. It’s not that I ever apologized for what I wrote when I was a working print editorialist. It’s just that I felt the need to correct whatever misinterpretation a critic would level at me.

“Your paper is too liberal,” they might say. “That rag of yours is too conservative,” others might say. No one can say that about this blog.

As the sayings go: “It is what it is,” and “What you see is what you get.”

As time marches on since my departure from daily print journalism I find myself separating myself more easily from the regular occurrences that would develop, such as the one noted in that July 2010 blog post.

I love telling friends with whom I cross paths that these days I am: unfettered, unchained, unrestrained, unleashed, uncaged, untethered, unrestricted … you can put the prefix “un” in front of any descriptive term you want.

That’s me. I’m having a blast, man.

Here is a seriously valuable public service

I invite you to read this item from today’s Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News.

You cannot make this stuff up.

It comes from the paper’s weekly “food inspection report” collected from Amarillo municipal code enforcement officials. It’s part of the public record. It’s available for anyone to see upon request. The newspaper has for a number of years been publishing this report as a form of public service. It lists eating establishments and watering holes around town. This particular joint is a strip club in southwest Amarillo.

This feature is enormously popular among readers of the newspaper.

I don’t read the newspaper regularly. In fact, I rarely have read the paper since resigning from the AGN in August 2012. Many of you know the story about that, so I won’t go there; I’ll save it possibly for another day.

I do like this feature and I admit that I miss seeing it.

This item might be the most bizarre complaint I’ve seen.

The media are getting their share of hits from disgruntled Americans who’ve taken the bait dangling from politicians who accuse them of offering “fake news” and other such things.

This inspection report isn’t fake anything. It’s real and it highlights the serious public service that the media can — and do — provide on a regular basis.

But seriously? “Breast implants found inside bar utensil holder … “?

Happy Trails, Part 29

We have spent the past two days peddling some of our worldly possessions.

Retirement has given us time to do these things.

It’s also allowed us to catch up with friends and former colleagues who have stopped by to say “hey” while we’ve been sitting under the hot sun on our driveway.

Three of them came by today and my wife and I took time to visit and to learn about their lives and to tell them about ours.

One particular exchange is worth retelling here.

It went something like this …

We were talking about blogging. I told my friend that blogging occupies a good bit of my retirement time these days. “It’s what I do,” I told him, repeating a mantra I often give to friends who inquire about the things that occupy my time.

I told him the name of the blog likely will change once my wife and I pull up stakes and relocate down yonder, somewhere in the greater Metroplex region.

Then I mentioned how, since 9/11, I was able to live the editorialist’s dream. When I was working for a living at the Amarillo Globe-News, I faced the prospect of having to fill a large bit of empty space on the Opinion page. The editorialist’s dream that came true on 9/11 was that the pace of events became so frantic and so relevant that I never had to worry about how I was going to fill that space.

Indeed, the ideal situation for someone who writes editorials is to grapple with deciding which issues I could set aside for the next day — or beyond.

Since that terrible day on Sept. 11, 2001, I have had zero trouble finding issues to comment on.

That trend has continued every year since then. Now that I’m no longer employed, am retired and writing this blog, I find myself with an embarrassment of riches in topics to discuss. The cool part about it as well is that this blog has many wings to it: I call it a blog that comments on “politics, public policy and life experience.”

As I told my friend this morning, ever since the most recent presidential campaign, my list of discussion topics has grown seemingly exponentially.

It’s the “life experience” topics — such as this “Happy Trails” series of blog posts — that give me the most pleasure.

Retirement also has unshackled me. I’m now free to speak my own mind, lay my own bias on those who read this blog.

Much more to come. I promise.

Declaring war on this overused cliche

I am declaring a state of war with a phrase that is driving me stark raving mad … I’m tellin’ ya.

“At the end of the day” has emerged as the most annoying cliché in the modern English language.

I just watched an interview on MSNBC’s “Last Word” show hosted by Lawrence O’Donnell, one of my favorite TV pundits/commentators. He didn’t use that phrase. O’Donnell apparently knows better.

Oh, no. It came from his guests: foreign policy wonk John McLaughlin and Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist who is known for his expertise on Far East issues.

I heard Kristof drop “at the end of the day” twice in the span of about 15 seconds while responding to a question from O’Donnell. It’s particularly disappointing to hear it come from Kristof who, as a journalist, I am quite certain would never write that cliché in one of his NY Times columns.

(As an aside, I want to share with you that Kristof and I are “homeys” of a sort, as we both grew up in Oregon. I came of age in the Portland suburbs; Kristof grew up in the Willamette Valley.)

