Category Archives: media news

Rio Olympics coming to a … fascinating end

2016-rio-olympics-opening-ceremony

This blog post has been updated.

I’ll admit a few things here about the Rio de Janeiro Olympics and acknowledge a surprise or two.

* I didn’t like the opening ceremony. Yes, it was colorful to the max, but I didn’t understand much of its significance. My Olympic opening ceremony gold standard was set in 1996 in Atlanta, when the organizers surprised the world as Muhammad Ali — the Greatest — stepped out of the shadows to light the cauldron. I cried like a baby sitting in front of my TV watching The Champ light the flame, as did all the spectators in the stadium that night.

What’s more, there was something oddly out of place when the Brazilians decided to inject the politics of climate change and global warming into the ceremony. While I generally agree that climate change is a profound international problem, was the Olympic opening ceremony the appropriate place to make that statement?

* I hadn’t planned on watching much of the competition, but then I did watch. A lot of it.

Michael Phelps made me proud. The zillion-time gold medal winning swimmer came back for his fifth Olympics and at the age of 31 managed to dominate the men’s swimming competition. He overcame some serious personal demons to get himself into the best shape of his life and he didn’t disappoint. Five golds and a silver? Not bad … for an “old man.”

Katie Ledecky was the actual star of the pool, though. The young American not only was winning her races, she was winning them by a lot.

* Simone Manuel was another swimming star who made me proud. The young Texan came out of nowhere to capture our hearts, particularly as she wept while listening to the National Anthem during the awards ceremony.

* The U.S. women’s gymnastics team. What more can I say about those youngsters? Holy moly, man!

Gabby Douglas, one of the gymnasts, had nothing for which to apologize for not putting her hand over heart during the anthem. She stood there respectfully and showed class by riveting her eyes on the flag as it rose.

Usain Bolt is the fastest human being in the world. The Jamaican sprinter served notice that it’s not how well you start a race that matters, it’s how you finish it. As ol’ Dizzy Dean used to say while calling a baseball game on TV, “That fella can pick ’em up and lay ‘e down.”

* Oh, and one more takeaway. The swimmer Ryan Lochte, who is 32 years of age, is about to lose a fortune in endorsement income because he messed up so royally by partying with his swim-team buddies and then making up the story about being robbed at a Rio gasoline service station. Good grief, dude! Get out of my face!

I don’t know how the International Olympic Committee chairman is going to characterize the Rio Games when he closes the event down Sunday night. Will it be “outstanding,” or “exceptional,” or simply some other less-glorious adjective? Observers often rate the success of an Olympics by the way the IOC boss hails the event at its conclusion.

I’ll rate the Games “outstanding.”

It was a fun ride in Rio.

Clinton, Trump share mutual loathing of media

hillary media

Donald J. Trump gets the headlines with his ridiculous rants about the media.

The Republican presidential nominee keeps yapping about the “dishonest,” “corrupt” and “failing” media outlets that give him bad press. In truth, I believe he actually loves the media, which keep giving him the coverage he craves.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has another kind of relationship with the media. She doesn’t trust them. Interesting — yes? — given the Democratic nominee’s own trustworthiness issue with Americans whose votes she seeks as she campaigns for the presidency.

Let’s just say that both of these individuals have media relations issues.

Clinton’s is the more elusive to pin down and in many respects is more troublesome.

She rarely conducts full-blown news conferences, opening herself up to tough questioning from the media. Her answers are calculated and calibrated to produce certain reactions. They too often backfire, particularly when the media detect such elusiveness.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-media-press-problem-226944

I am not going to accept the idea that the media have been kinder and gentler to Clinton than they have to Trump. This is not meant to excuse Clinton’s lack of accessibility. However, to suggest that the Democratic nominee has been somehow “shielded” by the media seeking to protect her from tough questions ignores an obvious fact — which is that the media themselves have sought to shed light on the many issues that keep dogging Clinton.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps alleging that the media are in cahoots with Clinton that the candidate and the Fourth Estate are conspiring to “rig” the election to produce a Trump defeat.

Pardon me, sir, but you’re doing a pretty nice job of blowing up your campaign all by yourself.

