Category Archives: media news

‘Shame,’ ’embarrassment’ become campaign themes

dontvotefortheotherguy

Oh, for shame!

The remaining men vying for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination appear to have become embarrassments to the very people whose support they will need this fall when one of them square off against the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

What in the world has become of the process that selects major-party nominees seeking to become the most powerful officeholder in the whole world?

It has become a sideshow, a circus act, a schoolyard fight, a proverbial food fight.

Voters should demand better of the candidates. Then again, perhaps they secretly like what they’re hearing and seeing.

The Republican side of this carnival act has been particularly disgraceful. And that is coming from Republicans who’ve watched it.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz asked viewers who watched one of the Republican debates, the one in Detroit, to summarize what they saw. The Washington Post reported: ā€œSophomoric,ā€ ā€œembarrassment,ā€ ā€œdisappointing,ā€ ā€œshameful,ā€ ā€œdespicable,ā€ ā€œangeringā€ and ā€œschoolyard brawlā€ were some of the responses he received during a broadcast on Fox News Channel.

As one Republican told the Post — and this guy is a Ted Cruz supporter — the candidates need to be talking about ISIS and the “loss of freedom.”

Instead, he noted, they were engaging in the kind of talk one hears on junior high school playgrounds.

Who and/or what is the culprit?

Have social media become the communications vehicle of choice for too many Americans? We appear to be relying on Twitter feeds and Facebook posts to learn things — most of it irrelevant to actual policy — about these candidates.

Have their been too many of these Republican and Democratic primary debates? It might be that the candidates have run out of creative ways to argue the fine points of policy and have been left to resort to the kind of shameful name-calling and ridicule we’ve been hearing.

Do the candidates themselves deserve blame? Pundits keep talking about Donald J. Trump’s lack of depth andĀ his mastery of media manipulation. Then there’s the beliefĀ among manyĀ that he is a barely closeted sexist, xenophobe and racist.Ā The response fromĀ Ted Cruz to Trump’s insults has been, well, less than stellar as well.

The campaign should have been dignified. It has been everything except that.

These individuals are seeking to become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine. They want to become head of state of what many of us believe is the greatest nation ever created. They seek to lead a nation of 300-plus million citizens into a still-uncertain future.

And this is what we’re getting?

 

Cruz affairs? Probably not, but then again …

Cruz_Detroit2_jpg_800x1000_q100

Oh, brother. Here we go.

The National Enquirer reports that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has had at least five extramarital affairs.

Bombshell news, right? Maybe. Or, maybe not.

The fiery Texas Republican is in the middle of a heated fight with fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Cruz says Trump’s allies have planted that rumor at the Enquirer.

I need to stipulate something. IĀ do notĀ read the National Enquirer, which I do not consider to be a legitimate news-gathering organization.

However …

Before we dismiss the National Enquirer reporting as hogwash — which it usually is — we need to remember something.

The National Enquirer broke the story of 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter while his late wife, Elizabeth, was battling cancer. The affair produced a child. The former senator, meanwhile, was proclaiming publicly his love for his wife and holding himself upĀ as a courageous and dedicatedĀ family man.

Remember how Edwards called the story trash? Untrue? Full of lies?

Uh, the story turned out to be quite true.

 

Social media have become a campaign curse

[ File # csp7860124, License # 1321135 ] Licensed through http://www.canstockphoto.com in accordance with the End User License Agreement (http://www.canstockphoto.com/legal.php) (c) Can Stock Photo Inc. / Blotty

I think I’ve discovered an undeniable truth.

Social media are to blame for the ghastly decline of intelligent political discourse in this great country of ours.

It’s not a big-time flash. Others likely have drawn similar conclusions and written about it.

I am now going to refer to the Twitter War that’s going on between Donald J. Trump and Rafael Edward Cruz. Donald vs. Ted. It’s getting childish in the extreme and it’s lending nothing whatsoever to any kind of intelligent discussion among Republicans over which of these men should be their party’s nominee for president of the United States.

The crux of the Twitter fight centers on their wives. Melania Trump and Heidi Cruz are now being kicked around like the proverbial footballs that they are not.

It’s sickening me.

A pro-Trump super-PAC put something out there about Mrs. Trump appearing in the nude. Trump tweeted some threats to Cruz about it, threatening to say something mean about Mrs. Cruz.

Ted Cruz denied having anything to do with the ad. Trump ain’t buying it. Now it’s Cruz calling Trump a “coward.”

Back and forth they go.

And voters are supposed to make intelligent decisions — based on this petulant patter — on which of them should carry the GOP banner forward against the Democratic nominee this fall?

Give me a break!

Maybe the mainstream media — and I don’t mean as the conservative epithet the term has come to mean — is responsible. By “mainstream,” I refer to the major broadcast and cable news networks and the print media who keep reporting this stuff.

