Tag Archives: New York Times

Stalkers getting their rear ends kicked

hulk-hogan-2015-640x360

Sportscaster Erin Andrews has just won a $55 million award from a jury that ruled her privacy was invaded while she stayed in a hotel.

Someone recorded her in the nude while she was in her hotel room and then sent the video into cyberspace.

I can’t think of anyone who isn’t cheering that verdict. I hope she gets every penny, although it’s not likely she will.

There’s more.

Former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan was recorded having sex with his best friend’s wife. That video was sent out, too.

The Hulkster is suing a publication for invading his privacy.

I have much less sympathy for Hogan — who’s real name is Terry Bollea — simply because of the nature of the video in question. I need not elaborate.

However, I do believe his privacy is as protected as Erin Andrews’ privacy. I hope he wins his suit.

And get a load of what the former editor of Gawker.com, which sent the video of Hogan/Bollea into cyberspace, told a jury today. He said the only people whose privacy should be honored in such a manner are children. At what age? He said 4 years of age. Five-year-olds? Hey, no sweat. They’re fair game.

Here’s how the New York Times reported the testimony:

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

“If they were a child,” Mr. (Albert) Daulerio replied.

“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

“Four.”

Holy smokes, dude!

The Times reported that there was an audible gasp in the courtroom. Gee, do you think?

The testimony almost turns Hulk Hogan into a truly sympathetic character.

Almost.

Romney speech put in perspective

mitt

I watched Mitt Romney blister the daylights out of Donald J. Trump on Thursday morning and all but cheered at my TV set as I watched the speech.

Then I thought a bit more about it and realized: Didn’t the 2012 Republican nominee support many of the positions for which he’s now blasting the 2016 GOP frontrunner? And isn’t the party to which he belongs culpable of the things associated with Trump?

One example stands out. You’ll recall Romney saying four years ago that he would make life so miserable for illegal immigrants that they would “self-deport” themselves back to their home country. Now he says Trump’s anti-immigrant position is inhumane.

The New York Times noted: “He also listed Mr. Trump’s offenses — ‘the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.’ Did Mr. Romney have any sense of irony when he said those words? For far too long, they could have been used to describe many in his party: legislators, congressional leadership, its policy makers.”

There was much to commend Romney’s remarks Thursday morning. Perhaps the most skillful put-down related to Trump’s denigrating the heroism exhibited by U.S. Sen. John McCain during the Vietnam War. Romney noted the “dark irony” of Trump saying McCain was a “war hero because he got captured.” Romney said that while McCain was being tortured by his North Vietnamese captors, Trump was gallivanting with married women.

I want Romney’s remarks to stick. I want them to make Republicans think long and hard about the man who says he wants to be their party’s nominee.

The reverse of what I want might occur. Instead of forcing GOP voters to turn away from Trump, Romney’s scathing rebuke might solidify Trump’s support among those primary voters who want to send some kind of message to the party high command.

Think about this, too. Mitt Romney embodies the very public policies embraced by the Republican establishment that’s become Donald Trump’s punching bag.

 

Here’s a little info about David Duke, Mr. Trump

duke-firstdraftSUB-tmagArticle

David Duke once was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

You’ve heard of the KKK, right? They hate African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, non-Christians. They have burned crosses. They have killed people.

It’s an organization from which one cannot ever really escape, unless one does something demonstrable: such as disavow their previous association with the group; condemn its actions categorically.

David Duke — one-time Louisiana state legislator and gubernatorial candidate — hasn’t done that.

Duke, though, has endorsed Donald J. Trump’s platform on which he is standing as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. He hasn’t endorsed Trump, per se. He just likes the things Trump is saying on the stump.

I’ll take a leap here to presume he means primarily the things Trump says about building a wall across our southern border and banning all Muslims from entering this country.

Trump, though, hasn’t distanced himself from the former grand wizard — Or is it grand dragon? I can’t keep those titles straight.

Instead, Trump says he doesn’t know anything about Duke.

Doesn’t know anything? Holy cow, man! He’s been in all the papers. Here’s how the New York Times reported it: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.”

Trump needs to get out more, maybe.

The NYT went on: “I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end,” Mr. Duke said, calling for a leader who would secure the border and dismantle the “Jewish controlled” financial industry.

As the conservative radio talk-show host Mark Levin said in a tweet: “Is it really that hard to disavow” a known Klansman?

One more item from the Times: “I don’t know David Duke,” (Trump) said. “I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”

Well, I’ve never met David Duke, either. Nor have millions of other Americans who detest the organization with which he is most closely associated.

 

The case against primary endorsements

newspapers

I re-read the New York Times editorial endorsements this morning regarding the Republican and Democratic party presidential primaries.

The Times is backing Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton (no surprise there) and Republican John Kasich. The Clinton nod is full of kudos for the former U.S. senator from New York; the Kasich endorsement contains a lot of, well, he’s the best of a bad bunch.

The paper’s tandem endorsements brought to mind a policy I used to follow back in the day, before I got “reorganized” out of my 36-year print journalism career in the summer of 2012.

