Category Archives: media news

media news, national news

Retirement won’t mean disengagement

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

As I listen daily — and nightly — to news about the state of our national government under Donald J. Trump, I might be tempted to shuck it all when my bride and I hit the road during our retirement years.

Full-time retirement, I caution you, won’t mean full-time disengagement from the world that continues to swirl around us.

The former — full-time retirement — is approaching at a quickening pace. The latter, well, won’t change once we cross that threshold.

The only difference might lie in that as we travel a good bit more in our RV, we’ll be visiting portions of North America that don’t share the groupthink that is so prevalent in the Texas Panhandle. As such, my intention will be to talk to those we meet as pass through their communities. I hope to glean from them their view of the world.

We’ve had the joy of traveling some already in our RV, which we’ve owned for a couple of years. This past autumn, we took our longest trip — distance-wise — to southwestern South Dakota. It gave us a hint of the adventure that awaits us as we tool our way across two massive nations: the United States and Canada.

Along the way, I intend to be connected fully to the world.

Tempting as it might be — such as it is at this moment as the “news” is broadcast in the background of my home office — I won’t toss it all aside. I suppose you could say I am not wired simply to toss it all aside while we simply travel, kick off our shoes and not have a care in the world.

Modern technology has advanced to where we expect to be connected every mile of our journey. I intend fully to use that technology to keep this blog blazing away with praise where it’s warranted and, oh, criticism where that, too, is deserved.

I hope you’ll join us on our ride throughout North America.

legal news, media news, national news, political news

‘Enemy of the people’ talk is way overblown

All the recent “enemy of the people” discussion prompted by the president of the United States has caused me to think about the career I pursued.

I worked in the mainstream media for 37 years. I got to pursue some great stories. I was able to see and do some fascinating things and meet some remarkable individuals.

I never considered myself an “enemy of the people.” Donald J. Trump has labeled the media as such, while proclaiming he doesn’t think the media are his personal enemies.

When the president of the United States impugns the integrity of the individuals who are doing what I used to do, well, I take it personally.

Did I make everyone happy while pursuing my job? Not in the least. I angered some public officials, made them squirm. For instance:

* I once wrote an investigative piece about a trial judge in Oregon City, Ore., who had developed a reputation as a jurist who lacked the temperament to do the job properly. I interviewed fellow judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and, of course, the judge himself. We published the story.

Then the judge died. My editor then assigned me to write his obituary. Who did I call to collect information about the judge? His wife. We had a nice visit and she told me she didn’t harbor ill feelings — let alone hatred — for me.

* I moved later to Beaumont, Texas, and then got another judge quite riled at me when I noticed something in a news story we had published one day. It spoke of the district judge getting a permit to operate a private business on the ground floor of the county courthouse where he worked as a state employee.

Big deal, you say? Well, yes. You see, he used facsimile state letterhead stationery to communicate with the county auditor, who had to approve the bids; the auditor — who reported to a panel of district judges, including the judge who was bidding for the permit — then granted the judge the permit.

I wrote some editorials calling this activity into question. The judge took great offense at it and, from what I heard, wanted to sue the newspaper and yours truly for libel.

* I moved to Amarillo after that and promptly got sideways with a former city commissioner who was appointed to the board of a public district that oversaw the then-publicly owned hospital. The problem, though, was that he was employed by a competing for-profit hospital, which seemed a tad inappropriate; he shouldn’t have served on a public hospital district board while working for a competitor. I wrote an editorial calling attention to that conflict of interest — and incurred the wrath of the former city commissioner.

I was doing my job as I understood it in all those cases. I never thought of myself as a purveyor of “fake news” or someone who “had an agenda” that differed from the public I sought to serve.

When the president assumes such things about the media and then challenges them in such a direct manner, a lot of us with ties to this particular craft take it all quite personally.

I am one of them.

