Category Archives: media news

This ‘debate’ didn’t elevate the discussion

jfk-nixon

Of all the analyses I’ve heard and read about the second presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, one of them stands out.

It came from a talking head who referred to the initial 1960 debate between then-Vice President Richard Nixon and then-U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy.

It was a serious affair. No audience in the room. Just the candidates and the questioners.

The analyst suggested that there was great hope in 1960 that these events might elevate the quality of the discourse. That it would force the candidates to be civil, collegial and serious. After all, the theory went, they were being beamed into voters’ living rooms. Who wants to hear such trash talk from candidates seeking to become the head of state?

Well, so much for high expectations.

Clinton-Trump II didn’t sink to the level that many prognosticators thought it might. But it damn sure didn’t rise to anything approaching a high-minded discussion about issues.

The overarching issue, of course, was that infamous video recording of Trump talking in 2005 about how he sought to do certain disgraceful things with and to women.

All of that context managed to lower the bar to a horrible level. It made the debate seem small.

As Chuck Todd, the NBC newsman and “Meet the Press” moderator, noted: The debate didn’t do much to enhance the principle of democracy.

In need of an intervention

Touchscreen smartphone with Earth globe

I never — not in a zillion years — thought I would say this, but here goes.

I need an intervention because I left my cell phone at home today while I was at work. I felt oddly disconnected from the world.

Some of you who’ve read this blog for some time know the drill. I had vowed to become the last person on Earth to own a cell phone. I waged a public — and passionate — campaign to that end.

Then I declared victory and purchased my cell phone. My wife bought one, too. Our first phones weren’t of the “smart” variety. They were those flip-top phones that didn’t work very well.

Then we upgraded to smart phones.

I still don’t use many of the functions built into the thing, but I do rely on it for some useful things: e-mail retrieval, reading news services come immediately to mind.

I left the thing at home today. I couldn’t check my e-mail, which arrives regularly during the day. I couldn’t keep up with the news and commentary.

For a good part of the day I was adrift.

I felt oddly out of touch.

Then my work day ended. I went to meet someone for lunch, only the friend I had planned to meet had sent me a Facebook message — which I also can read on my phone — asking if we could reschedule for another day. My friend has a sinus infection and needed to see a doctor.

Had I had my phone with me, I would have known that fact and would have avoided making the trip across town for a lunch date that never materialized.

What have I become? Am I now addicted to this geeky technology?

I need help!

Media stars jousting over candidates of their choice

10456

My list of pet peeves has grown over the years as I have grown older.

I don’t call myself a curmudgeon, but I do at times come off as a fuddy-duddy. Some things about contemporary journalism, for instance, annoy me greatly.

Such as when reporters and commentators become newsmakers. My old-school thought is that they should be apart from the action. They can report on it and, yes, comment on it without making hay.

That all said, now we have two Fox News stars jousting with each other. News anchor Megyn Kelly has become a “supporter” of Hillary Rodham Clinton, says avid Donald J. Trump ally Sean Hannity.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/megyn-kelly-sean-hannity-trade-barbs-over-trump-treatment-229220

The feud is on.

Hannity is a commentator. He is a strong conservative voice on the “fair and balanced” cable network. He’s been in Trump’s camp since the beginning of this presidential campaign.

Now he’s decided to challenge Kelly, who serves another function at Fox; she is a news anchor. She’s also a pretty solid journalist. Kelly had the bad form, I guess in Hannity’s view, to ask Trump some tough questions way back during that first GOP primary debate. She wanted Trump to explain his highly offensive comments about women. The exchange that ensued sparked a feud that continues to this day.

That makes Kelly a Hillary Clinton supporter, according to Hannity.

I should note that of the two, Megyn Kelly is the one with a journalism education and professional background. Hannity lacks those educational credentials; he’s a talker.

I, frankly, don’t much care who she intends to vote for when the time comes. It shouldn’t even be a topic for public discussion. But then we have Hannity — who doesn’t hide his own bias — trying to make noise … which is all this is, in my humble view.

These media stars need to settle down. They ought to stop firing their barbs at each other and concentrate on the individuals and policies on which they report and offer opinion.

Who’s the major culprit in this goofy exchange?

Sean Hannity. Of course!

My advice to the young man? Knock it off, dude, and keep on shilling for Trump.