Here’s my theory on “at the end of the day” and its purpose for those who keep using it. It’s a setup phrase. I’ve concluded that whoever uses the phrase to preface a conclusion, it is to lend credence — a sort of gravitas — to whatever point the individual is trying to make.

“At end of the day, I am quite certain you have to stay hydrated during the hottest periods of the summer.”

Do you get it?

I do not yet know how this war I have declared will develop. I don’t have a strategy for waging it. I guess I’ll just start by pledging never to use it in this blog — except to call attention to its annoying quality; I also will pledge never to be caught dead saying it out loud.

If only these talking heads would toss the phrase into the crapper.

NPR sought to pay tribute, and then …

National Public Radio has this tradition of delivering the words of the Declaration of Independence to its listeners.

Its intent is to pay tribute to the very foundation of this great nation. Ol’ Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration to inform King George III of the many grievances the colonies had against his ham-fisted rule.

Well, this year, NPR’s tweeting of the Declaration met some angry response. Some fans of Donald J. Trump thought NPR was calling for insurrection against the government led by the 45th president of the United States.

Seriously, I do not know whether to laugh, cry, scream, slap the side of my noggin, just throw up my hands in disgust … or just, well, throw up.

Check out the reaction

Some supporters of the president flipped out. They didn’t recognize the words of Declaration of Independence.

You’ve heard the saying about how “No good deed goes unpunished”?

Well. There you go, NPR.

 

Keep yammering about ‘fake news,’ Mr. President

I used to have mixed feelings about Donald Trump’s use of what is becoming an-almost hackneyed term.

“Fake news.”

The president tosses it out there with utterly no self-awareness, that he is the King of Fake News.

Barack Obama was a foreigner; thousands of Muslims cheered the Twin Towers’ collapse; Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign office; millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton.

There’s more. It’s all fake news.

Yet the president persists in using that term to hang around media organizations that report actual news that he deems to be too negative.

Negativity equals “fake news.” You got that?

Thus, the president has established a mantra that plays well among the media-hating base of American voters who more than likely — as then-candidate Trump once famously said — would still vote for him even if he were to “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.”

Do I want him to stop using the “fake news” dodge?

Not really. It just demonstrates that this president doesn’t know a single thing about the difference between what’s “fake” and what’s real.

POTUS redefines response strategy

Donald Trump’s communications team is defending The Boss by repeating a troubling dodge.

It is that the president is a human being and that he shouldn’t have to endure constant attacks without responding to his critics as he has done.

Deputy White House press aide Sarah Huckabee Sanders was called out the other day by White House reporter who skewered her for the White House’s constant yammering about “fake news.” He said the media are simply “doing their job.” Sanders objected to the gist of what he said and implied that the media, in effect, are conspiring to concoct reports designed to put the president in a negative light.

Sanders is as wrong as wrong gets.

As for Trump’s human instincts, I feel compelled to remind the young press flack that the president’s recent predecessors all avoided the kind of petulance exhibited by the current leader of the free world.

Barack Obama also was hammered repeatedly during his two terms in office. Did he say anything even remotely similar about his critics that we are hearing from Donald Trump? Umm. Nope.

George W. Bush his share of fire from opponents as well. Did the president respond in kind? Did he go on social media to portray the media as “the enemy of the people”? No once again. Instead, President Bush understood what all presidents have known, which is that the media perform a valuable service in keeping public officials accountable for their deeds and statements.

Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford all knew as president that criticism goes with the territory. Even Richard Nixon, who came closest to the Trump model of media response, knew better than to say out loud that the media were the enemy.

I no longer have any serious hope that Donald Trump will grasp what his most recent predecessors all knew about the media and their relationship with the president.

I do, though, expect better from his spokespeople, who should cease insulting Americans with the idiocy that the president is reacting like any normal, run-of-the-mill human being.

The men who preceded him were human beings, too.

Trump has been called out by, um, the best

I almost don’t know how to react to this item.

Joy Reid is a TV talk show host. Her MSBNC show is called “AM Joy.” This morning she welcomed a guest to discuss Donald J. Trump’s tweet storm, namely the hideous nature of his attacks on the media.

Reid’s guest was none other than Jerry Springer, the king of daytime trash TV. Springer — of all the people on Earth — said that the president’s tweets are beneath the dignity “of any decent man.”

Roll that one around for a moment. Springer, of course, is correct. Part of me wants to applaud Springer for speaking out. Another part of me cannot get past the supreme irony of such a message coming from this guy.

I need to mention, though, that before Springer made his fortune playing host to TV guests accusing each other of engaging in behavior that boggles any reasonable mind, he once was mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio.

So, Mr. President? Take a bow. You’ve been called out by the best.

Check it out here.