Category Archives: media news

Media, Trump need to end their love affair

bbwhsff

Donald J. Trump’s newfound friends in the conservative political movement need to cease declaring that the “mainstream liberal media” are out to “get” their guy.

That they despise Trump, and that the GOP presidential nominee hates them in return.

They love each other. The media love Trump, who in turn loves the media. He plays the media for the suckers they are.

He called a press conference in which he said he would make a major policy announcement. Instead, he used the event to tout some business deal, a hotel, in which he boasted about how great it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-for-tv-news-to-stop-playing-the-stooge-for-donald-trump/2016/09/16/bc66812e-7c28-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

The press conference was supposed to center on Trump ending his racist rants about President Obama’s birth. It wasn’t about that. Sure, he said Obama “was born in the United States. Period.” But the bulk of the event was to shower praise on himself his business success.

This is where Trump is crossing a very troubling line: mixing personal business with a campaign for the nation’s highest political office.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump%E2%80%99s-anything-goes-campaign-sets-an-alarming-political-precedent/ar-BBwi7sm?li=BBmkt5R

Indeed, this latest stunt is part of a pattern.

The media are playing a major role in it.

Trump will continue to rant and rail about the “dishonest political press.” His supporters will cheer him on. He’ll give them more of the same. They’ll cheer him even more loudly.

Meantime, the rest of us are left scratching our heads and wondering: When will this charade stop?

Trump now must decide: Do I show up to debate Hillary?

AAiuBxc

I cannot believe some media outlets are actually asking this question seriously.

Is Donald Trump going to agree to debate Hillary Rodham Clinton now that we know who will moderate these three events, or will he back out?

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, has agreed to face Republican nominee Trump who, apparently, hasn’t yet agreed formally to show for any or all of them.

It seems that he wanted to see who the networks would select as moderators. Now he knows.

NBC’s Lester Holt will moderate the first one; ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper get the second one; Fox News’s Chris Wallace gets the third one.

All are capable journalists. All are tough-minded.

And all of them, apparently, have had some “issues” with Trump.

Thus, we get the question about whether the GOP nominee will show up.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-wanted-to-%E2%80%98see-who-the-moderators-are%E2%80%99-now-that-he-has-will-he-debate/ar-AAiu2ho?li=BBmkt5R

The tempest over his feud with Fox’s Megyn Kelly is going down already as a serious back story of this amazingly unpredictable campaign. Trump didn’t show up for a debate when he learned Kelly would be one of the co-moderators. His absence obviously didn’t harm his nomination chances.

Trump has bitched about moderators before. All of the journalists named as moderators have questioned Trump hard on some of the answers he has given. Will his notoriously thin skin prevent him from being questioned yet again?

He’s also griped that the debates were scheduled opposite televised NFL games, which he said would drive down viewership of the debate — which, quite naturally, he alleges is a conspiracy to get Clinton elected.

The only thing I can surmise if Trump were actually to refuse to show up for any of these three joint appearances is that some of the conspiracy theorists are right about one thing: Trump is throwing this election because he truly doesn’t want to be elected president of the United States.

Moderators become part of the campaign ’16 story

03moderators-combo-master768

Admit it if you dare.

You’ve been wondering who would moderate the three joint appearances scheduled with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Now we know.

Lester Holt of NBC will do the first one; ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper will co-moderate the second; Fox’s Chris Wallace gets the call for the third one.

This normally wouldn’t be a y-u-u-u-u-g-e deal, except for what happened in the first GOP gathering in 2015 when Trump bristled openly at the first question posed by Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, who had the “gall” to ask Trump about his previous statements about women. You know, the “fat pigs” stuff.

Trump didn’t like the question. Not only that, he kept up the feud through much of the GOP primary campaign, refusing to participate in a later event moderated by the same Megyn Kelly.

He demonstrated a preposterous level of petulance.

He made the media the issue, which plays well with the Republican base, given that they hate the media, too.

Moderators aren’t supposed to become part of a political story. This year they have been. Remember, too, when CNN’s Candy Crowley in 2012 corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that President Obama didn’t refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Oh, but this is a new era. Trump has ensured that the media will become part of the narrative because, as he discovered, the base of his party’s voters love gnawing on that red meat.