The media have a responsibility to be the public’s eyes and ears. That role shouldn’t be trifled with by candidates who, for differing reasons, keep suggesting the media somehow are out to “get” them.

Trump’s circus act, I believe, is mostly for show. Clinton’s reticence is more deliberate and strategic.

Trump’s antics are getting more play but they are giving Clinton’s team plenty of wiggle room to stiff-arm the media whenever it can.

Mean streak is showing itself

don trump

Nicholas Kristof and I have one thing in common.

We both hail from Oregon. He’s a self-proclaimed farm boy who was reared in the rainy western region of the state; I grew up in the big city of Portland.

He writes opinion pieces for the New York Times. I write for myself.

OK, we have one more thing in common: Neither of us wants Donald J. Trump to be elected president of the United States.

Kristof wrote a column today in which he states that Trump is appealing to the nation’s collective mean streak. It’s there, buried deep beneath the decency of the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans.

Here’s Kristof’s column. Take a few minutes to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-is-making-america-meaner.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Kristof’s column includes this passage, which I want to bring to your attention.

“I wrote a column recently exploring whether Trump is a racist, and a result was anti-Semitic vitriol from Trump followers, one of whom suggested I should be sent to the ovens for writing ‘a typical Jewish hit piece.’ In fact, I’m Armenian and Christian, not Jewish, but the responses underscored that the Trump campaign is enveloped by a cloud of racial, ethnic and religious animosity — much of it poorly informed.”

It is frightening, indeed, to believe that some folks who are backing a major-party presidential nominee would say such a thing to a member of the media — or to any human being, for that matter.

This, though, is part of the political environment with which we must deal as Election Day draws near.

This has become a sad, sorry campaign for the most powerful public office on Planet Earth.

Trump finds an old nemesis: the media

doanld

Donald J. Trump is not known for his self-awareness or for an ability to look inward.

He likes to assess blame everywhere else, even where no reason exists to assess such blame.

The Republican presidential nominee has launched another tweet storm in which he blames — get ready for it — the media for his collapsing poll numbers.

There you go. Blame the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-on-nyt-their-reporting-is-fiction-226988

It’s a time-honored dodge that politicians use on occasion whenever they seek to divert attention from the real problem at hand — which usually happens to be the message they’re peddling.

He said the media are giving Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton political cover. Trump said the media don’t cover his rallies in an appropriate fashion. He said the media are distorting his message.

It’s the alleged Clinton-Mainstream Media alliance that I find most interesting.

I guess Trump hasn’t read much about the coverage the media have been giving to — in no particular order:

Benghazi, the e-mail controversy, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, her husband’s dalliance when he was president, the Whitewater real estate probe, her reluctance to meet with the press regularly, her own negative poll numbers, the public perception that Clinton isn’t “trustworthy.”

So now he’s suggesting the media are to blame because his own poll numbers are plummeting and that he cannot seem find a message — let alone stay on one?

The word “delusional” comes to mind.

‘Patriot’ tosses out the ‘t-word’ to media

Original caption: Benedict Arnold.  Treason of Arnold.  He persuaded Andre to conceal the papers in his boot. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

I can think of few things worse to call someone than a “traitor.”

“Child molester” comes to mind. So does “murderer.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/12/trump_rally-goer_to_cnn_reporter_i_am_a_patriot_and_you_are_a_traitor.html

But the guy noted in this video link has decided that he is an “American patriot” and that a CNN news crew comprises “traitors.”

He uttered that epithet at the end of a Donald J. Trump campaign rally where, I am guessing, the Republican Party presidential nominee had some unkind things to say about the media.

The barbs Trump likely slung at the media got the requisite cheers from the crowd.

And then it produced this response from the self-described “American patriot,” who also felt the need to offer the middle-finger salute to the camera crew.

Nice …

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

‘Talk show’ becomes ‘scream show’

hardball-with-chris-matthews

Chris Matthews is a loud, sometimes-abrasive TV commentator who opines for MSNBC.

He often, though, has learned guests on his nightly cable TV talk show “Hardball,” in which individuals are invited to make their cases with knowledge and a healthy dose of respect for others’ points of view.

Matthews invited Donald Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro and Hillary Clinton economic guru Jared Bernstein to discuss Trump’s economic plan for the nation.

