Tag Archives: social media

‘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 lifeĀ 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.

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 bothĀ 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.

Lack of civility seems to be contagious

civility

A buddy of mine has offered this timely and relevant nugget of wisdom, which I am sharing here.

“If you have children, please teach them that ‘you’re welcome’ is the correct response to ‘thank you.’ And that ‘no problem’ is a phrase that can go just away. I realize that there are more pressing concerns in the world, but the decline of civility, and basic functional English phrases that have endured for centuries, gives me a sad.”

The fellow who posted this on social media is a friend and former colleague of mine at the Amarillo Globe-News. He’s since movedĀ away.

His social media post is so very true that I wanted to pass it along to my own network of friends, acquaintances and readers of this blog.

I get the “no problem” response constantly during my travels through our city. The more I hear it, the more annoyed I become.

I haven’t lashed out at a young’n for saying it … at least not yet. That doesn’t mean I won’t some day.

If you catch me on a bad day, I’m likely to strike back. For example, I once walked into a coffee shop here in town and was treated withĀ what I only can describe as extraordinary rudeness. The young man who took my drink order was having a bad morning; he wouldn’t look me in the eye when I gave him my order;Ā when he handed it to me, he did so while looking the other way and bitching at a colleague of his aboutĀ the lack of something-or-other behind the counter.

I wrote the manager of said coffee shop, registered my complaint — and the place made a good-faith effort to make it up to me.

Perhaps it was a sign of the “lack of civility” thatĀ my friendĀ mentioned. We’ve bemoaned the lack of civility in the halls of power, be they in Washington or Austin or perhaps of late even at Amarillo City Hall.

HisĀ post reminds me of something U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon,Ā told me many years ago. He lays down several rules for his congressional interns to follow when they go to work at his office.

One of them is to “Call your mother” regularly. Another of them is to say “You’re welcome” when a constituent thanks them for helping with an issue that needs a resolution. “No problem” doesn’t cut it in Thornberry’s office.

Nor with me …Ā or my old pal.

Social media launch wars of attrition

Social Media speech bubble on white background.

One of the more interesting aspects of being involved with social media is the game of Last Word in which some folks engage.

I prefer to steer away from these games, but I do enjoy watching others try to get the last word on some adversary.

I use Facebook, for example, as a platform to distribute this blog. I put my musings from High Plains Blogger out there. Some of my Facebook friends are good enough to share them with their friends. I would appreciate it deeply if more of my hundreds of friends would do so … but that’s another story for another time.

It’s the Last Word game that intrigues me. Some of my friends offer comments on my blog posts, which bring out responses from other of my friends. Back and forth they go. Sometimes into the wee hours. Or perhaps even into the next day — or two!

I once knew a lovely gentleman in Amarillo who was the grand master of the friendly put-down. Eddie Melin was his name. He died a couple of years ago at the age of 102. He is a legendary figure in Amarillo who had friends throughout the Texas Panhandle; hell, he had friends across the country who adored him.

I used to call him “Last Word” Melin, because no one ever got the last word on Eddie if they were foolish enough to engage him in a game of put-downs.

I saw him only a few weeks before his death and he was as sharp as ever.

I don’t know if Eddie Melin was involved with Facebook or other social media, but I can declare with absolute certainty that he would have been the hands-down winner of any Last Word Game.

These games that my Facebook friends play with each other have this way of turning into a war of attrition. Someone usually must surrender to the other person.

I just hope they don’t fall into too deep of a funk if they do.

Self-consciousness sets in

social-media-people

I am feeling a bit self-conscious these days.

Why is that? Well, I’ve been pretty active on Facebook for about five years or so. I’ve developed a pretty healthy list of “friends,” many of whom are actual friends; others of them are “friends” only according to Facebook parlance.

Of late, some of my friends have expressed concern — some of them outright anger — over the politicization of this particular social medium. They don’t like all the politics being spouted on what is supposed to be a place for people to connect, interact socially and exchange good tidings.