‘1984’ has come true, but not in the way we thought it might

1984-john-hurt

George Orwell wrote a book that was published in 1949 that portrayed the world dominated by the ominous eye of “Big Brother.”

“1984,” which I read once in high school, told a chilling story of dominance, loss of individual freedom and civil liberty.

In the 66 years since the novel’s publication, its meaning has come to define the incursion of big, overarching, overreaching, overbearing government.

The thought occurred to me other morning: Big brother exists, all right, but it’s not necessarily in the form that Orwell envisioned.

Social media have morphed into our Big Brother.

Think about all the prying eyes that actually are the devices that millennials and generation-Xers are packing around with them. All those “smart phones” have cameras on them.

People take pictures of everything. Of everyone. At any time. In any place. For any reason.

The list of victims of this big brother incursion is seemingly endless.

All of this serves as a lesson on public behavior. Be wary — be very wary — of your surroundings. All those teenage girls you see with smart phones in their hands? Any one of them could point that camera at you at any moment and snap a picture of you doing something you don’t want seen by anyone.

It’s been said that you can measure one’s character by what they do when no one is looking. In this age of Big Brother, everyone is looking. It’s not necessarily government’s prying eyes, but it’s every bit as insidious.

Welcome to Oceania.

Big Brother must have blinked on this one

‘Atlantic’ makes history with endorsement

96b/33/fott/4810/10

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pile of media endorsements has added a significant new voice.

While I have conceded that endorsements from elite media organs don’t pack the wallop they once did, this one has gotten some traction.

“The Atlantic” has issued its third presidential endorsement in its 159-year history. The first one went to the nation’s first Republican presidential candidate, a guy named Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.

Five score and four years later, in 1964, “The Atlantic” weighed in with an endorsement of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Now it has backed Hillary Clinton.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/?utm_source=atlfb

Here’s a snippet from the editorial: “Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

This is a fascinating development as the campaign heads for its final month. I’m so glad it’s almost over. I am running out of stamina listening to the candidates trashing each other.

“The Atlantic” concludes its editorial endorsement with this: “We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”

Ouch, man!

To be candid, the endorsement doesn’t convey unbridled confidence in Clinton’s standing. It’s more of a non-endorsement of  Donald J. Trump. I suppose that sums up what has shaped up to be the theme of this campaign: The candidates cannot stand on their own record exclusively, so they pound away at their opponents’ weaknesses.

Trump is the most profoundly unqualified and unfit candidate for the presidency most of us ever have seen.

Will this endorsement matter? Will it be the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it. Still, it’s worth your time to read and to digest what the editors of a distinguished publication have to say about the next election for the presidency of the United States.

Oh, I am so glad it’s about to be over.

Trump muscles his way into Pence’s big moment

mike-pence

One more thought on what the nation witnessed Tuesday night … then I’ll move on.

Democratic nominee Tim Kaine and Republican nominee Mike Pence jousted vigorously at their vice-presidential “debate” in Farmville, Va.

They talked a lot about their presidential running mates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But here’s the deal. Trump decided during the event to start “live tweeting” while his man Pence was on the stage.

I have to agree with the assertion made by media and political commentators about that back story. It was that Trump simply is not wired to stand aside and let his running mate do what was assigned to do. Trump just had to throw his own thoughts out there in real time while his No. 2 guy was talking on national television.

Some GOP strategists thought it only showed that Trump and Pence comprise a political “team” and that Trump merely was lending support to his running mate.

Sure thing.

It’s fair to wonder: What might Trump think of Pence doing that very thing during the upcoming Sunday night joint appearance with Hillary?

Moderator deserves a good word

161004220339-elaine-quijano-cbs-780x439

Elaine Quijano has earned a good word on this morning after the vice-presidential “debate.”

The CBS News correspondent/anchor didn’t do a great job refereeing the exchange between Democratic nominee Tim Kaine and Republican nominee Mike Pence.

As I look back on it after a good night’s sleep, my conclusion is that it wasn’t totally her fault. She sought to reel in the fellas, sought to keep them answering the questions, she sought to avoid the constant interruptions that were initiated by the amped-up Kaine.

She got caught in a buzzsaw of campaign rhetoric, throwaway lines, talking points, insults and, oh yeah, the occasional policy differences that emerged from the candidates.