It didn’t go well.

I now will let the video speak — or scream — for itself.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/hardball_fireworks_jared_bernstein_vs_trump_economist_peter_navarro_on_trumps_tax_plan.html

 

‘Celebrating’ the Klan’s birthday?

Hooded and robed members of the Ku Klux Klan hold their hands apart as they rally around a 15 foot high burning cross in Ephrata, Pennsylvania Saturday, Oct. 3, 1987. (AP Photo/Bill Cramer)

Some things simply defy one’s ability to comprehend.

Such as whether you should in any way, shape or form honor the existence of a certifiable hate group.

An East Texas newspaper, the Longview News-Journal, did what I — and many others — consider to be the unthinkable when it published a front-page story commemorating the 150th year since the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/readers-revolt-over-longview-newspapers-coverage-of-the-klans-birthday-8573838

The paper had a big front-page picture of a cross-burning with hooded Klansmen standing around.

The outrage in the community has been profound. It also was expected. Residents in the town tucked in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas are calling for a boycott of the paper.

Indeed, this is a remarkable thing to witness in the second decade of the 21st century.

The Klan deserves only to be condemned for the violence it has brought to Americans over the past century and a half.

I once lived and worked not too far from Longview. The southeast corner of Texas has a community or two perceived by many to be havens for Klan-type activity. You mention the name of the town Vidor to anyone near Beaumont — where I lived and worked for more than a decade — and you often get a sort of knowing glance and wince.

The town, about 10 miles east of Beaumont on Interstate 10, is full of fine folks. But they all live with the knowledge of what their town symbolizes to many people.

Indeed, East Texas has been scarred — as have many regions throughout the South — by the Klan.

As the Dallas Observer reported: “After the story — which was adapted from an Associated Press wire story — ran on Saturday, reader Hillary Sandlin laid out the case against the paper on Facebook. ‘This makes us look like a bunch of backwoods racists and only further reinforces incorrect stereotypes about most of the people in this area. These ‘chapters’ could be six guys who made a group, but the map makes it appear like it’s a thriving organization,’ she says.”

For the newspaper of record in Longview to single out a hate group has opened up some deep and festering wounds.

Simply unbelievable!

Debates may portend the election result

trump-and-clinton-1062x598

Some new polls are out and they show Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton stretching her lead over Republican Donald J. Trump in the race for the White House.

Don’t take it to the bank.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/trump-support-collapsing-nationwide

The link here is from Mother Jones, a liberal publication, which tells us that Trump’s support is collapsing across the board. Clinton is hammering Trump with virtually every demographic group imaginable and is holding her own with one group, white men, that Trump formerly dominated.

Don’t take that to the bank, either.

The biggest test of this contest for both of these candidates will occur when they square off in their joint appearances. As an aside, I dislike referring to these events as “debates,” given that they aren’t anything of the sort.

I intend to watch all of them, plus the vice-presidential contest between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence.

What should we look for as Clinton and Trump stand — or sit — together on the stage?

I’m going to watch for body language.

It’ll be quite instructive to me to see how these two candidates greet each other when they are introduced, how they react to the nastiness they’re going to say about each other during the questioning and how they act when it’s time to say “good night.”

I don’t expect Clinton to change her message much. Trump, on the other hand, might decide to revamp his entire campaign theme. Heck, he might change it multiple times in the first half of the first joint appearance!

If form holds, Clinton will be fully prepped and briefed for anything Trump is going to say. As for Trump, it remains to be seen if he even has a debate prep team formed to coach him through what Clinton is going to lob at him.

There well could be a classic line that will live on once the lights go out. We might hear a “There you go again,” or “Are you better off?” zinger. We could get a “You’re no Jack Kennedy” rejoinder.

One of my favorites blasts was a self-inflicted shot fired in 1960 — at the first one of these televised events — in which Vice President Richard Nixon — husband of Pat Nixon — told us “Americans cannot stand pat.”

Hillary Clinton is up — today! The main event, though, is yet to come.

Journalists actually surrender some civil liberties

freedom-of-speech-2cd4b4

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution

Here’s something you might not ever have considered when you think of journalists.

There are times when journalists at least one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It’s in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the clause contained in that amendment to which I refer speaks to the right to express your political views publicly.