I use Facebook, though, as a vehicle on which to distribute my blog. Many folks who read High Plains Blogger’s musings/spewage/commentary do so on Facebook.

High Plains Blogger is meant to be a platform to talk about politics, public policy and what I call “life experience.” You get plenty of politics and policy, for sure. You also get a decent dose of life experience as I enjoy writing about upcoming retirement, andĀ ownership of a rambunctious puppy.

In order to boost my blog traffic, I like using Facebook — along with Twitter, LinkedIn and Google — to spread whatever word I feel like spreading at the moment. Indeed, my Twitter feed is linked also to my Facebook feed. Therefore, when I tweet about this and/or that political event, it goes to Facebook, too.

I should add that I generally don’t post things exclusively on Facebook that deal with politics, although I do admit to “sharing” others’ political points of view.

The day might arrive when I get so much blog traffic that I no longer feel the need to use Facebook to transmit High Plains Blogger’s message — whatever it is.

My particular problem, though,Ā might be in determining when I’ve gotten enough traffic, that I longer need to distribute it on other social media.

Perhaps that day will arrive when I’ve decided I’ve got enough money.

For now and perhaps for the foreseeable future, I guess you’ll have to bear with me.

In the meantime, I also will just have to deal with my self-consciousness.

Step right up, City Council candidates

Councilmen_2015

A fascinating ritual is about to take place at Amarillo City Hall.

Five individuals seeking to become the fifth member of the City Council are going to interview Tuesday in person — in full public view — with those individuals they seek to join.

The city is seeking to fill the seat being vacated later this summer by Dr. Brian Eades, who’s leaving the city to set up a medical practice in Colorado.

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-07-10/council-question-hopefuls

I wish Eades hadn’t taken this opportunity for professional advancement. But hey, a man’s got to do what he’s got to do. I wish him well and thank him for his service to this city.

Back to the task at hand.

The council is interviewing five folks who emerged as finalists from a pool of 14 original applicants. The 10 questions they’ve established I presume have been seen by the finalists. They’ve had time to bone up on the answers.

I sense we’ll know who among them have done the best preparation. Then again, we also might get a sense about which of them is the most rehearsed and whether that element of the preparation will present itself when they answer the questions.

Without question, the most provocative question is No. 4: How should a council candidate conduct himself or herself publicly and privately “when they may ultimately serve as the people’s ambassador?”

Pay attention to that one, Sandra McCartt. The question I’m sure is aimed at her, given the tempest that stirred when some social media posts she authored came to light. They weren’t exactly the type of messages that cry out “people’s ambassador!”

This process is new to the city. I hope it works well for the council. More importantly, I hope it works well for the public that will be listeningĀ to what these individuals say about how they intend to govern our city.

I’ll make one final point just one more time.

Council members are not obligated to convene an executive — or closed — session to deliberate over who they prefer. State open meetings laws only empower the council to do so.

If they are dedicated to full transparency and public accountability they now have the chance to demonstrate it.

Deliberate in public, gentlemen of the City Council.

Good luck to you all.

Social media turn ‘friends’ into friends

social-media-people

Social media, particularly Facebook, have this way of turning acquaintances into something more significant than that.

If we’re not actual friends in the manner I prefer to use the term, then at least we are able to communicate on a little higher level than just exchanging banal pleasantries and talking about the weather.

Take for example what happened today.

I ran into someone with whom I’ve been acquainted on Facebook, although we knew each other very casually in an earlier part of our lives. We shook hands.

“I enjoy reading your blogs on Facebook,” he said. “I don’t comment on political things because I know I won’t change anyone’s mind, so what’s the point?” he continued.

“But I guess you’ve found out that our community is full of comedians,” he said. We both chuckled at that.

I told him I don’t write these blogs to change people’s minds. I write because it’s therapy for me.

Some people climb aboard motorcycles for what one biker-friend calls “throttle therapy.” Others go to the gym and pound on punching bags for another form of therapy.