I might have angered my share of officials along the way. As for “the people,” well, they cannot live without a free and aggressive press … no matter how mad the president says they might be in the moment.

media news

Trump performs a one-80 on the press

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned from dealing with politicians over the years, it’s that the only thing guaranteed to force them into action is the press, or more specifically, fear of the press.”

— Donald Trump, “The Art of the Deal”

Imagine that. The man who — at the time he made that statement — likely didn’t envision himself as the president of the United States of America.

It’s all different now for Trump the politician as he stumbles and bumbles his way past his first month in office as the Leader of the Free World.

The very same media upon which he has declared war are doing the very thing he seemingly praised in his talked-about book. They are seeking answers to difficult questions. They want all the information they can gather so they can inform the public — the folks to whom they and, oh yes, the president answer — about the performance of its most visible institution.

Let’s all consider just for a moment that the public and the president serve the same masters. That would be you and me. The public.

Yes, I understand that media companies are privately held, for-profit organizations. The public they serve, however, make it possible for them to earn the income they want.

Trump now has gone to war with the “fake news” media. Someone will have to explain to me what he means by that, although I think I have an inkling of an idea. He appears to refer to those media organizations that don’t report only the “good news” he says he deserves.

The rest of it is, well, fake. It’s phony. It’s bogus. It’s not real.

With all due respect, Mr. President, you are full of crap.

The man had it right in that book of his. The media are forcing the nation’s No. 1 politician “into action.”

media news

McCain to Trump: Don’t go after a ‘free press’

I’ve never really considered John McCain to be a friend of the press.

Silly me. I guess I was wrong about the Republican U.S. senator from Arizona. He is now telling the president of the United States to back off from his declared war against the media, which Donald Trump has labeled as the “enemy of the people.”

“That’s how dictators get started,” McCain said.

Well …

McCain denies calling Trump a would-be dictator, insisting he’s just spelling out what has happened throughout history. Dictators seek to weaken — if not destroy — the press, giving them an avenue to complete power.

McCain detests Trump, it seems quite clear. The senator’s loathing of the president, though, seems well-earned.

Candidate Trump once declared that he didn’t consider McCain — a decorated Navy pilot and one-time Vietnam War prisoner — a “war hero.” Trump said McCain was a hero only because “he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?”

Some of us thought that ridiculous assertion would doom Trump’s presidential candidacy. Hah! It didn’t happen. It seemed to energize his supporters.

McCain, though, has kept up his drumbeat of criticism of Trump. I happen to applaud the senator’s verve as he challenges Trump’s ignorance about Russia and now about the dangers of seeking to weaken the Fourth Estate.

Those of us toiled in the craft of reporting and commenting on events of the day don’t consider ourselves to be “enemies” of the people. I have never thought of myself to be anyone’s enemy, although I am certain some of individuals I’ve encountered along my lengthy journalism journey perceive me as their enemy.

As Sen. McCain has noted correctly, the president ought to tread carefully if he continues this fight with the media.

media news

‘Fake news’ now gets under Trump’s skin

Does anyone else see the irony of Donald J. Trump’s bitching about “fake news”?

This is the guy who for about a half-dozen years kept alive the bogus “news” about Barack Obama’s place of birth. He questioned whether the former president was qualified to serve in the office he held for eight years.

He kept harping on the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya, the birthplace of his father. He fomented the Mother of All Fake News Stories.

Now the president — the one-time bard of the birther movement —  calls anything he considers negative to be “fake news”?

Oh, the irony is rich. Isn’t it?

media news

Media are ‘the enemy’? Seriously, Mr. President?

The unique aspect of social media forums — such as, say, Twitter — is that no matter how quickly you take something down the original expression remains embedded in the public mind.

Donald J. Trump tweeted a statement declaring that the “media is the enemy of the American people.”

The president deleted it almost immediately. But … oops! … it’s still out there.

Thus, we’ve gotten another look into the weird mind of our nation’s head of state.

The media aren’t the “enemy.” Trump might believe it simply because media representatives are asking sometimes-difficult questions. His senior White House political strategist, Steve Bannon, has encouraged the media to “keep quiet” and has called the media “the opposition party.”