Will he go after Holt, or Raddatz, or Cooper or Wallace?

Or, will any of them provoke a fiery response with a question that Trump deems to be untoward?

Gosh, I’m getting all tingly now just waiting for it.

Clinton stiff-arming of media needs to end

hillary and media

It’s safe to say — I truly believe — that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn’t feel “protected” by the so-called “liberal media.”

She doesn’t believe the media have given her a break in all her years in public life. Nor does she believe broadcast and print journalist Ajust stand around looking at their shoes when the subject of the myriad controversies come up regarding her life on the public stage.

Why else, do you suppose, does she keep the media at such a distance?

My response to all of that is: too bad, Mme. Secretary; it’s time you start letting the media do their job.

According to Politico, Clinton’s relationship with the media is about to undergo a fundamental change. I believe it’s for the better.

After Labor Day, the media will be allowed aboard “a ‘Stronger Together’-wrapped 737 from New York to Ohio to Iowa, and remain flying companions for the final stretch of the campaign.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-reporters-press-227700#ixzz4JD3z5zXd

Clinton distrusts the national media, believing that they have been unfair in covering her and her husband, the 42nd president of the United States. Until now, she has flown separately from event to event without the media aboard her campaign plane. She can afford the luxury of doing so, given the huge amount of campaign cash she has socked away.

She remains the favorite to win the election this year and become the nation’s 45th — and its first female — president.

But those of us in the media — and that includes those of us who used to work in this field full time — want her to speak to the public through the media. It’s been damn near a year since she had a full-blown news conference where she fields tough and probing questions from reporters.

I don’t need to lecture Clinton on this matter, but I’ll say it anyway: The media serve as the public’s eyes and ears on matters of public policy. Seeking the highest political office in the nation is of compelling public and national interest. The media are entrusted with reporting how these candidates seek to govern and the only way to get anything resembling a definitive answer is to ask them directly.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, to his credit, has been more accessible to the media than Clinton. Indeed, he’s gladly seized the spotlight as Clinton has been content in recent weeks to let Trump’s troubles dominate the news cycles.

Hillary Clinton certainly cannot govern this way if she’s elected. Nor should she be think she can continue to stiff-arm the media as she campaigns for the world’s most visible and powerful public office.

So, she thinks she’s been mistreated?

Get over it. Talk to us … through the media.

Anniversary reminds me of how things can work out

retirement.pic_

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

Everything happens for a reason. Is that too cliché to repeat here? Probably, but I just did it anyway.

An anniversary is fast approaching that reminds me of how life can throw you curve balls. You just have to be patient, keep the faith, rely on the love of others — and by golly, things can have this way of working out.

Later this week marks the fourth year since my full-time journalism career came to a sudden end. I wasn’t quite ready for it to conclude in that manner. It did, though.

I won’t belabor you again with the particulars, except to say that at the moment I learned that the job I’d been doing at the Amarillo Globe-News for nearly 18 years would be handed over to someone else was like being punched in the gut — and the face — at the same time.

I collected myself, went home, decided in the car on the way to the house that I would quit, came back the next day, cleared out my office, had an awkward conversation with my soon-to-be former employer and then left.

My wife and I departed Amarillo that very day for an eight-day vacation back east. We had a wonderful time seeing friends in Charlotte, N.C., and in Roanoke, Va.

We came home and started thinking about what we would do next.

I was too old — 63 years of age at the time — to seriously consider going back to work full time. I knew I couldn’t get hired because of my age.

Oh, sure, employers said they didn’t consider that. I know better. Ageism exists, man.

I decided to start the transition into retirement.

I’ve been working a number of part-time jobs in the four years since my departure from the craft that in many ways had defined me over the span of nearly 37 years. I was able to keep my hand in the profession I love so much: writing news features for KFDA News Channel 10, blogs (until recently) for Panhandle PBS and helping produce the Quay County Sun weekly newspaper in Tucumcari, N.M.

