Tag Archives: the media

Trump: ‘Unfit for command’

Douglas Brinkley and I are on the same page, we’re singing off the same song sheet, we are of like minds.

There. I don’t intend to cast myself as a knowledgeable presidential historian in the mold of Brinkley, but he has said out loud what many of us across the land have believed all along.

It is that Donald John Trump Sr. is “unfit for command.” He is not fit to hold the office he occupies. The president of the United States is in hopelessly over his head, out of his depth.

The basis for Brinkley’s harsh analysis lies in the “chaos” that pervades the White House. Brinkley points specifically to Anthony “Mooch” Scaramucci, the newly named White House communications director. Mooch has managed to accentuate the chaos by virtue of that hideous, profane interview he gave to The New Yorker in which he described former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus — and I hate using this terminology — as a “f*****g schizophrenic, a paranoiac.”

I must point out that Priebus was still the chief of staff when Mooch made that ghastly assessment. The president booted Priebus out of his job a few days later.

What kind of head of state and head of government allows an underling to use that kind of language in public to describe a fellow federal staff member? What kind of man tolerates that kind of behavior?

Oh, wait! It’s the kind of man who said years ago that he has grabbed women by their genitals; he has said Sen. John McCain was a “war hero only because he was captured” by the enemy during the Vietnam War; he is the individual who mocked a disabled journalist; he is the candidate who thinks nothing of lying and of defaming political opponents; he is a president who calls the media “the enemy of the American people.”

Many of us have believed all along that Trump is “unfit for command.”

Welcome aboard, Professor Brinkley.

POTUS meddling with media?

Try for a moment to process what MSBNC “Morning Joe” co-hosts — Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough — said today about their relationship with the president of the United States.

According to Scarborough, Donald J. Trump’s White House called Scarborough and asked him to apologize for the “negative coverage” he and Brzezinski have done on the president. In return, again according to Scarborough, the president would call his good friend who runs the National Enquirer and spike a story that the publication is going to run about Scarborough and Brzezinski.

See the story here.

So, if I have this right — and if Scarborough is telling the truth — the president of the United States is now taking time away from matters of state to engage even further in a petty and petulant quarrel with the media over “negative coverage.”

Are there any more examples needed to demonstrate that Donald J. Trump is categorically unfit to hold the office of president?

That’s not how you ‘unify’ the nation, Mr. President

A roomful of journalists and other luminaries gathered in Washington last night while the president of the United States — who usually attends this event — was up the coast a bit in Harrisburg, Pa.

The White House Correspondent Dinner was spiced with lots of criticism of the president. For his part, Donald Trump decided to unload on the media, his political foes and virtually every American who voted for someone else during the 2016 presidential election.

Who bears the greater responsibility to set aside the bitterness? I believe it ought to be the president. He’s the one who represents the entire country.

The president’s Harrisburg speech could have been lifted directly from one of his campaign speeches. He is talking directly to his base. He is speaking to those who continue to support him despite all the questions, controversy and potential scandal that threaten to swallow the presidency.

Trump vowed to unify the country. The speech last night suggested he is doing precisely the opposite. He wants to keep fomenting the anger that propelled him to power.

Divisiveness is alive and well

We all understand that the 2016 campaign will go down as among the most rancorous in U.S. political history. Do the wounds need to continue festering? I don’t think so.

When the president calls the media “the enemy of the American people” and when he continues to hold campaign-style rallies — while exhorting security personnel to “get them out!” when protesters show up — that does nothing to bring Americans together.

The divisions run deep. The wounds still hurt. The president of the United States holds the key to bridge the divide and heal the wounds. When will he step up?

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?

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?