Category Archives: media news

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, and 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, 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.

Some pictures have this way of becoming iconic

baton rouge

Take a gander at this picture. It is rapidly becoming an iconic image of protest.

Police in Baton Rouge, La., were all suited up for the worst when demonstrators marched to protest the shooting death of a young black man by a police officer.

Why has this photo gone viral? Beats me. Perhaps it speaks to the fragile line between civil disobedience and armed conflict.

Yes, it does remind me of a couple of other historic images:

guy and tanks

We have this one, shot in 1989 as demonstrators marched through Tiananmen Square in Beijing to protest the dictatorial rule of the People’s Republic of China.

The man standing in front of the row of tanks would move back and forth, blocking the tanks’ progress.

I’ve heard reports over the years that the protester was arrested and has since died.

Then there’s this one:

Antiwar-demonstrators-tri-001

Those of us of a certain age and older remember this image and what it represents.

The Vietnam War was raging and it wasn’t going too well for us politically. Marchers took to the streets and at times confronted armed troops. Some of the marchers reacted badly. Others reacted the way this young man did.

Photojournalists were able to capture this — and many other — images. They are saved for posterity.

It does us well to look back at them to remind ourselves of how we arrived at the present day.

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 presentation 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 a charge of wrongdoing, then that’s the end 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.

PBS deserves a shout-out for ‘The Greeks’

the-mystery-of-modern-acoustic-in-ancient-greek-theatre-solved-2

Public broadcasting is a jewel.

It’s a polished piece of art that should be required viewing/listening in every home in America.

OK, I’m kidding about the “required” part.

I watched a one-hour special last night that gave me chills; they were the good kind of chills.

“The Greeks” aired on Panhandle PBS. It was the first of a three-part documentary series produced by NOVA and National Geographic.

Point of personal privilege. My last name gives away my particular interest in this series. It reveals my Greek heritage. Both sides of my family hail from that part of the world. I am almost as immensely proud of my ethnicity as I am of my country.

There. That’s done.

“The Greeks” tells the history of the earliest inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region. It tells how they became superb seafarers and how they laid the groundwork for the immense contributions to civilization that would come later, during Greece’s “Golden Age.”

The cinematography in this series is magnificent, showing the restoration of the Parthenon, glimpses of the amphitheater in Epidaurus, the ruins in Mycenae and in Delphi, and oh yes, the ancient Olympic stadium in Olympus.

My wife and I have been privileged to have seen all those sights. They took our breath away when we saw them and seeing them again on this magnificent, publicly funded television broadcast sent chills through my body.

Public broadcasting gets hammered on occasion by politicians in Washington who wonder why the government must spend money on television and radio.

Well, programs such as what aired last night give me all the justification I need, although I should note that much of the money comes from corporate sponsorships and contributions from viewers … such as yours truly.

I learned plenty during the hour-long broadcast. Learned scholars spoke to viewers about what they believe inspired these ancient geniuses and spoke also about the consequences of their actions.

It wasn’t all sweetness and enlightenment for those who carved out the beginnings of a civilization 5,000 years ago. “The Greeks” told that part of the story as well.

Next week, PBS will reveal how the Golden Age came about and what transpired to make Athens the center of what was then thought to be the universe.

Bravo to PBS.

You make me proud … to be a Greek-American.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365783217/

‘Thin skin’ label gets under Trump’s thin skin

donald-trump

Elizabeth Warren calls it as she sees it.

Donald J. Trump, says the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts, is a “thin-skinned racist bully.”

So the attack continues. It will continue through the rest of this political campaign as Trump runs for the presidency against his certain Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trump’s camp needs to worry about their guy.

The presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee has demonstrated time and again an inability to answer criticism of his statements and what passes for “policy” without resorting to name-calling and insults.

Take his standard-fare response to Warren’s criticism. He keeps referring to her as “Pocahontas.” Why? It’s because Warren claims to have some Native American ancestry in her background.

When the criticism comes from Clinton, Trump responds with “Crooked Hillary” barbs. Former GOP foes Ted Cruz became “Lyin’ Ted,” Marco Rubio became “Little Marco,” and Jeb Bush became “Low Energy Jeb.”

Trump has labeled the media as “sleazy,” “dishonest,” “pathetic,” and “phony.” Why? Because the media have shown the temerity to report on negative elements of Trump’s past.

I’m sure someone within Trump’s inner circle — if he’s actually got one — will need to inform him of this truth.

“Donald, it’s not going to get any easier from this day forward. In fact, dude, it’s going to get even rougher. The more insults and pejorative labels you sling at your critics, the more they’re going to come back at you.

“It’s long past time, Donald, for you to start arguing policy differences with Hillary.

“However, first things first. You’ve got to come with a set of policies you can call your own.”

Will he heed that advice?

I’d wager — if I were a betting man — he’ll ignore it … at enormous political peril.

This scandal produced a suffix

Forty-four years ago today, some goofballs broke into the Democratic Party headquarters in Washington, D.C.

They rifled through some files looking for dirt they could find on the party bigwigs. They left.

The cops arrived and discovered that the office had been burglarized. They launched their investigation at the Watergate Hotel and office complex.

Thus, a political suffix was born.