Writing is my bag, man.

I did it for nearly four decades back when I was working for a living. My full-time writing gig ended abruptly — and unhappily, for me at least — nearly four years ago.

I’m still at it. And gladly so.

Which brings me to my actual point.

This blog of mine isn’t intended to change anyone’s mind. I get that everyone’s bias informs their own world view. I also get that the media already are full of talking heads, “contributors” and “political strategists” who fill the air with their opinions.

The only time in recent memory I’ve heard of anyone mind being changed on an issue involved the Amarillo municipal election this past year. Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney came to our Rotary club and made a pitch for the multipurpose event venue. A friend of mine, a hard-nosed Amarillo businesswoman, told me later Matney’s presentationĀ changed her mind from a “no” vote to a “yes” vote on the MPEV.

I wrote about that event:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/10/a-mind-has-changed-on-the-mpev/

No one has come to me ever and said, “You know, John, that blog you wrote about what a bozo Donald Trump is really got me thinking. I’m going to vote for anyone now other than that guy based on what you wrote.”

I do not expect that to happen. Ever!

That’s not why I write this stuff. I do it because I like doing it. It comes fairly easily … now that I’ve been writing many times daily since my full-time job ended.

I appreciated my Facebook “friend” saying what he did today. It means a lot that he gets something out of these musings of mine.

But, no, I don’t expect to convert anyone.

I call myself an idealist on a lot of issues.

On this one? I’m a hard-bitten realist.

I won’t stop offering my view of the world. You can take it or leave it.

See you next time.

 

‘Not indicted’ doesn’t mean ‘in the clear’

james-comey

I just love social media responses to big news stories.

It’s usually pretty hysterical. Take the announcement today that the FBI will not seek an indictment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she was in that highly sensitive public office.

FBI Director James Comey said Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of the server; he said she did plenty of things wrong, but nothing on which he could seek criminal charges.

It has given social media users all over the nation reason to extol the Democratic presidential candidate’s “guilt” over a variety of transgressions.

They’re saying she “lied,” that she’s “corrupt,” that Comey and the feds were “bought off by Clinton money,” that the Clintons’ privileged status among the political elite bought her leniency that others would have received.

None of that, of course, has been proved. The accusers will say, “Who needs proof? I just know it’s all true!” It all rests in the hearts and minds of those who are disposed to, well, hate the former secretary of state.

What about the rest of us? Folks such as, oh, yours truly?

I’m going to take Comey at his word that his career prosecutors — the individuals who are not political appointees — came up empty in their search for criminal culpability. To my way of thinking, when investigators cannot offer proof to merit aĀ charge of wrongdoing, then that’s the endĀ of the criminal aspect of this on-going controversy.

Oh, but its political element still burns white-hot.

Clinton will have to call a press conference and face the music publicly about the things Comey said about how she conducted herself while leading the State Department.

I know those media confrontations make Clinton uncomfortable. Indeed, one gets the sense she detests reporters generally, although no one has ever asked her directly, in public, for the record about what she thinks of the media.

I also am aware that no matter how forthcoming she is that it won’t quell the critics. They’ll continue to find holes in her public statements; why, they’ll even create holes in them just to foster their own arguments against her presidential candidacy.

We live in the social media age. For better or worse, Americans are forming a lot of their opinions about public figures based on 140-character messages sent out on Twitter, or on messages posted on Facebook or other social media platforms.

Hillary Clinton has known this about our world and I trust she understood it when she decided to seek the nation’s highest office.

It’s tough out there, Mme. Secretary. Deal with it.

Right idea on council selection; just need more ‘vetting’

social-media two

Amarillo City Councilman Mark Nair is correct to favor a new way of filling vacancies on the body on which he serves.

It needs to be more open, more accessible to the public. Nair helped design the new process for filling those vacancies, which he said used to be done in secret.

The new processĀ also requires a good bit of tinkering and tweaking to avoid the embarrassment that appears to have developed in the search for someone to replace Councilman Brian Eades, who’s leaving the council this summer.