Heck, bloggers all along the political spectrum have weighed in on it — as this blog is doing at this moment.

So … I’ll accept my share of the blame for this social media craze and its alleged “contribution” to theĀ quality of our national political debate.

I’m not proud of myself.

My only recourse is to ignore this social media sniping.

Therefore, I will.

 

Now the spouses have become targets

90

When did Melania Trump andĀ  Heidi Cruz become candidates for president of the United States?

Oh, wait! They merely are married to men who are running for the office. Now, though, they’ve become subjects of social media messages fired by one of the Republican presidential candidates.

Let’s hold on for a wild ride, shall we?

A super PAC not associated with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign apparently posted an ad that contained a picture of Melania in the nude.Ā Donald J. Trump responded that “Lyin’ Ted” needs to be careful or else Trump would reveal something about Cruz’s wife.

These attacks are getting tiresome, not to mention way, way off topic.

Trump took down the tweet he put out there about Mrs. Cruz. However, as we know, social media’s impact is immediate, as in instantaneous. It’s like trying to unhonk a horn; it cannot be done.

As for the British GQ article and the picture about Mrs. Trump, well, that’s apparently been out there a good while, having been published in 2000.

I’m just one individual living out here in Flyover Country.

I’d like to offer a suggestion to these two men — neither of whom ever would get my vote for president.

How about avoid talking about your wives? You guys — not the women you married — are running for the presidency. It is your views on the issues that interest me and, I presume, millions of other Americans who are paying attention to this campaign.

The rest of this baloney is tawdry and unbecoming of the office you are seeking.

Then again, soĀ are some of the things the actual candidates for president have said about each other.

 

Political conventions: raucousness with serious purpose

tumblr_m9876t6jRi1qeoxw2o1_1280

I won’t be attending either of this year’s political conventions.

Part of me wishes I could because — having been to three of them over the years — I’ve discovered how much fun they are for those who attend them and for those who report and comment on them.

This year’s Republican convention in Cleveland could be especially fun especially for the reporters lucky enough to get the assignment to cover it.

My first political convention was in 1988, when Republicans gathered in New Orleans.Ā  I was part of the media team representing the Hearst Corp., which owned the Beaumont Enterprise, where I worked for nearly 11 years.

Any convention in The Big Easy was a serious blast, given that it’s, well, New Orleans.

Four years later, the Republicans gathered in Houston, about 85 miles in the other direction from Beaumont. That one produced its own share of memories. Chief among them was watching former President Reagan deliver his last major political speech in which he poked fun at the Democrats for nominating a young Arkansas governor who compared himself to Thomas Jefferson. “Well, I knew Thomas Jefferson,” the president said. “Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine …” He brought down the house.

Four years ago, I had secured press credentials for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. I didn’t have the support of the Amarillo Globe-News or its parent company, Morris Communication. I applied for the credentials on my own and then received them. Then my world was turned upside-down when I got “reorganized” out of my job at the paper just as the convention was about to begin the following week.

I went to Charlotte anyway — with my wife;Ā we enjoyed ourselves immensely. I attended the convention as a spectator and got to cheer as President Obama and Vice President Biden received their party’s nominations for re-election.

One of the major takeaways from all three events, though, is a visual one.

In New Orleans, Houston and Charlotte, I was struck by the sight of serious-minded men and women parading through the convention hall wearing goofy hats, festooned with campaign buttons, loud clothes, carrying signs — all while they shout slogans from the convention floor.

I had to remind myself of this fact: These people from all across the nation are gathered in one place to nominate a candidate for president of the United States of America. They are choosing the individual who will represent their political party in an election to determine who will beĀ commander in chief of the world’s foremost military establishment; they will pick the head of state and government of the world’s greatest nation.

I’m telling you that when you are among these folks, it’s easy to forget the seriousness of the task they are seeking to complete.

This year — in Cleveland and in Philadelphia — it’ll be no different.

Except that in Cleveland, where Republicans are going to gather, the serious nature of their mission might be compromised by the individual who is poised to acceptĀ his party’s nomination as president.

 

PBS discussion sheds great light on campaign ’16

maxresdefault

I feel compelled to begin thisĀ blog post with a disclaimer.

I am a freelance blogger for Panhandle PBS, the publicly funded television station based at Amarillo College here in the Texas Panhandle.

There. That said, I now want to say that the discussion that was broadcast Friday evening was one of the most intelligent I’ve heard yet about the state of the race for the presidency.

This discussion featuring liberal syndicated columnist Mark Shields and conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks covered three critical points:

The Republican primary campaign, the Democratic primary campaign and, in a related matter,Ā President Obama’sĀ nomination of Garland Merrick to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shields and Brooks occasionally spar when they appear each Friday on the PBS NewsHour. They disagree on substantive matters from time to time. They were in agreement on several critical issues, though, this week.