It was that we didn’t make endorsements — which we preferred to call “recommendations” — in contested two-party primaries.

Why not?

Well, for starters, I always was a bit uncomfortable recommending candidates running for a partisan position. We did it for many election cycles here in Amarillo and in Beaumont before that. Then it dawned on me that it was best left to each major party to manage the selection process. The media need not get involved in what essentially was a partisan effort.

We would make recommendations, of course, for those single-party primary contests. In Amarillo, that usually meant the Republicans would have a contested primary, but there wouldn’t be any Democrats on the ballot for a particular office.

In those cases, the primary becomes tantamount to election. So, we’d state our case — knowing full well that whatever we said would mean diddly squat in the minds of most voters, whose minds were made up already.

I have no clue what my former paper here in Amarillo is going to do with this primary election. The Texas primary occurs on March 1 and it’s a good bet there’ll be plenty of Republicans still in the hunt for the GOP presidential nomination, not to mention at least two Democrats seeking their party’s nod for the presidency.

Nor will I offer an opinion of what the newspaper’s editorialist should do.

There no doubt will be push back from those who (a) demand the paper make endorsements in the primary, as it is their duty and (b) those who believe newspaper endorsements no longer are relevant in the current political climate.

Indeed, the Internet has taken away much of people’s reliance on what newspaper editorial boards think anyway.

Good luck, media moguls, as you ponder these things.

Negativity dominates the GOP primary campaign

John-Kasich-Reuters-e1435699402254

The New York Times’ Sunday editorial endorsement in this year’s Republican Party primary campaign illustrates quite graphically the nature of this election cycle.

It took the Times six paragraphs to mention the candidate the paper prefers to win the Republican nomination this year.

That would be Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Kasich’s name got mentioned for the first time in the sixth paragraph after the Times spent the first five lengthy paragraphs trashing the frontrunners for the party’s nomination fight.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz took broadside after (deserved) broadside from the Times editorial board.

When the paper’s editors got down to Kasich, they extolled his virtue as a proven government executive and a legislator with a record of accomplishment.

I happen to agree with the Times’ assessment of Kasich . . . and of Trump and Cruz. The Times did manage a few words of encouragement regarding Kasich, declaring: “Still, as a veteran of partisan fights and bipartisan deals during nearly two decades in the House, he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives.”

The Times didn’t mention it, but I have noted before that in my view, Kasich’s main selling point is his work with the Democrats in Congress and with the Democrat in the White House — President Bill Clinton — to balance the federal budget in the late 1990s. It is fair to suggest that Gov. Kasich could bring that good will with him were he to become the next president of the United States.

But the nature of this entire Republican campaign has been one of extreme negativity. The leader of the naysaying chorus, of course, is Donald Trump himself.

And as the tone of the Times’ editorial suggests, he has succeeded in taking the media down that path right along with him.

 

Predicting the Iowa caucus result is fraught with risk

Close view of a collection of VOTE badges. 3D render with HDRI lighting and raytraced textures.

David Brooks is a brave man.

Or perhaps he’s nuts.

The New York Times columnist said two things on Friday. One is that he has been “consistently wrong” about this year’s presidential campaign. The other is that Donald J. Trump is going to “underperform” at the Iowa caucuses which occur Monday.

I choose not to go there. The campaign to this date has been fraught with peril for those of us who believed — it’s silly, I know — that Trump would have imploded long ago. He hasn’t. Trump has ridden on the backs of voters who are sick of the “status quo,” and want “change, by God.”

Trump is promising it, without a clue as to whether he — as president — even has the power to bring the kind of change he’s promising.

My favorite Trump promise so far is that when he’s president, “department store employees are going to wish customers Merry Christmas.” Yeah, go figure that one out.

Brooks also believes Sen. Bernie Sanders is going to have a “turnout problem” in Iowa, meaning that the strong young-voter support he’s getting in those crowded auditoriums won’t manifest itself in the caucus rooms. Why? Young people don’t vote with the same fervor as their elders.

How, though, in the world does one predict an outcome in either party?

I give Brooks lots of credit for sticking his neck out once again.

I’m keeping my powder dry until after the last caucus polling station reports in.

 

 

Media need an intervention for poll addiction

polls

Frank Bruni has it right.

The New York Times columnist has declared that the American media are addicted to polls. They can’t report on them enough. The issues driving the Democratic and Republican presidential primary campaigns? Who needs ’em!

We need to write about polls.

Broadcast outlets lead with them. Print media report on them constantly.

Bruni noted that during the Christmas-to-New Year break, Iowa voters were polled 11 times about their presidential preferences. The media reported on those polls dutifully.

The most hilarious element of all this is how media types keep bemoaning the fact that the media cover these campaigns like “horse races.”

I’ll admit that I am one of those who become fixated occasionally by polls.

Some of them are quite ridiculous, actually. National polls showing voter preferences between party primary candidates present one example. I’ve noted in this blog before how meaningless those polls are, given that the candidates — say, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — won’t face each other nationally; they are running state by state.

But hey, let’s poll voters nationally anyway.