The Watergate scandal took flight eventually. The Washington Post assigned a couple of reporters from its metro desk — Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein — to cover it as a run-of-the-mill cop story. They buried their initial coverage of it.

Then the reporters’ phones start ringing. “There’s more to this story than meets the eye,” snitches told them. The reporters badgered their editor, Ben Bradlee, to allow them to look more deeply into it. Finally, Bradlee relented. He turned the fellows loose.

They uncovered a scandal that would turn into a monumental constitutional crisis. We would learn that President Nixon told the FBI to stop snooping around, that he had ordered the CIA to spy on his enemies. Nixon would quit the presidency, Woodward and Bernstein would win the Pulitzer Prize — and their names would become synonymous with investigative journalism.

Since then, every political scandal under sun — or so it seems — has had the “gate” suffix attached to it. Here’s what I found on Wikipedia. I know, take it with a grain of salt. Still, it’s rather interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

There’s more of them than I ever imagined.

But for my money, the original “gate” scandal — and it’s listed in there — remains in a class by itself.

June 17, 1972 is a date many of us will always remember — in the words of the president who would succeed Richard Nixon — when our “long national nightmare” was just beginning.

 

Trump shows another example of ‘unfitness’

Hillary Rodham Clinton has coined a new mantra to describe her opponent in this autumn’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

She says Donald J. Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to become president. My sense is that she’s going to hammer relentlessly on that point.

The Democrats’ presumed nominee has been handed yet another example.

Trump has revoked the credentials of The Washington Post, banning the newspaper from covering his events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

Trump is unhappy with the coverage the Post is providing for his campaign. He called the paper “phony” and “dishonest.” Sound familiar? He’s said the same thing about, oh, the New York Times, Fox News and CNN.

He gets his dander up when media outlets report things about his campaign that do not cast him in the most positive light imaginable.

It’s the modus operandi of the presumed GOP nominee.

As the paper reported: “In a statement, Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said: ‘Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.

“‘The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically and unflinchingly,’ Baron continued. ‘We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.”’

Does he not get that intense media coverage is part of the deal to which he agreed when he decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination?

What am I thinking? Of course he doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t get anything.

Thus, we see yet another example of his temperamental unfitness for the presidency.

How would Tim Russert react to today’s politics?

imrs.wdp

Tim Russert died eight years ago today.

Do I still miss him? You bet I do.

So does Chris Cillizza, a columnist for the Washington Post, who reposted a piece he wrote three years ago to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Russert’s sudden and shocking death from a heart attack.

Here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/13/remembering-tim-russert-5-years-later/?tid=sm_tw_pp&wprss=rss_the-fix

Cillizza wonders what Russert would think of today’s political climate and particularly what he’d think of Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

I think I know the answer.

He’d be appalled at both things.

Russert came from the political world into the world of broadcast journalism. He worked for U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who during his years in the Senate was many Republicans’ favorite Democrat. He also worked for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who didn’t have as many friends in the GOP. But still, Russert knew his way around politicians.

He joined NBC News and stumbled onto the “Meet the Press” moderator gig while filling in one Sunday.

He did so well, proved to be so comfortable, that the NBC News brass made him the permanent moderator.

What set Russert apart from so many of his peers and those who came along after him was his preparation. He knew all there was to know about the people who sat in front of him. Russert was an expert at making politicians account for the very things they said in public.

“You said this, senator,” he would say, “How do you explain that?”

He was an equal-opportunity afflicter. Democrats and Republicans all had to bring their “A game” to a session on “Meet the Press” when facing Tim Russert.

What would he think of Trump? He’d no doubt be aghast, but he’d keep it to himself. One can rest assured, too, that he’d give Hillary Rodham Clinton just as stern a grilling.

 

Lt. Gov. deletes tweet, but the damage is done

verse

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has demonstrated for the world just how immediate social media posts can become and how indelible they are once they are posted.

Patrick decided in the early hours after the Orlando, Fla., massacre to post something on Twitter that enraged some folks. It was New Testament passage, from Galatians 6:7 that declares: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

Why the anger over the post?

Well, the massacre occurred at a night club called Pulse, which is a popular hangout for Orlando’s gay community. The madman/shooter killed 50 people before he was killed by the police.

Omar Mateen was an American who reportedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before committing the horrifying act of carnage.

However, Patrick’s tweet seemed aimed at the victims. Fifty innocent victims were gunned down and he chose that particular verse to post on social media.

He took it down shortly afterward.

However, the damage was done. That’s what happens with these social media posts. They get posted and then are sent around the world many times instantaneously. As a friend used to tell me, “You cannot unhonk a horn.” Same with these social media posts.

Patrick’s spokesman said the tweet had been planned this past week. Patrick posts comments from Twitter weekly, the spokesman said. The passage from Galatians had no relation to the tragedy at Pulse.

I don’t know what to believe here.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php

At minimum, we have a terrible coincidence at work. Patrick’s social media message just happened to sound to many folks like a crass criticism in the wake of a horrific national tragedy.

Talk about terrible timing.

I’m glad he took the message down. However, I think it would be best if the lieutenant governor himself — not through a spokesman — would stand before us to explain how it happened in the first place.