Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Media Skepticism Part I


Fox News Reporter Ed Henry
Fox Reporter Ed Henry is finding out that paybacks are hell this week. After months of trying to implicate Hillary Clinton in allegedly scandalous behavior while following her on the campaign trail, Henry’s own skeletal mistress (literally, tee hee) came out of his closet of secrets. Now he’s the bad news.

This reminds us that those with celebrity status (as with presidential candidates we would say “prominence”) should really clean out their own closets before delving into those of others.

This is especially the case if they questionably choose to use their position as a trusted news reporter to preach their opinions, suspicions and accusations instead of reporting the facts. Amazingly forgetting that their audience is tuned in because the American public, regardless of news network, has placed its trust in the news organization to provide them with the truth on which to base their own positions on the issue.

Within this same news period, we’ve learned that the New York Times plans cutbacks that include downsizing their international offices and that the the Gannett company, owner of the Detroit Free Press, seeks to take over Tribune Publishing, publisher of such papers as the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times. Coupled with the FCC’s relaxed ownership rules for radio and TV --- the fear here is that we are losing the many and varied voices in the market place that inform us from many perspectives and help us to come to our own conclusions about the issues of our time. How do we protect a lively “market place of ideas” and its many voices if monopolies across media control the messages through too few voices?

For instance, radio stations once were local voices of information for communities. Now, iHeartMedia, Inc. (formerly Clear Channel Broadcasting) owns nearly 1,225 stations in 300 cities nationally and is noted for carrying primarily conservative talk shows such as those hosted by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. You may recall that after Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines told a London concert audience in 2003 that she was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas,” Clear Channel among other radio networks pulled the musical trio from its line-up across the country. The controversy even resulted in Dixie Chick CD burning and destruction parties.

Geez, even Bush 43, defended the Dixie Chicks in his response to the controversy during an interview with Tom Brokaw in 2003:
The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America.
I have lived in a time when metropolitan cities were able to sustain two daily newspapers and most of the rest of the cities and towns --- one. Our villages and burbs can still support at least a weekly.

We once had a wealth of independent news voices available to us. What radio and TV didn’t have time to delve into, we could turn to our daily paper --- waiting on the stoop and delivered by a really real-live paperboy ---- (At $8 a pop for the Sunday NYTimes today, I can’t even get the delivery person to get it into my condo building let alone bring it to my door) ---- for “the rest of the story.”  (Thank you Paul Harvey.)

We had thick lush Sunday papers that weighed as much as 9 pounds, filled with all of the special sections and community advertising for the week. It was a given to me that everyone in town subscribed and everyone watched the news because that’s what we did in my house.

Granted, I had to wait for my dad to read it first and when I discovered I could use my allowance to subscribe to the --- wait for it --- Detroit Free Press --- I was in miracle territory. The FREEP and the Saginaw News everyday on the floor with me. Ink proudly covering my fingers at the end of each session.

(Total Aside: I was so young when I caught the news bug that I had to ask my parents why the police only ever found the “body” of the victim of any crime story. ---- I thought “body” meant “torso.” Where was the head, arms, legs, and feet I wondered aloud? I mean don’t sing “head, nose, fingers, toes” to me if you expect me to believe that they are all just “body.”)

We didn’t realize what we had or its importance and now it’s pretty much gone. While I realize that I’m not alone in realizing what we have lost, I do think that those who don’t realize or are too young to understand this loss are probably in the majority, suggesting that we are quickly losing an informed population and given the year, an informed electorate.

Downsizing and mergers and convergence from print to Internet --- from daily print to a few issues a week is what we have left.

Time Magazine (Newsweek is gone in print) is a mere shadow of itself down from 35 pages to 15.

It always feels like I'm picking up some kind of sample version or toy model of the once substantial publication. Not that the reporting doesn't remain important but weekly print news magazines can't complete for readers or advertisers with instant access to information online regardless of source or quality. Sigh.