Along the way I made a startling discovery.

It was that while I didn’t want my career to end when it did and in the manner that it did — I am now happy that it did end.

We’re continuing that transition into full-time retirement. We plan to travel more. We plan to be our own bosses. We intend to see this continent of ours up close. All of those plans are proceeding.

We’ll have some more major changes in our life coming up. I won’t divulge them here. Our family and closest friends know what they are … so I’ll leave it at that.

My wife has told me I seem less stressed out these days. Hmmm. Imagine that.

The Associated Press and United Press International style books always instructed us to “avoid clichés like the plague.”

Thus, the cliché about things happening for a reason seems so trite.

Except that in this case, it’s flat-out true.

Compassion? Sympathy? Not when there’s politics in the air

twitter-mobile-iphone-app-ss-1920

Dwyane Wade’s family is grieving today.

A cousin of the pro basketball superstar was shot and killed in Chicago last night while she was walking her baby.

Now, how does an American politician respond to such news? Does he or she offer a word of condolence? A statement of horror at the event?

That depends. If that politician is Donald J. Trump, Republican nominee for president, he sends out a tweet that says in effect, “I told you so!”

That was how Trump reacted overnight to the death of Dwyane Wade’s cousin.

“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”

Trump’s been seeking to “appeal” to black voters by saying that they live in crime-ridden hell holes that aren’t as safe as some war zones where we’ve deployed troops to fight terrorists.

This tragedy, he said, proves the point he has sought to make.

Nothing at all, not even a family’s profound personal grief, can be off limits for this guy — Trump.

Many of the rest of us are left to shake our heads in utter disbelief.

Again!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/social-media-fires-back-at-trump-for-tweet-about-dwyane-wades-cousin/ar-AAi9QO1?li=BBnb7Kz

Temperament, man … it’s the temperament

ecf305473b9b613c82db81e4bfeba584

Hillary Rodham Clinton keeps harping on an aspect of Donald J. Trump’s emotional makeup.

She contends in her stump speeches that the Republican Party’s presidential nominee lacks the temperament to be president.

Others have joined the chorus. Republicans echo Democrats in saying that Trump’s emotional outbursts bode ill for someone who seeks to become the next head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

So … how’s Trump responding lately?

He’s launched into another Tweet-storm, this time hurling insults and invective at — are you ready? — two cable TV news talk show hosts! Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski — co-hosts of the MSBNC “Morning Joe” talk show — now are in Trump’s sights.

He calls them “unstable.” He hurls insults at them. Oh, and he’s also suggested out loud that the two of them are — gasp! – dating each other. Which makes me say: B … F … D, dude.

They’re both single.

Whatever.

The issue that Clinton keeps raising, though, seems to ring a bit truer today as Trump assails two TV talk show hosts.

Temperament? Sure, Trump’s got it.

World is watching … through social media

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.
.

A wise man — or woman, perhaps — once said, “You can judge someone’s character by what they do when no one is looking.”

Whoever coined that axiom obviously lived long before the advent of social media.

These days, with virtually everyone over the age of 6 packing cameras in their cell phones, you have zero privacy. You cannot do anything at all without the potential of someone capturing it for posterity — or for gossip purposes.

Gee, do I have anyone in mind as I offer this tidbit? I’m thinking at this moment of Ryan Lochte, the champion U.S. Olympic swimmer and former golden boy of the American Olympic team.

He and some of his swim team pals were video recorded acting up in a Rio de Janeiro gas station. They reported that someone robbed them; it turned out they, at the very least, “embellished” their version of what happened.

A security camera recorded their shenanigans. Those eagle eyes, too, are part of the modern world that makes it virtually impossible to keep the inquisitive among us from staying current with what we do. It’s especially true if you’re a sports superstar, a politician, an actor or a reality TV star.

Do you remember when former Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner decided to take photos of his manhood and distribute them via social media to women who are not his wife? Did that numbskull ever consider that someone, somewhere, somehow would obtain pictures of Danger and send them out for the rest of the world to see?

