Tag Archives: Weekly Standard

media news

Farewell, Weekly Standard

As he is prone to do, Donald Trump gave a raspberry to a mainstream publication that announced it is shutting down its operation.

The Weekly Standard, a mainstream conservative media outlet, is buttoning itself up and is going away. Why did Trump trash the publication? Because it has been an unfriendly outlet toward the president. He doesn’t like that its co-founder and editor at large, William Kristol, is a “never Trump” advocate.

However, Kristol is a known political conservative, who stands behind his conservative principles, which happens to be at the heart of why he opposes Trump.

What did the president say? He said this via Twitter: The pathetic and dishonest Weekly Standard, run by failed prognosticator Bill Kristol (who like many others, never had a clue), is flat broke and out of business. Too bad. May it rest in peace!

What class. What grace. What, um, whatever . . .

Kristol once served as chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. He founded the Weekly Standard in 1995, becoming one of conservative mainstream media’s leading voices. The publication dogged the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It praised President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Afghanistan and later, in Iraq. One can argue with the Weekly Standard’s editorial policy, its philosophy. One cannot question the publication’s commitment to a principle.

That’s no longer viable in this Age of Trump, where opinions are formed by insult and innuendo. Kristol saw it coming when Trump entered the political world with that showy escalator ride in Trump Tower, when he announced his decision to seek the presidency.

I haven’t agreed much over the years with Kristol. However, I happen to be on his side in his view of the presidency of Donald Trump.

His publication is now gone. Yet its record contains a rich history of crisp writing, incisive and often insightful analysis.

It’s now a victim of the changing media climate, one that relies too little on smart reporting and too much on gut-level opinion.

I’m sorry to see it disappear.

media news

Conversation (continued) …

I’ve told you already about a fellow I met the other morning. We covered a lot of ground in the 10 or 12 minutes we chatted.

It centered mostly on the congressional hearing involving FBI agent Peter Strzok and his role in the Robert Mueller investigation into the “Russia thing.”

He mentioned he has been retired for 20 years. Then he asked me if I was retired. “Yes,” I said. “I’m a retired journalist. I was a member of the ‘Mainstream Media,'” I added.

He nodded. “Ahhh, that explains why you’re a liberal,” he said.

I stopped him. “No, sir. My job didn’t define me. My inherent bias is what informs my world view,” I told him.

He had described himself as a “libertarian,” who wasn’t aligned with Democrats or Republicans.

It dawned on me a long time ago, but his assumption that my more progressive/liberal tendencies are a result of my occupation drives home a key point.

Conservatives are winning the war of ideologies. They have succeeded in tarring media representatives and outlets as inherently “liberal.” The “liberal media” get blamed for all that is wrong with journalism.

My own view of the term “mainstream media,” though takes a different approach. I long have considered the “mainstream media” to be a much more diverse bunch than the way conservatives label them. I include many conservative-leaning outlets among members of the “mainstream media”: Fox News, The Weekly Standard, The National Review all belong to the MSM; I also might throw in Breitbart News just to get folks’ pulse to race a bit.

Indeed, I worked for three newspaper groups with ownership that was decidedly not liberal in its outlook. Scripps League Newspapers was run by an elderly scion from the E.W. Scripps newspaper empire; then I went to work for the Hearst Corp., another right-leaning outfit; my career ended while working for Morris Communications, which was a far-right-leaning organization led by a man who is the product of the “old South,” if you get my drift.

The media are as diverse as any other craft.

The gentleman with whom I had this exchange over the weekend likely didn’t intend to paint us all with such a broad brush … but he did.

I don’t yet know if I’ll see him again. If I do, I might take the time to inform him of my own view of what comprises the “mainstream media.”

I suppose I could ask him: If the “liberal mainstream media” are so powerful and pervasive, how do all those conservatives keep getting elected to public office?

political news

Congress revealing its vulnerability

William Kristol isn’t my favorite pundit, given his sometimes-acerbic conservatism.

However, the Weekly Standard editor is a prolific tweeter and of late he has been on a tear regarding the explosive accusations involving Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore.

Kristol tweeted this today: Against a backdrop of Trump, of Moore, Franken & Menendez, of abysmal ratings of Congress, of hyper-partisanship & gridlock, shouldn’t every young person of good character committed to public service consider running for Congress in 2018? Could incumbents ever be more vulnerable?

Kristol is no fan of Donald J. Trump, nor of Moore. Sens. Al Franken and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, surely aren’t on Kristol’s gift list. Franken is fending off a groping allegation and Menendez is facing a new trial on corruption charges.

But the conservative pundit does pose a fascinating question about the potential for any fresh-faced young person who could challenge an incumbent. “Could incumbents ever be more vulnerable?” Kristol asks.

It does seem that the atmosphere is well-suited for a challenger with sound moral footing and character to run against an incumbent. Thus, Kristol has delved into an issue worth exploring.

The filing season for running in the Texas primary election has commenced. We haven’t heard of any sexual misbehavior charges leveled against a member of the Texas congressional delegation. Then again, it’s still early in the election season and there well could be something erupting somewhere, involving someone who happens to represent Texas on Capitol Hill.

The landscape across the land, beyond the Texas border, is rife with opportunities for young men and women to seek to hold public service jobs.

Will they step up? Should they step up?

I don’t know the answer to the first question. The obvious answer to the second is a resounding “yes!”