TV news has gone from independent entities of their corporate owners to profitable brands and products demonstrated so aptly by the coaching anchors and reporters demonstrate as they punch those adjectives and offer their opinions on the events of our times. All in the hopes that these added effects will offer a sense of entertainment/sensationalism that will boost ratings and ad revenues.

For an industry and profession that I have loved all of my life, I am now worried and skeptical.

Worried that we aren’t getting the news we NEED to know and have a RIGHT to know to protect what we think is a free and open democracy.

Skeptical because I think the media is now too influenced in its news coverage decisions by profitability pressures thus filling programs and pages with the news they think we WANT rather than NEED. And it’s our immediate loss (especially in an election year as some of us try to prepare to make informed decisions at the polls) but what’s the long-term impact going to be for this nation that boasts free press and the importance of providing its citizens with all the news they need to know…you know “transparency” as so many presidents and governors promise but don’t practice already.

President Obama drinks Flint water during this week's visit.
Look no further than the Flint water crisis as a demonstration of this. Especially after President Obama’s visit to the city this week where he told a select crowd that “I have your back.”…just two years after the fact, with no funding from the federal government yet, at least one federal EPA official out of a job, along with state and local EPA and water department employees also out of jobs, some limited local indictments, and two local deaths that are raising questions because of their connection to the water crisis.  Where was the transparency on this issue? And where was the media's coverage of it?

To be continued…


Sunday, March 13, 2016

Hate, ageism and the 2016 presidential election


On Trump

I’m saddened by the hate expressed in my state last week as demonstrated by Trump’s sweep in the Republican primary. It was manifested again this week by the events in Chicago, where reports are genuinely upsetting and heartbreaking. Trump protesters faced verbal and physical assaults outside of the venue. At the same time the media replayed video from previous Trump appearances where he encouraged his followers to attack protesters and offered to pay their legal defense fees. Is this really who we want as our president? (Time.com, March 10, 2016)

NPR - Getty Images
“This Can’t Go On In Chicago,” Says Anti-Trump Protester,” NPR Weekend Edition, March 13, 2016

Listen to the disrespect this American suffered at the hands and minds of Trump supporters. Listen to his message. “America is great without the hate.”



On ageism and the presidency

Senior Planet
Those around me who think Bernie Sanders is too old to be president have captured my attention. He’s 74, Hillary’s 68 and the Donald Drumpf is 69. I don’t get it and apparently the youngest voters among us don’t get it either since they seem very comfortable with everything Bernie.

When Hillary started up her campaign machine again, so shortly after the 2012 election, “too old” was a common question and comment among the pundits. (“Is Hillary Clinton too old to be president?” MSNBC asked. ” Hillary is too old to run,” the New York Post claimed. Politico opinionator Pete Seat echoed the sentiment: ” Hillary Clinton is too old to be president.”) (Erica Manfred, Senior Planet: Aging with Attitude, May 28, 2015)

Senior Planet looked at this question in a great article: How Old is Too Old to be President? (May 28, 2015). In the article, the experts are split on the effects of age and office holding. Dr. Nir Barzilai, professor of medicine and genetics at Albert Einstein and director of the Institute for Aging Research, says, “biological and chronological age are not the same. The older you are, the more your genes rather than lifestyle are likely to predict longevity...Someone like Hillary, who functions at very high intensity, has the gene for longevity. “ Her mother died at 92.

Barzilai also points out that Alzheimer’s isn’t a forgone conclusion with age: “[t]he more educated and intelligent a person is, the less you’ll see the decline even if they have Alzheimer’s.” (According to Barzilai, if one of your parents lived to be over 85, your likelihood of getting Alzheimer’s is reduced by 25 percent, even if that parent had the disease.)

Also quoted in the article is Dr. Robert Epstein, a research psychologist and former editor in chief of Psychology Today. “As long as the candidate shows no signs of senility – say, from early Alzheimer’s – an older candidate is probably your best choice if you think the world is a fairly stable place. As we get older, our judgment regarding matters we know about generally gets better. Experience is a great teacher.”