Hillary Clinton will not be denied the Democratic nomination; Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee; Judge Garland deserves to have his hearing before the U.S. Senate.

The most interesting aspect of what was said, though, came in the discussion of Trump and Garland.

Shields noted that Trump has won everywhere. He smoked what is left of a once-huge GOP fieldĀ in Florida, Shields said, where opponents spent millions of dollars in negative TV ads. They didn’t make a dent in Trump’s juggernaut. Whatever it is that Trump has mastered, he has turned it into an unbeatable — so far! — formula for political success.

As for Garland, Shields also believes that the Republican leadership in the Senate is going to pay a price for refusing to consider the judge’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Brooks agreed that Garland deserves a hearing — and deserves to take his seat on the court — he doubts there will be hell to pay in the campaign for Republicans.

Both men also believe that Garland is the best candidate for the court the Republicans are likely to get — particularly if Trump is the GOP nominee for president. Trump will lose the election to Hillary Clinton, who then will be free to appoint someone of her liking — and could present that nominee to a Senate led by Democrats.

And so it will keep going throughout this crazy election cycle.

You’ve got to relish — and share — intelligent discussion whenever you hear it.

That’s what I’m doing here.

* * *

If you’re of a mind, please accept my invitation to look at my blog at PanhandlePBS.org; it’s called “A Public View” and it focuses on public affairs programming aired on Panhandle PBS.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/public-view-john-kanelis/

 

 

 

Hulkster gets what? $115 million?

Local Input~ FOR NATIONAL POST USE ONLY - Monitoring from the InterNet. Credit: fotolia. Keywords:  omputer; Monitor; Tastatur; Auge; Lupe; Schreibtisch; Buero; sehen; schauen; Blick; blicken; Einblick; ueberwachen; Ueberwachung; Internet; online; Durchsuchung; spionieren; Spionage; Spion; Detektiv; Ermittler; Ermittlung; Untersuchung; untersuchen; Kriminalitaet; kriminell; Gesetz; gesetzlich; ungesetzlich; strafbar; Strafe; strafen; bestrafen; Spurensuche; Spur; Verdacht; verdaechtigen; Privatsphaere; privat; software; Virus; malware; spyware; Trojaner; trojanisch; keyboard; eye; magnifying glass; desk; office; see; look; to view; view; supervise; to monitoring; look to InterNet; on-line; search; spy; espionage; feeler gauge; detective; Ermittler; determination; investigation; examine; criminality; criminally; law; legally; illegally; punishable; punishment; punish; tracing; trace; suspicion; suspect; privately; times commodity; trojan

Hulk Hogan is no Erin Andrews.

Yet the two celebrities share something in common. They’ve both received mammoth jury awards after they sued for invasion of privacy.

Andrews’ award has been universally hailed after a jury granted her $55 million in a suit against a hotel chain; she was video recorded in the nude in her hotel room.Ā The ESPNĀ reporterĀ was embarrassed to tears during the trial over the incident — in which the video went viral.

Hogan’s case is quite a bit different.

Gawker.com video recorded Hogan — the well-known former professional wrestler — having sex with his best friend’s wife. That video, too, went viral. Hogan — whose real name is Terry Bollea — sued for invasion of privacy.

A St. Petersburg, Fla., jury today gave the Hulkster $115 million. More than twice the award Erin Andrews got!

I offered a view about Hogan’s suitĀ in an earlier blog.

I backed his lawsuit because his case also seemed to be as legitimate as Andrews’.

However, I just cannot muster up the level of sympathy for the Hulkster as I can for Andrews. I mean, come on! The guy was engaging in some truly disgusting behavior when someone recorded him.

Maybe the St. Pete jury was trying to send some sort of message to would-be stalkers and gawkers. It is that even celebrity pro wrestlers have a level of privacy that shouldn’t be breached.

Whatever the case, I’m not going to cheer this verdict the way I did the earlier one.

 

Social media: curse and a blessing

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.
.

Social media drive me nuts.

I’m having fun with some of it. Other media sometimes confuse me. I use several media platforms to promote this blog. I am not entirely sure how well they’re serving my self-interest.

I have used one of my favorite social media outlets — Facebook — perhaps more than any other. I use it for a couple of purposes: to keep up with friends, family members and acquaintances and to distribute musings from this blog.

There’s a third purpose, too, I suppose: to offer some goofy musings on occasions.

It’s theĀ third purpose that makes me wonder whether Facebook somehow is addictive. I’m thinking it is.

One of those musings was to declare my consideration of creating a Last Word Contest.

Here’s how it might go … if I were to proceed with launching it.