Perhaps we can lay some of the blame for this fixation on Donald J. Trump, the leading GOP candidate for president. He loves polls. They’re huuuuge, as he says often . . . especially when they place him in the lead. Polls that place him behind someone else? Meaningless. They don’t count. Who cares about ’em?

Bruni notes in his essay, though, that Trump often starts his stump speeches off with results from the latest polls.

The media then report it.

I hope to hear it from a major newspaper newsroom or a broadcast/cable TV studio: Stop us before we report on polls again!

El Chapo saga takes strange turn

CCkRgg

I’m trying to figure this one out and, so help me, this item has me puzzled to the max.

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman escaped six months ago from a maximum-security prison in Mexico. He is one of the world’s most notorious drug lords, responsible for dealing in death while peddling meth, heroin and assorted other killer drugs.

So, as one who practiced journalism for more than 36 years, I find myself asking tonight: If given a chance to interview this notorious criminal, would I accept the chance to do so or would I blow the whistle on his whereabouts to the authorities who are looking for him?

The actor Sean Penn took the former course. He interviewed El Chapo for a Rolling Stone interview several months ago.

I don’t think I would have done that.

Then again, Penn is an actor.

I’m also wondering tonight whether Penn has the same sense of outrage that El Chapo was on the lam that many others — such as yours truly — have had as he avoided capture by the authorities.

The Mexican police caught up with him and Guzman is now facing extradition to the United States.

I believe it’s fair to ask: What was Sean Penn thinking?

According to the New York Times: “Mr. Penn and Mr. Guzmán spoke for seven hours, the story reports, at a compound amid dense jungle. The topics of conversation turned in unexpected directions. At one stage, Mr. Penn brought up Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate; there were some reports that Mr. Guzmán had put a $100 million bounty on Mr. Trump after he made comments offensive to Mexicans. ‘Ah! Mi amigo!’ Mr. Guzmán responded.”

Perhaps there’s something about this story that goes over my head. I’ll admit that I’ve never been given a chance to interview one of the world’s most wanted fugitives . . . so I have no direct knowledge of how I’d respond to such an opportunity.

Still, I find it strange in the extreme that a celebrity of Penn’s stature — someone with no apparent experience as a journalist — would seemingly turn a blind eye toward the circumstances that led to an interview subject’s arrest and conviction while he is seeking to avoid being thrown back into the slammer.

Is it fair to question Penn’s loyalty?

Hmmm. I think I just did.

 

 

Republican calls out fellow Republicans

conservatives

David Brooks isn’t a squishy liberal.

He’s no fan of progressive political policies. He believes in small government. He is, in my mind, the personification of what could be called a “traditional conservative” thinker.

He writes a column for the New York Times and is a regular panelist on National Public Radio and on the PBS NewsHour — which in the minds of many of today’s new found conservatives would categorize him as a RINO … a Republican In Name Only.

Well, his recent NYT column lays it out there. Conservatives have gone bonkers, Brooks writes.

Here’s a bit of what Brooks writes: “By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

“All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.”

To be fair, much of what ails the GOP can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who fail to heed the warnings of their own bombast. Each party’s leader feel the need to play to their respective “base.” They seemingly neglect the great unwashed middle, comprising people who aren’t far left or far right, but instead see value in both ideologies.

I believe it was Colin Powell, another fine Republican, who once lamented that the extremes of both parties were talking past those in the middle who want their voices heard, too.

For now, though, the Republicans are controlling both legislative chambers of Congress. They want to take back the White House. They are seeking the clean sweep of the two government branches by bellowing at the top of their lungs that the nation is going to straight to hell and it’s because of the Democrat in the White House, Barack H. Obama.

It is doing no such thing.

Brooks laments the Republican “incompetence.” He writes: “These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.”

Wow!

Trump causes fits with his poll fetish

trumpdonaldtwo09192015getty

Donald Trump has a poll fetish that is second to none.

The Republican presidential candidate keeps harping on his standing in the polls, which might be the most fascinating measure of how unconventional a politician he truly has become.

Pols say they don’t care about polls. Not Trump. He loves ’em, especially when they show him leading the GOP pack as they have since almost the moment he entered the contest.

The New York Times, though, reports that Trump is giving hints of a possible “exit strategy” once the polls start to give way to other front runners.

Trump is no masochist, he said on “Meet the Press” not long ago, meaning that he won’t stay in the race if it becomes clear he won’t win his party’s presidential nomination.

You know, this is giving me fits.

I do not believe Trump is remotely qualified to become Leader of the Free World. On every level imaginable, he is unfit for the highest office in the land … if not the world.

His campaign has generated many more laughs than serious talking points.

However — and I don’t think I’m alone in this — I really don’t want him to exit the campaign. His insults, gaffes and remarkable intemperance are giving his Republican opponents — not to mention the rest of us — lots of grist to toss around.

Is he plotting a possible way out of this campaign?

In the longer term, probably so.

In this crazy, goofy and unpredictable campaign season, though, I’m half-hoping he stays in it for a while longer.