Tag Archives: media

media news

CNN anchor ‘misspoke’ about Dallas PD shooter?

This likely will be the last thing I’ll say about this, but I must ask: How does one “misspeak” the words that CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield uttered in describing James Boulware, the man who laid siege to the Dallas Police Department before a police sniper shot him to death?

http://news.yahoo.com/cnn-fredricka-whitfield-dallas-police-shooter-courageous-brave-210006543.html

Whitfield went on the air the other day and said Boulware was “brave and courageous.” He assaulted the PD in an armored van, opening fire on police officers.

The criticism erupted. Whitfield went back on the air a couple of days later and said she “misspoke” when she used those words to describe Boulware. The media called her statement an “apology.” It really wasn’t.

My understanding, though, is that when you misspeak, you insert incorrect verbiage into sentences intended to convey another message. What did she intend to say about Boulware? Was the word “brave” uttered instead of — as a friend of mine noted — the term “brazen”?

Now I’m trying to figure out a word that sounds sort of like “courageous.” I can’t come up with one.

She misspoke? No, that’s not what I’d call it.

 

national news, political news

A more relevant question regarding Hastert

A blog that I follow, Bell Book Candle, has offered an interesting question regarding the growing scandal involving former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hastert has been indicted on felony accusations involving sexual abuse of a student back when Hastert was a wrestling coach at an Illinois high school.

The media need to focus not on the sex, but on the money. According to the blog:

“The media will focus on Dennis Hastert’s past indiscretions if they are of a sexual nature. However, the real question that they should be asking is how a relatively obscure public servant can afford to pay $3,500,000 to buy the silence of one person. Our politics and our politicians are being corrupted by the huge amounts of cash available to them. We must rid our democracy of the ability of some to buy favoritism for themselves, be they corporations or be they the 1%.”

The media won’t trouble themselves quite so much with the money part of this matter.

As the saying goes: Sex sells.

However, money does have a corrupting influence at many levels involving those who make public policy.

This is one of the stranger stories I’ve heard in many years.

A big part of me hopes that it doesn’t pan out. A bigger part, though, fears that it will.

 

national news, political news

Why do media keep referring to 'Hillary'?

I don’t intend to belabor this point, but it’s worth noting nevertheless.

The media seem quite comfortable referring to the presume favorite for the Democratic Party presidential nomination only by her first name.

It’s “Hillary says” such and such, or “Hillary need to explain” this or that, or “Hillary has hit the road.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-media-strategy-117118.html?hp=t4_r

Is it a sexist thing? Or is it just that the former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and 2008 presidential candidate has become so familiar that only a first name is needed. Or are media representatives seeking to knock her down a peg or two by using the first-name-only reference?

Athletes often ascend to that status: Wilt, Arnie, Magic, Julius, Mickey and Reggie come to mind.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has achieved some kind of mysterious air of familiarity with the media.

The task ahead of her, though, is to build some familiarity with average Americans. Folks like you and me.

I dislike referring to the first declared 2016 Democratic presidential candidate by her first name. I continue to believe that to treat her the same way one should treat all the men who will run for president, it’s good to refer to her in precisely the same manner we do those men.

But think about this for a moment. Republicans might have a female candidate of their own to consider during the primaries. That would be Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett/Packard and one-time GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in California.

Is she going to become “Carly”?

Somehow, the ring of familiarity just isn’t there as it is with Hillary.

 

Uncategorized

Blame the messenger, folks

In an era when Democrats and Republicans can find so little common ground, both sides seem to agree on at least one element of today’s poisonous political atmosphere: It’s the media’s fault.

GOP, Dems agree: It’s the media’s fault

Interesting. Not surprising, though.

According to The Hill newspaper, Democrats say the media are too focused on the Affordable Care Act; Republicans, meanwhile, say the media should spend more time covering corruption among Democrats at the state level of government.

There’s just no pleasing everyone, you know?

I guess Republicans wish the media would concentrate more on Democrats gone bad than focusing on Republicans. Meanwhile, the GOP has been winning the public debate over the ACA by out-shouting the other side and, therefore, snagging most of the media’s attention.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the Republican who’s been fending off a snoopy press over the so-called “Bridgegate” controversy, has made an art form out of badgering reporters at press conferences. He calls them out by name when they ask what he considers to be unfounded questions. The public seems to eat it up, so Christie keeps delivering the goods in the form of one-line scolds that make for good sound bites on — and I love the irony here — the evening news.

As a former practitioner of daily print journalism, I harbor no particular ill will toward pols who blame the media for doing their job. It goes with the territory, just as politicians getting pounded by constituents for one issue or another goes with their territory.

When the media stop getting complaints and everyone just falls in love with reporters, well, that’s when I would start to worry.