At issue are weird Facebook comments attributed to Sandra McCartt, one of the finalists being considered for the Place 2 seat. There are some doozies out there. The council didn’t see them coming.

According to the Amarillo Globe-News: ā€œ’Nothing in the process said if someone said something goofy or bone-headed in the past,’ it would determine their worthiness,ā€Ā (Nair) added.

“Nair said in the past, council would have appointed a candidate in a back room and none of the conversation would have been public. He said he designed the current process because he wanted the community to be a part of the conversation, and things such as McCarttā€™s ā€” and other candidates ā€” comments on social media will be part of the discussion.”

Social media platforms are everywhere. Facebook is just one of them. People have Twitter, LinkedIn and Tumblr accounts. They are likely to say just about anything using any of these social media outlets.

This push for openness has created an opportunity for the City Council to work even harder to ensure they find the right people either to fill vacancies on the body, or select a city manager — which is another task awaiting the council.

Indeed, the city manager selection ought to include a thorough vetting of the men and women who make the list of finalists for that job.

The council said it was intent on invoking “change” in the way the city did business. That’s fine. The change, though, also seems to require a bit more care and attention to detail from the folks who are seeking to reform the way City Hall does its business.

A more thorough vetting of social media accounts is aĀ reasonable place to start.

Social media bite a council candidate in the … you know

Social Media speech bubble on white background.

If you’re going to put your name into the public arena and if you intend to present yourself as a candidate for a governing board, you’d better be prepared for extra-meticulous scrutiny.

That means you’d better be ready to have everything you put into the public domain examined with a magnifying glass.

I’m talking about what you say on social media. If you’ve said something you might regret, then it’s best you not say it.

Social media have all but eliminated potential public officeholders’ zone of privacy.

There. Now I need to mention one Sandra McCartt, who’s one of five individuals being considered for a spot on the Amarillo City Council.

It appears there might be a problem with some of the things this person has said on her Facebook account.

She seems to have said some things about others that might come back to bite her.

McCartt is vying for the chance to succeed Place 2 Councilman Brian Eades, who’s leaving office in July.

I do not know Sandra McCartt. Nor am I willing to say that these things she’s reportedly said are a deal-breaker as the City Council considers her among the other finalists who are seeking to join the council. She’ll need to have her answers ready when the council starts peppering her with questions about why she said these things.

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2016-06-04/posts-spur-questions-about-council-candidate?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Amarillo_Globe-News

According to the Amarillo Globe-News: “Facebook comments by Sandra McCartt, a professional recruiter vying for the Place 2 position on council, picked at Amarillo, referring to it as ‘Jackass Flats,’ mocked Chinese people and compared the mayor to ‘a psychotic trunk monkey.’

“McCartt refers to Millenials as a generation of ‘entitled little shits.’ In other comments, she mocks blonde women, uses a slur against Jews to label a landlord with whom she was arguing, repeatedly refers to a woman as a ‘kid’ and ‘little girl’ and discounts the participation of entire groups in the political process.”

Amazing, yes? Well, I believe it is.

I find this new council-selection process fascinating in the extreme. It marks a radical departure from what’s been done before. Previous council appointees were chosen by the council basically with little public input. The new process is designed to be more transparent.

City Councilman Mark Nair, who helped develop this new selection process, acknowledged to the newspaper that there was no “vetting” involved with selecting the finalists.

Maybe there ought to have been some vetting.

In one of her Facebook posts, she said there were things she do for $10 per City Council meeting, but that listening to “all the crap from the dear public is not one of them.”

There areĀ some other, um, revealing statements as well.

It looks me as though the City Council has given itself a large array of traps to run if it is going to “open up” the machinery of this selection process to public review.

One place it needs to start is to ensure that the individuals it is considering for membership on the five-member panel haven’t put thoughtless or careless statements into the public domain.

Once they’re out there, it’s impossible to take them all back.