What neither of these men quite get — or so it appears — is that the media are part of the American fabric. The Constitution guarantees a “free press” that shouldn’t be shackled or silenced by government pressure or coercion.

Yet that seems to be part of what is happening now with the new president, who’s been in office less than a single month.

Trump’s critics have lamented what they consider the “danger” that the president  presents to our democratic system. I am beginning to believe a president who blurts out ill-considered statements about the media being the “enemy” of Americans is painting a frightening picture for the country he purports to lead.

media news

It’s the temperament, man … the temperamant

I’ve been trying to determine when I’ve ever seen a president of the United States treat the media in the manner being displayed by the current one.

I cannot remember a single time. Not even during President Richard Nixon’s time in the White House.

Donald Trump has shown utter contempt and disrespect for the men and women assigned to cover the White House for their various news organizations.

It manifests itself when he gets a question he dislikes. He tells reporters to “sit down, that’s enough” when they seek to elaborate on their question, to fill in a blank or two. No, the president will have none of it.

Forget for a moment that he calls them “dishonest” out loud, in public, to their face … and then expects these fellow human beings to treat him with kid gloves.

The disrespect — as I’ve witnessed it — is unlike anything I’ve ever witnessed, even from afar.

If we march back through time — starting from Barack Obama and going backward — I cannot remember a president acting the way this one does in front of the media.

There was one memorable, testy exchange in the 1970s between then-CBS News correspondent Dan Rather and President Nixon. The president was getting entangled in the Watergate scandal and Rather asked him a pointed question. Some members of the press gallery chuckled, some even clapped. Nixon asked Rather, “Are you running for something?” Rather responded, “No, Mr. President, are you?”

Presidents usually have strained relations with the media. They dislike negative coverage, as does any politician — no matter what they might say. As I’ve watched presidential/media relationships from a distance over the years, I have noticed a sometimes cool cordiality between the Big Man and the media that cover him.

What we’re getting now is open hostility and an exhibition of extremely bad manners from the guy who needs the media as least as much as they need him.

I’m trying to imagine what will occur if and/or when the crap really hits the fan at the White House. I fear the president will go berserk.

Didn’t someone mention temperament as a quality we look for in a president of the United States of America?

International news, media news, national news, political news

Trump redefines ‘fake news’

I am still rolling this one over in my noggin, but it might be that Donald “Smart Person” Trump has crafted a new definition of what we know as “fake news.”

During that rambling and ridiculous press conference Thursday, the president kept asserting that the Russia story is “fake news.”

As Shepard Smith of Fox News points out, it ain’t “fake,” Mr. President, and you need to provide some answers to Americans who are demanding to know the truth.

The Hill reported Smith’s response to Trump’s criticism of the media: “No sir,” Smith continued. “We are not fools for asking this question, and we demand to know the answer to this question. You owe this to the American people. Your supporters will support you either way. If your people were on the phone, what were they saying? We have a right to know, we absolutely do and that you call us fake news and put us down like children for asking these questions on behalf of the American people is inconsequential. The people deserve an answer to this question at very least.”

Smith, of course, is correct to challenge Trump’s constant berating of media for doing their job.

I’m now beginning to think that what Trump calls “fake news” really is news that is unimportant. It’s true, just not worth the media’s — or the president’s — time.

The whole “fake news” story burst on the public stage with bogus reports intended to do damage to political figures. Someone makes a story up, posts it on the Internet, the story goes viral and people respond the way the person who posts it intended. They make money on all the “clicks” they get on the bogus item. Some of these trolls get caught, are exposed for what they are — liars! — and then vow to quit doing it.

The Russia stories aren’t “fake” if you adhere to that original definition of “fake news.”

Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had conversations with Russian officials. The question pending is when he did that and at whose request or command. Moreover, when did Flynn lie to the vice president about it and did he violate the Logan Act, which bars unauthorized citizens from “negotiating” with foreign governments?

