Tag Archives: media

media news

Trump’s policy guru steps up media fight

Steve Bannon’s role as the Trump administration’s chief strategist now appears to involve his taking on a new duty as attack dog.

His target? The media, which he calls the “opposition party.”

Knock it off, Mr. Strategist. You know nothing of which you speak.

Bannon said the media should be “humiliated” and should just “keep quiet and listen for a while.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%E2%80%99s-chief-strategist-says-news-media-should-%E2%80%98keep-its-mouth-shut%E2%80%99/ar-AAmhL9O?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

That’s not the way it works, Mr. Strategist.

Here’s the deal. The media are empowered to speak freely and openly. It’s in the Constitution. Take a look at it, Mr. Strategist. It’s easy to find … right there in the very First Amendment.

Thus, the media have the protection to blab all they want about whatever floats their boat. If they believe the president is mistaken on a policy matter, it becomes the media’s job to comment and to offer a different perspective.

Just maybe, Mr. Strategist, y’all ought to hear what the media have to say, take a moment and listen to what much of the rest of the country is saying as well about your boss’s ideas.

Building the wall and making Mexico pay for it? Banning all refugees from entering the United States, if only temporarily? Rolling back trade policies? Repealing the Affordable Care Act with nothing in the wings to replace it?

Some of us out here, Mr. Strategist, think some of Donald Trump’s ideas are flat wrong. We rely on the media to speak out for us. And, oh yes, some of us have our own vehicles with which to speak. Yours truly is using one of them right now — at this very moment — to do just that.

The media aren’t the “opposition party,” Mr. Strategist. The media simply are doing their job, just as you are doing your job.

media news

Trump continues his war with media

Dearest Reader,

Ladies and gents, today we witnessed the opening act of what we can expect will be a long-running melodrama featuring the president of the United States and the media that report on his comings and goings.

Donald J. Trump convened a press conference and began by attacking the media. It’s no surprise, of course, given his campaign-long attack on a media he accused of “rigging” the election in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump%E2%80%99s-news-session-starts-war-with-and-within-media/ar-AAlMcQz?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump won the election, though, but that hasn’t dissuaded him from continuing his full frontal assault on the media. Now he’s accusing some news outlets of putting out “fake news” relating to reports of Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic computers.

He outshouted a CNN reporter today who wanted to ask him a question, calling his organization one of the bad guys among media organizations.

Today’s testy exchange with the media, I believe, signals a continuation of an assault by the president-elect. I expect it fully to continue once he actually becomes president.

It’s part of the formula that Trump parlayed to the Republican Party nomination; he appealed to the base of his party that hates the media as much as Trump now says he despises them. This is so very interesting to me, given the president-elect’s ability to play the media like a fiddle during his nomination fight and then his winning presidential campaign.

So … let’s all strap ourselves in for what appears to be a wild ride atop a rip-snorting bull.

The media’s job is to probe, to question on behalf of the public. The president’s job — whether he likes it or not — is to answer the media’s inquiries. Something tells me the new president will resist answering those questions whenever he can.

media news

Media getting it from both sides

imrs

The media can’t buy a break, they can’t get any love these days.

Republicans hate ’em. Now the nation’s top Democrat, the president of the United States, has gone after the media.

Barack Obama held his final press conference of the year this past week and became animated precisely one time, as he was chiding the media for their coverage of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s losing presidential campaign.

He didn’t like the way the media obsessed over the e-mail story, how they kept reporting over and over the controversy that just wouldn’t go away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/16/president-obama-isnt-a-big-fan-of-the-medias-coverage-of-the-2016-campaign/?postshare=6221481923285992&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.be51a74a5fb5

Democrats appear to be stealing some of the signals offered by Republicans. When things go badly for you, blame the messenger.

Donald J. Trump, I believe, actually loves the media. He is what we used to call politicians a “media whore.” He would use the media to his advantage whenever and wherever possible. He did so brilliantly during his winning campaign for president — even as he trashed the media for what he said was their failure to “tell the truth.” He called them “the most dishonest people.” Still, the media followed him around, giving him ample air time and print space.

Now he’s the president-elect and he’s still trashing the media.

At one level, I understand the president’s frustration with the media. Reporters did all the things he said they did with regard to covering Hillary Clinton’s campaign. However, the media didn’t make these circumstances up. They didn’t just fabricate them and then try to peddle made-up stories to the public. They were real.

The media were doing their job, just as they did when they finally began calling out Trump for lying continually about his foes, about what he allegedly witnessed.

The media are facing a changing environment. To be sure, they are full these days of opinion, commentary and punditry that is overtaking the straight reporting of just the facts.

There remain straightforward media organizations that do a good job of reporting the news fairly. The problem, though, develops when they become drowned out by the noise created among other outlets. Online “news” sites are putting “fake news” stories that the public is buying as real. The purveyors of fake news, moreover, are making money off the clicks they get from suckers who consume that crap.

If only the actual reporters who continue to do their jobs honestly, fairly and with integrity could be heard above the din.

I fear they’re being drowned out forever.

media news, national news, political news

Punditry produces its share of annoying phrases/words

th

Thank goodness this election season is coming to a close.

The next one is likely to commence the moment we know who the next president will be. Then what? We’ll get a fresh dose of annoying phrases and/or words from the punditry and political class to which we listen on cable and broadcast news programs.

I’ve collected a number of these words and phrases over the years.

My newest member of the annoying phrase pantheon is “baked in.” Pundits are saying that voters’ opinions of the two major-party presidential candidates are baked in, which is a kind of shorthand for saying that their minds won’t change … no matter what we learn about the candidates.