But, Epstein says, “If you think the world is rapidly changing, that’s another story. The older we get, the harder it is for us to quickly learn, master and evaluate new information.”

The article goes on to point out that the issue for candidates today isn’t about age but about how visible they are to the voters through social media and how savvy their campaigns are in using these communication platforms to reach all of the voters.

Does age matter? You can vote 

Erica Manfred, the article’s author reports that the “jury is still out on age and the presidency.” You can vote on the site for how old is too old to be president. (at the bottom of the article)

Monday, February 29, 2016

Civility has left the building...

... and with it the Republican Party's attempt to offer the nation a qualified candidate prepared to act on behalf of the electorate and represent the U.S. internationally --- you know the countries that haven't yet banned The Donald from their shores.

www.cnn.com
I'm stunned by the lack of decorum at Thursday's Republican Debate. Particularly by The Donald's disrespect toward his fellow candidates ---- the name calling, the interruptions, the sheer inability to actually address the issues...or the serious questions asked of him.

I'm equally stunned by the media, CNN here, sponsoring the debate and thus surrendering the independent debate process and decorum to his ill-mannered behavior. This seemingly solely for the sake of ratings and advertising profits rather than for the benefit of informing the voting public. What has happened to third party objective hosts such as the League of Women Voters, that actively protected the integrity of the process for all of us?

I'm old enough to remember civilized debates where the issues and the responses of the candidates took center stage. And, where the candidates were respectful toward each other --- waiting their turns, you know, like grown ups. There was no chance then of the debates being mistaken for the voyeuristic reality shows of today.

During a 1988 vice presidential debate in Omaha, Senator Lloyd Bentsen respectfully took exception to his GOP opponent's comparison of himself to John F. Kennedy. Sen. Dan Quayle had just defended his inexperience as similar to that of Kennedy. Bentsen's response was strong but civil: "Senator," he said, "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy." (U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 7, 2008)

Republican candidate John McCain, in 2008, did not seize the opportunity to mock his opposition at one of his own rallies. When a McCain supporter told the crowd in Minnesota that "Obama is an Arab," McCain took away the microphone and with respect to both the supporter and candidate Barack Obama, he responded, "No ma'am, "[Obama's] a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." Huffington Post, Nov. 10, 2008

I give Marco Rubio credit at the debate for stepping up where his opponents would not to challenge Trump to focus on the issues, only to end up the target for The Donald's rudeness the rest of the evening and throughout the weekend. Sadly, Rubio has since stooped to Trump's level, mocking The Donald at his own political rallies.

What happened Thursday night and is continuing to happen on the Republican side of this election is everyone's fault.
  • A Republican Party that has for some reason allowed The Donald to set its political agenda upon a foundation of ignorance, hate and fear. 
  • His opposition for stooping to his level.
  • The media for becoming the primary sponsors of debates (being the news rather than covering the news) rather than protecting the democratic process by allowing third party objective sponsors to manage these events.
  • A national media that is ignoring the serious candidates and the real issues for the entertainment value of Trump's universally cavalier attitude and contempt. 
  • A public that claims to back him because he isn't part of the "political establishment" and for his entertainment value. What they really mean but won't admit is that they love his hate and fear mongering. The things they don't have the guts to say out loud. 
  • And finally, that lazy silent majority, again, that presumes someone else will clean up this mess for them before it threatens their personal lives. Until then, what does it really matter?


Trump has said he loves "the undereducated" because he's been so successful at preying on them. Here he is doing it again, the very people who are backing him are the ones he's screwed in the past and will screw along with the rest of us if he is elected.

As one friend commented recently, if Trump is the nominee, he alone may sweep Hillary into the White House.

It is on us to stay informed, to challenge candidates and platforms at necessary and to vote.