I’ve known journalists over the years who’ve said they never vote because they feel this need to remain “neutral” as it regards political campaigns. Voting, they say, removes the veneer of neutrality and impartiality. I’ve heard of many prominent journalists who’ve said the same thing.

I didn’t adhere to that strange doctrine during the nearly 37 years I was a practicing full-time journalist. I always have voted, understanding that my vote is my business and that since it’s done in secret I was never obligated to reveal who received my ballot-box endorsement.

Lawn signs are another matter. The last sign I ever planted in my yard was in 1976, before I was finished with college and before I became a full-time journalist. It was during the Oregon primary that year and I displayed a sign supporting the late U.S. Sen. Frank Church of Idaho in that year’s Democratic presidential primary.

Bumper stickers, too, are forbidden — in my view — for those of us who have toiled in the media.

The last paper where I worked, the Amarillo Globe-News, did not have a policy banning bumper stickers on employees’ motor vehicles. I saw the occasional vehicle in the company parking lot with a sticker on a rear bumper.

On one occasion, I asked the owner of the vehicle about it and asked him if he thought it was appropriate for him to display that political preference while working for an organization that is supposed to present the news fairly and without bias. This individual sold advertisements for the paper and, thus, he didn’t feel compelled to remove the sticker from his vehicle. We agreed to disagree on that and we remain friends to this day.

Why mention this?

The media get hammered pretty hard by those who think reporters and editors are somehow privileged to say what they want without being held accountable. Actually, they are held accountable by their employers and, yes, by the public they seek to serve.

Their craft, though, occasionally prevents those in the media from responding as freely and forcefully as they wish.

Some media employers demand that their representatives keep their bias hidden; they prohibit bumper stickers on vehicles and signs in employees’ yards. Others don’t, preferring to leave it to the employees’ own good judgment to do the right thing.

On occasion, though, doing the right thing requires those in the media to surrender certain rights of citizenship — even as they advocate for the rights of others to never be “abridged.”

Ironic, yes?

This man puts social media politics into perspective

social-media

Jim Boyd and I became acquainted in 1989 as we prepared to take part in a three-week tour of Southeast Asia as part of a delegation of editorial writers and editors.

I learned we had a couple of things in common. One is that we spent time in Oregon, where I grew up and where Boyd attended college. Another is that we both are Vietnam War veterans, although Jim’s duty was much tougher than mine.

He posted this item on Facebook. I want to share it here.

Some of my Facebook friends speak of the pains they go to avoiding a discussion of politics on social media. I have a different view.

I’ve seven years of university education and 30 years of professional experience in considering and writing about public policies and the politics that go into making them work.

Plus, there are several dozen human beings I care about deeply whose future depends on good politics and good public policy. Begin with our five children and their terrific spouses and our 10 grandchildren.

Then, looking back, add in about 50 guys from my army experience who were fed into the unjustified maw of destruction called Vietnam — a huge failure of public policy and politics that we repeated in Iraq. I owe them a continuing debt to live dutifully the life they did not get a chance to live.

So to me, it is important to continue writing and discussing politics in a reasonable way, refusing to argue, respecting everyone’s right to an opinion (though not respecting all of those opinions equally) and not hesitating to point out “facts” that are fanciful partisan creations.

I do understand that some will choose to block these posts. That’s fine. But I will continue making them.

The passage in his message that resonates most with me today is the part of about “refusing to argue, respecting everyone’s right to an opinion … and not hesitating to point out ‘facts’ that are fanciful partisan creations.”

I’ve wrestled a bit, too, over the griping about politics on Facebook. Some of my own friends have complained about it. I’ve talked it over with some of my own friends privately. I’ve decided to keep using the medium to distribute my blog posts. I figure that’s a legitimate way to increase exposure to my blog, which I have declared to be a forum for politics and public policy discussion … as well as some personal stuff.

I do get frustrated — and yes, angry — over the argumentative tone that develops from the posts.

I chose in most cases to let the others have the last word. I don’t have the time, the patience of the intestinal fortitude to keep yammering back and forth.

With that … thank you, Jim Boyd, for giving me a chance to spout off once again.

There will be more of it.