How about the cops who beat the daylights out of motorists, only to have their misconduct recorded by passersby? Or the cop who shot the man to death in the back — as he was running away? That, too, was recorded by an onlooker.

The examples are literally endless.

This is the price any of us must realize we pay when we decide to act up — or act out — in public. It’s especially true if you’re a celebrity.

I don’t know about you, but I long ago vowed to be on my best behavior all the time whenever I venture outdoors. The world is watching … even little ol’ me.

‘Liberal media’ become target of the right

liberal_media_bumper_sticker

It’s always been this way.

The so-called “liberal media” do all they can to conspire to sway public decisions, policy and the actions of those in power … allegedly.

We’re hearing it again in social media circles: The “liberal media” want to elect Hillary Clinton!

I believe I shall call a time out for a moment or two.

The so-called “binary choice” features Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. One of them will be elected president of the United States on Nov. 8.

The “liberal media,” according to those on the right, are giving Clinton a pass on all those hideous scandals that have rocked her political history. Isn’t that interesting? How do those on the right even know about the scandals/controversies/dust-ups? They read about them in the media.

Clinton’s past has been covered over and over again. She’s been scrutinized, examined, vetted and interrogated by more reporters than anyone in public life in the past 20-plus years. Congress has investigated her to the hilt and those investigations have been covered — also to the hilt — by the media.

As for the liberal media conspiring to elect her, I want to offer this brief rejoinder. The print media in particular don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to concoct such conspiracies. I used to adhere to the truism while working as a full-time journalist that producing a newspaper every day was little short of a miracle, given all the things that can go wrong during a given production cycle.

One final point …

If the media were truly conspiring to elect either Trump or Clinton, I would put my bet on the media wanting Trump to win. Think of it: Whenever he shoots off his mouth, he draws a crowd; he attracts viewers to TV news shows and readers to print publications.

Those readers and viewers all mean the same thing to media moguls: money, lots of money.

Liberal media conspiracy?

Give me a break. There. I’m out.

Blogging produces revelations

blog.htm

Of all the responses I’ve gotten since I became a full-time blogger in the fall of 2012, two of them stand out for me.

One of them came from a friend and former colleague, who told me that the blog proves a theory he had about me when I was writing editorials for the Amarillo Globe-News. His theory was that “you didn’t believe most of what you wrote” while working for The Man.

The other response came just recently from someone I know less well, but someone with whom I had a professional relationship back in the day. This fellow, a lawyer and a former judge, told me that my “blog postings have revealed a side of you I never knew existed.”

I consider both responses to be compliments. They certainly are discerning.

Of course, High Plains Blogger has produced a lot of less-complimentary responses from critics. Some of them are actual friends; others are “friends” who read the blog on Facebook or Twitter and are individuals with whom I barely know — or not know at all.

What the blog has enabled me to do, of course, is speak for myself.

The Globe-News has a long-standing conservative editorial policy. When the former publisher interviewed me in late 1994 for the job of editorial page editor, our conversation turned to the paper’s conservative editorial outlook. My boss knew of my more progressive personal philosophy and I told him there were some boundaries I couldn’t cross.

He hired me anyway, but stipulated that I had to follow the paper’s conservative tradition. I agreed to do that. I was glad to do it, with one provision: that I be allowed to speak more independently with my own voice in a signed column. We came to a meeting of the minds.

But I always felt a bit hamstrung even with my column. I didn’t want to veer too far into the ditch on the left-hand side of the road. I managed over the course of nearly 18 years on the job to push forward a more moderate personal view while expressing the conservative view of the newspaper.

That tour of duty ended on Aug. 31, 2012.

I began blogging almost immediately.

Frankly, the blog has given me a sense of freedom that I’ve found invigorating. I’m able to speak my mind without worrying about the consequences of angering an employer. These days, the consequences come from angering some of my actual friends who might hold different points of view.

However, I am happy to be unfettered, unchained, unrestricted, unencumbered, unshackled and whatever “un” word you can come up with.

As for working for The Man and speaking anonymously for the institution that paid me a decent salary, I refer yet again to something another friend and former colleague once told me: If you take The Man’s money, then you play by The Man’s rules.