A good friend of mine is annoyed by the word “pivot.” We hear that one when politicians seek either to (a) change the subject of a discussion or (b) change his or her mind on a public policy issue.

Let’s not forget “double down.” Mark Halperin and John Heilmann — two of the best political journalists in the business — wrote two “Double Down” books chronicling the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. When a politician doubles down, that means he or she is ratcheting up the rhetoric on a policy statement that more than likely has been met with a negative response..

Don’t they ever “triple” or “quadruple” down?

My all-time favorite pundit phrase — which politicians of all stripes have adopted — is “at the end of the day.”

I ought to initiate a new drinking game. Take a swig of hooch every time you hear a politician or pundit say “at the end of the day.” I listen for this phrase whenever I am watching a TV news discussion.

I have a theory about why pols and pundits are so fond of “at the end of the day.” It’s a set-up phrase. It is meant to convey an aura of wisdom for the very next thing that’s coming out of the mouth of the pol or the pundit.

“Well, Chris, here’s my thought on that. At the end of the day, we are going to learn that the sun will set in the west tonight.”

Do you get my drift? When the TV smart guys use “at the end of the day,” they mean to make themselves sound smarter, more urbane, more sophisticated than they really are.

We’ve heard a lot of this kind of rhetoric over many years. It annoys the daylights out of me.

I’m going to settle in the for the night. At the end of the day, I’ll be sure to double down on doing something worthwhile this evening before I pivot from my baked-in routine.

media news, national news, political news

Trump keeps reaching way, way back

th

It wasn’t enough, I guess, for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump to dredge up a two-decade-old case involving a former president to link him to his wife, who happens to be Trump’s current opponent for the presidency.

Oh, no. Today, he went back even farther, July 1969, to allege that the media covered up a “crime” committed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy after he drove off a bridge in Massachusetts, which resulted in the drowning death of a young woman who was riding in his car.

Trump again blamed the media for covering up Hillary and Bill Clinton’s “crimes,” just as it did for Kennedy.

I keep hearing about this alleged “cover-up” and keep wondering: What the hell is this clown talking about? What cover-up?

The media were all over the Kennedy story when it happened. They covered every single element of the tragedy. They reported on the delay in reporting the accident. They reported on the suspected favors done to protect Kennedy.

As for Clinton, the media have been covering her lengthy public career like a blanket. Every single aspect of Clinton’s life — public and private — has been examined more closely than a lab rat under a microscope.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300286-trump-raises-chappaquiddick-in-anti-clinton-tirade

This kind of tactic simply is laughable on its face.

I always am tempted to ask when I hear of these so-called media conspiracies: How in the world do you know of the events the media are covering up … if you haven’t heard it or read it — in the media?

media news, national news, political news

Here’s a profound non-endorsement

636107742502713528-gty-538708234

USA Today has done something I didn’t think I’d ever see in a major newspaper editorial page.

It published an editorial non-endorsement of one candidate for president while at the same time saying it could not endorse that candidate’s opponent.

I’ve read the editorial twice. I might read it again and again, looking for some nugget of justification for the USA Today editorial board’s rationale. Wish me luck.

Here is the editorial in question:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

In its 34-year existence, USA Today never had opined on a presidential campaign. Until now.

It has declared Republican nominee Donald J. Trump to be patently, profoundly unfit for the office of president of the United States. It lists its reasons for reaching that consensus among its editorial board members.

The paper is categorical in its declaration. It also is correct.

Then, near the end of it, the paper says it cannot endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, who the paper states has too many flaws of her own. Still, the paper states:

“Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president,”

OK, what now?

USA Today says it cannot recommend a vote for Clinton. It urges voters only to withhold their vote for Trump … for the myriad reasons it declares forcefully in its editorial.

No vote for Clinton? A “hell no” vote against Trump?

Does that mean Hillary Clinton can boast of an editorial endorsement from USA Today after all?

My head is spinning.

media news, national news, political news

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.

media news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

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.

media news, national news, political news

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.

national news, political news

TV news ‘contributors’ need to come clean

hillary

Even as a longtime print guy — someone who earned his living writing for newspapers for more than three decades — I remain quite respectful of broadcast journalists and their craft.

I say that even as broadcast journalism is morphing into something few of us barely recognize from the days when we broke into journalism three, four, five decades ago.

The cable and broadcast news networks now are full of “contributors,” pundits who often come to their new calling from the partisan political world.

An online report brings to light a fascinating and troubling trend in the TV coverage of the presidential campaign. It is the absence of full disclosure by political pundits to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/

Viewers are listening to “contributors” such as, Stephanie Cutter, say that Hillary Clinton has done “nothing wrong” in her presidential campaign. They do not hear Cutter — or her employers at CNN — reveal that she has financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

CNN recently hired former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a “contributor.” It didn’t reveal that Lewandowski was still getting paid by the Trump campaign even after he was let go as its campaign manager.

The broadcast and cable news outlets are full of these contributors, though, who have some form of financial connection to Clinton.

Honestly, I am troubled in the first place by all these political hacks who find themselves offering analysis on the state of the campaign. My own preference would be for the networks to rely more on think tank types, journalists who make their living offering such analysis and perhaps academics.

Sure, they need to be “telegenic” and be able to present themselves and their views in a cogent and understandable manner.

Does any of this pro-Clinton slant — and the financial connections to the candidate herself — doom or candidacy? Should it? No to questions.

Consumers of news and analysis, though, would be served far better if the contributors revealed their own financial interest in the candidate they are praising.