Category Archives: media news

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 deepĀ 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, Iā€™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 ā€” 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.

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 occasionĀ 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.

‘Patriot’ tosses out the ‘t-word’ to media

Original caption: Benedict Arnold.  Treason of Arnold.  He persuaded Andre to conceal the papers in his boot. --- Image by Ā© Bettmann/CORBIS

I can think of few things worse to call someone than a “traitor.”

“Child molester” comes to mind. So does “murderer.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/12/trump_rally-goer_to_cnn_reporter_i_am_a_patriot_and_you_are_a_traitor.html

But the guy noted in this video link has decided that he is an “American patriot” and that a CNN news crew comprises “traitors.”

He uttered that epithet at the end of a Donald J. Trump campaign rally where, I am guessing, the Republican Party presidential nominee had some unkind things to say about the media.

The barbs Trump likely slung at the media got the requisite cheers from the crowd.

And then itĀ produced this response from the self-described “American patriot,” who also felt the need to offer the middle-finger salute to the camera crew.

Nice …

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

‘Talk show’ becomes ‘scream show’

hardball-with-chris-matthews

Chris Matthews is a loud, sometimes-abrasive TV commentator who opines for MSNBC.

He often, though, has learned guests on his nightly cable TV talk show “Hardball,” in whichĀ individualsĀ are invitedĀ toĀ make their cases with knowledge and a healthy dose of respect for others’ points of view.

Matthews invited Donald Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro and Hillary Clinton economic guru Jared Bernstein to discuss Trump’s economic plan for the nation.

It didn’t go well.

I now will let the video speak — or scream — for itself.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/hardball_fireworks_jared_bernstein_vs_trump_economist_peter_navarro_on_trumps_tax_plan.html

 

‘Celebrating’ the Klan’s birthday?

Hooded and robed members of the Ku Klux Klan hold their hands apart as they rally around a 15 foot high burning cross in Ephrata, Pennsylvania Saturday, Oct. 3, 1987. (AP Photo/Bill Cramer)

Some things simply defy one’s ability to comprehend.

Such as whether you should in any way, shape or form honor the existence of a certifiable hate group.

An East Texas newspaper, the Longview News-Journal, did what I — and many others — consider to be the unthinkable when it published a front-page story commemorating the 150th year since the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/readers-revolt-over-longview-newspapers-coverage-of-the-klans-birthday-8573838

The paper had a big front-page picture of a cross-burning with hooded Klansmen standing around.

The outrage in the community has been profound. It also was expected. Residents in the town tucked in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas are calling for a boycott of the paper.

Indeed, this is a remarkable thing to witness in the second decade of the 21st century.

The Klan deserves only to be condemned for the violence it has brought to Americans over the past century and a half.

I once lived and worked not too far from Longview. The southeast corner of Texas has a community or two perceived by many to be havens for Klan-type activity. You mention the name of the town Vidor to anyone near Beaumont — where I lived and worked for more than a decade — and you oftenĀ get a sort of knowing glance and wince.

The town, about 10 miles east of Beaumont on Interstate 10, is full of fine folks. But they all live withĀ the knowledge of what their town symbolizes to many people.

Indeed, East Texas has been scarred — as have many regions throughout the South — by the Klan.

As the Dallas Observer reported: “After the story ā€” which was adapted from an Associated Press wire story ā€” ran on Saturday, reader Hillary Sandlin laid out the case against the paper on Facebook. ‘This makes us look like a bunch of backwoods racists and only further reinforces incorrect stereotypes about most of the people in this area. These ‘chapters’ could be six guys who made a group, but the map makes it appear like it’s a thriving organization,’ she says.”

For the newspaper of record in Longview to single out a hate group has opened up some deep and festering wounds.

Simply unbelievable!

Debates may portend the election result

trump-and-clinton-1062x598

Some new polls are out and they show Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton stretching her lead over Republican Donald J. Trump in the race for the White House.

Don’t take it to the bank.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/trump-support-collapsing-nationwide

The link here is from Mother Jones, a liberal publication, which tells us that Trump’s support is collapsing across the board. Clinton is hammering Trump with virtually every demographic group imaginable and is holding her own with one group, white men, that Trump formerly dominated.

Don’t take that to the bank, either.

The biggest test of thisĀ contest for both of these candidates will occur when they square off in their joint appearances. As an aside, I dislike referring to these events as “debates,” given that they aren’t anything of the sort.