In other words, did Flynn tell the Russians that the new president would reduce or eliminate the sanctions leveled on them by the man who still was in power, President Barack H. Obama? Remember, too, that the sanctions came after CIA and other intelligence agencies determined that Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It isn’t “fake,” Mr. President. Reporters have every right — indeed an obligation — to ask you about all this.

It’s important in the extreme.

So, knock off the “fake news” description.

media news

‘Leaks are real, news is fake’ Huh? What?

I’m trying to digest the contents of Donald J. Trump’s press conference today.

It’s upsetting my stomach.

The president has declared all-out war on the media, which he calls “dishonest” and “fake.” The very men and women who cover the president’s statements and actions are told to their face that they are out to get the president, that they have an anti-Trump agenda.

One of them asked Trump today about the leaks that have allowed information to pour out into the public. Trump’s response is utterly mind-boggling on its face: “The leaks are real. The news is fake.”

I don’t even know what that means.

My media activity these days is confined exclusively to this blog. I did spend nearly four decades covering and commenting on local and state governments in two states — first in Oregon and then in Texas. I didn’t have the honor of covering the White House or politics at the highest level imaginable.

However, I do share a bit of empathy with the reporters who are doing their job in the face of withering attacks from the president of the United States.

He should seek to use the media to his own advantage. The president has a message to deliver, or so I am presuming. He must rely on the media to deliver it to the public. Why, for heaven’s sake, does he insist on the ad hominem attacks on the media? Why does he insult the men and women sitting in front of him with labels such as “dishonest” and “fake”?

This guy — the president — cannot remove himself from flat-out campaign mode. He used that tactic against his Republican Party primary opponents and then against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The media now have taken over the role political opponent.

I think I am picking up the scent of Steve Bannon, the White House senior strategist, who has called the media the “opposition party” and suggested that the media should keep quiet.

The media are nothing of the kind. Nor should they keep quiet; the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the media’s right to pose probing questions of those in power.

If only the president of the United States could demonstrate an inkling of knowledge of the media’s role in a modern society.

media news, national news, political news

Let’s set the record straight, Mr. President

I know it’s not a hu-u-u-u-ge deal.

However, I feel the need to set the record straight on another one of those prevarications that flew out of Donald J. Trump’s mouth.

The president called a press conference today and spoke — and jousted — with the media for more than an hour. Among the mistruths he spoke today dealt with his assertion that his Electoral College victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton was the biggest “since Ronald Reagan.”

Uh, Mr. President, no sir. It isn’t. Not by a long, long shot.

Let’s review, shall we?

1984: President Reagan was re-elected with 525 electoral votes.

1988: Vice President George H.W. Bush was elected with 426 electoral votes.

1992: Bill Clinton was elected with 370 electoral votes.

1996: President Clinton was re-elected with 379 electoral votes.

2008: Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes.

2012: President Obama was re-elected with 332 electoral votes.

2016: Donald Trump won with 304 electoral votes.

There are the numbers. Trump’s victory wasn’t the biggest since Reagan. Oh, here are some more numbers to put Trump’s victory into, um, a little different perspective.

Clinton collected 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump. The president’s victory was sealed in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — which he won by a total of 77,000 votes, out of more than 120 million ballots cast nationally.

If Clinton had won those states, she would have been elected. She lost them to Trump. I am acutely aware that Trump won the contest where it counted, so please spare me the lecture and accusation that I’m still choking on all those sour grapes.

A reporter — NBC’s Peter Alexander — today challenged Trump’s statement about the size of his victory. The president said he was referring only to “Republican” presidents. Oh. I see. Then Bush 41’s victory didn’t count?

Trump’s bogus assertion about the size of his victory isn’t a big deal by itself. It does illustrate the man’s propensity for playing fast and loose with facts.

Perhaps, though, they merely are those “alternative facts” to which his senior policy adviser, Kellyanne Conway, referred.