I would post a blog item that generates comments from my social media network. Do I then intend to answer every one of them? Do I seek to wear those blog readers down? Do I have the patience, the intestinal fortitude to stay the course?

Most importantly: Do I have the time?

I guess I would have to say I have none of the above.

It’s the time that breaks the deal for me.

I’ve got a large number of social media contacts along the networks to which I belong. I’m guessing it’s something north of 1,000 folks. A lot of them love to spend large amounts of time responding to this or that comment.

I’d spend that kind of time, too, I suppose if something really hit my hot button. The older I get the more it takes to fire me up. I mean really get me riled up.

I’m likely to decide ultimately against entering a rhetorical shooting match with anyone out there in social media land. Don’t take it to the bank just yet.

I might change my mind, which everyone is able to do.

In the meantime, I’m going to keep firing blog entries out there via social media: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr. I might look for some others.

I encourage everyone to comment on the entries. I don’t mind criticism as long as it deals with the substance of whatever I say; the personal stuff is another matter. I’ve even owned up to an error in judgment on occasion and stated my error publicly, on this blog!

Back in the day when I worked for daily newspapers I’d get into arguments with individuals who would question my love of country or even my faith when they took me to task for something I wrote.

Don’t go there, OK?

Indeed, that might be another reason to forgo the Last Word Contest. Some folks just can’t help themselves.

 

Take a bow, Cool Hand Chuck Todd

todd and trump

Chuck Todd deserves a pat on the back for keeping his cool this morning in the face of an astonishingly boorish comment from — yep, that’s right — Donald J. Trump.

The “Meet the Press” moderator was interviewing Trump early today. The exchange took my breath away.

Todd asked Trump about the guy in Ohio who rushed the stage where Trump was speaking; Secret Service agents intervened to keep the guy away from Trump.

Trump then said something about “hearing on the Internet” that the fellow as a follower of the Islamic State. Todd said the reports were false. Not so, said Trump, repeating that he “heard it on the Internet.” That — right there — told me plenty of Trump’s (lack of) judgment, that he would take anything he “heard on the Internet” as gospel.

But I digress …

Trump then said the guy was dragging an American flag on the ground, which he said proved he was an ISIS follower. Todd said once again the report was proven to be false.

Then Trump said he “loves the flag more than you apparently do,” implying that Todd, well, doesn’t love the flag and what it stands for.

So. There you have it.

A major presidential candidate buying into Internet gossip as truth and then implying that a veteran broadcast journalist doesn’t love Old Glory simply because he sought to dispel the bogus report about an ISIS connection.

I salute Chuck Todd forĀ maintaining his professionalismĀ in the face ofĀ what I considered to be a serious affront.

Here’s the interview in its entirety.

 

 

 

Why not endorse in this GOP contest?

untitled

Rosemary Goudreau O’Hara is a first-class journalist working for a first-class newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

She and I also are acquainted. I got to know Rosemary while traveling with her and several other journalists in 2004 through Thailand, Cambodia and India on a trip that explored the impact of HIV/AIDS in Asia.

So, I say this with great trepidation: O’Hara and the paper where she works erred in declining to make an endorsement in the Republican Party presidential primary election coming up next week in Florida.

The Sun-Sentinel has backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. It has declined to make a call in the GOP primary — even though O’Hara has said that one of the Republicans, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, is actually qualified to be the next president of the United States.

The other three aren’t, O’Hara — the Sun-Sentinel’s editorial page editor — has said in numerous interviews with TV cable news networks. She’s made the rounds on CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I’ve listened to what she’s said. Frankly, I’m baffled.

O’Hara says quite emphatically that Donald J. Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio all lack the temperament, judgment, record and the experience to become president. I happen to agree with her wholeheartedly … and then some!

Why not back Kasich? O’Hara says the Ohio governor — and a former member of Congress — is the longest of the long shots;Ā he hasn’t built a significant campaign presence in Florida; heĀ is not going to be the nominee. If I heard her correctly, she’s saying, in effect, that Floridians shouldn’t waste their vote on someone who’s not going to win.

Man, I disagree with that outlook.

The way I see it, if you have a field of candidates and one of them is at least marginally qualified — and Kasich is more than marginal — then you go with the individual who is the best of the bunch.

I suppose you could couch an endorsement with some language that acknowledges the individual’s slim chance of winning. But then you offer your reason for why the individual has earned your nod and why you think your constituents — your readers — should heed your recommendation.

I hope if Rosemary sees this post she won’t think ill of me. I hope we’ll still be friends. I make this comment with great respect for her.

It’s just that a major Florida newspaper has seen all four of these fellows up close. The editors there know them well. They’ve determined one of them — John Kasich — is qualified to be president.

From where I sit way out yonder, he’s earned the paper’s nod.