I want to echo something I heard last night from the post-“debate” analysis about the best question of the evening. It dealt with candidates’ religious faith and how it informs their public policy.

Both men exhibited clear understanding of faith and explained in clear and concise language how it works for them in their public life. Bravo to them both for ending the evening on somewhat of a civil note — and bravo to Quijano for the question.

As we’ve been seeing, though, in these joint appearances, the media moderators are becoming a bit of a distraction. Dating back four years ago when CNN’s Candy Crowley corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s incorrect assertion that Barack Obama didn’t call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism, media and politicians have been waiting for future moderators to interject themselves into the political dialogue.

Quijano, unfortunately, became part of the story again last night.

From my perch out here in Flyover Country, though, I believe she delivered a creditable effort at staying above the fray. I only wish the candidates would have done a better job of focusing on the issues at hand.

Polls: They’re up, then they’re down, then they’re up again

hillaryclinton_093016getty_0

The political media have this fascination with polling while covering the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump race for the presidency.

It all has given me reason to wonder: How do these polls fluctuate so dramatically so late in this campaign?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298793-race-breaking-clintons-way

The Hill reports that Democratic nominee Clinton is now regaining her political footing. Trump, the Republican nominee, had a disastrous week and he’s got seven days to prepare for the next joint appearance with Clinton.

Polls in several swing states are now showing Clinton with an advantage where two weeks ago Trump held a slight lead. Florida now tilts toward Clinton; same for Nevada; Ohio is now a dead heat; Pennsylvania is leaning in Clinton’s direction — again!

We’ve known about Hillary Clinton for the past 20-plus years. It would seem that voters’ minds are made up. Trump? Well, he’s quite the “known quantity” too, but for entirely different reasons. Americans know him through his reality-TV exposure and his flamboyant reputation as a real estate mogul and, dare I say it, a bon vivant.

But the polls go up. Then they go down. Then they go back up again.

Many Americans can’t seem to make up their minds.

I hate to think we have become a nation of wishy-washy fence-straddlers.

Before we cheer these endorsements, consider this …

newspapers

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rolling up some impressive support among the nation’s major newspaper editorial boards.

Let’s see: The Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, the Cincinnati  Enquirer, the San Diego Union-Tribune all have weighed in on Clinton’s side in her campaign against Republican Donald J. Trump.

All the papers mentioned have something else in common: They virtually never have endorsed Democrats for president.

Clinton also has racked up more endorsements from normally friendly editorial boards, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It’s impressive. But will it be decisive? Will these media giants’ editorial opinion on the merits of Trump and Clinton determine the electoral outcome all by themselves?

Trump has earned, all told, zero editorial endorsements from major newspapers. He might get a smattering of endorsements from papers of smaller size. As a point of personal privilege, I’m waiting to see how my former employer, the Amarillo Globe-News — which is owned by the very conservative William S. Morris family of Augusta, Ga. — weighs in on this campaign.

I pose the question about whether these endorsements will make the difference for a good reason. Let’s flash back to 2010.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was running for re-election. He faced a stout challenge from within his Republican Party from then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry defeated Sen. Hutchison handily in the GOP primary.

Then he faced former Houston Mayor Bill White, a conservative Democrat, in the general election. Perry then did something quite interesting: He declared he wouldn’t meet with any newspaper editorial boards. The governor didn’t need to talk to us ink-stained wretches. He’d talk “directly to the people of Texas.”

The result was that Perry got virtually zero editorial endorsements from newspapers around the state. Even the Globe-News, as reliably Republican-friendly as any paper in Texas, backed Mayor White.

What was the electoral result? Gov. Perry cruised to re-election. He barely broke a sweat while defeating White 55 percent to 42 percent.

Rick Perry knew how to win in Texas. He was first elected to statewide office in 1990 and was as familiar with the state’s political landscape as any politician anywhere.

I make this point to caution those out there who consider these media endorsements to be deal makers and/or deal breakers for the candidates involved.

There might be plenty of other issues that swing this election toward Hillary Clinton’s favor. I’m dubious, though, about believing that newspaper endorsements will be among them.

As my friends on the right are fond of reminding me: Newspapers don’t pack as heavy a punch as they did in the old days.

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.