I intend to watch all of them, plus the vice-presidential contest between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence.

What should we look for as Clinton and Trump stand — or sit — together on theĀ stage?

I’m going to watch for body language.

It’ll be quite instructive to me to see how these two candidates greet each other when they are introduced, how they react to the nastiness they’re going to say about each other during the questioning and how they act when it’s time to say “good night.”

I don’t expect Clinton to change her message much. Trump, on the other hand, might decide to revamp his entire campaign theme. Heck, he might change it multiple times in the first half of the first joint appearance!

If form holds, Clinton will be fully prepped and briefed for anything Trump is going to say. As for Trump, it remains to be seen if he even has a debate prep team formed to coach him through what Clinton is going to lob at him.

There well could be a classic line that will live on once the lights go out. We might hear a “There you go again,” or “Are you better off?” zinger. We could get a “You’re no Jack Kennedy” rejoinder.

One of my favorites blasts was a self-inflicted shot fired in 1960 — at the first one of these televised events — in which Vice President Richard Nixon — husband of Pat Nixon — told us “Americans cannot stand pat.”

Hillary Clinton is up — today! The main event, though, is yet to come.

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 leastĀ 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, understandingĀ 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?

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.

Now … who will get my local paper’s endorsement?

th

This just in … The Houston Chronicle has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency of the United States.

The Chronicle said in its editorial that it normally waits until the end of the campaign to make its recommendation. It backed Mitt Romney in 2012.

This year, it’s different, according to the Chronicle. The paper’s editorial board has made up its mind. The nation needs a “steady hand” in “these unsettling times.” The hand doesn’t belong to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554307/-Houston-Chronicle-endorses-Hillary-Clinton-for-President-says-Trump-is-danger-to-the-Republic

I don’t know why I should care, but I do wonder who will get the backing of my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News, where I worked for nearly 18 years. I quit my job there at the end of August 2012.

I have no contact with the AG-N’s editorial board, which comprises the publisher and its director of commentary. I can only offer an educated guess how they’ll go, given the paper’s history of backing Republicans for president — and given the paper’s corporate ownership, which has aĀ visceral loathing of Hillary Clinton.

My guess is that a lot of newspapers are going to weigh in early — and perhaps often — on this race. They’ll decide, perhaps as the Houston Chronicle has decided, that there’s no reason to wait. Whether they’re favoring Clinton or Trump, let’s get it out there on the record, they might surmise.

As for the Amarillo Globe-News, they’re likely to preach to the proverbial choir by backing Trump, who’s likely to carry on the Republican tradition of capturing a majority of votes in Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle.

The serious stunner would be if the G-N backs Clinton.

Don’t look for hell to freeze over.

My interest will lie in how the paper makes its case for Trump and how much of this individual’s record it will ignore.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/06/good-luck-editorialists-in-making-your-decision/

 

O’Reilly: Slaves were ‘well-fed’ … seriously?

oreilly_0

Bill O’Reilly once taught history to students.

I wonder if he imparted this little tidbit to the young’nsĀ  gathered in his classroom, which is that the slaves who helped build the White House were “well-fed” and well-cared for.

I also wonder if he told them the rest of it, which is that under federal law at the time, they still were considered to be “personal property” of their owners, that they were three-fifths human and that they were no better off than, say, farm animals.

O’Reilly made his feelings known about slavery the other day after first lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention about living in the house built by slaves. She spoke also of the pride she feels that her daughters have been able to play on the White House lawn, given the slave labor that went into building the structure.

O’Reilly just had to chime on in his “O’Reilly Factor” cable show by seeming to suggest that slave life was OK because the slaves’ masters fed them well and gave them “decent lodging.”

Well, I feed my dog well, too. My puppy lives in a nice home; he’s comfortable. But for crying out loud, he’s still a dog!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/michelle-obama-bill-oreilly-fact-check-white-house-built-slaves-well-fed-decent-lodgings#.V5jR0-nbQk4.twitter

I likely shouldn’t give a damn what Bill O’Reilly thinks. The issue, though, is that many Americans do give a damn.

I have members of my family who glom onto his commentary. They worship the guy. Thus, if O’Reilly says it, why it justĀ has to be true … or so these family members have actually told me.

It might be that the crux of O’Reilly’s critique of the first lady’s comments were that slaves were among the workers who helped build the White House, that others were part of the construction crew as well.

But geez, man, why suggest that their living conditions somehow justifies the ownership of human beings as pieces of property?