Tag Archives: News Media

This Election Requires a Comedian to Cover It

Posted on by

Samantha Bee, previously of The Daily Show and now of her own show, Full Frontal, has a problem with the way journalists and “journalists” have been covering our presidential election. She’s funny and, more importantly, willing to say what rational people have been thinking for months now.

If you’re concerned about what might happen to America and the world starting on January 20, 2017, you should watch these YouTube videos and share them as widely as possible, especially where registered voters will see them.

Part 1 (less than four minutes):

Part 2 (five minutes):

 

Good News for a Change (We May Have Finally Hit Bottom)

Posted on by

Maybe it was the insane spectacle of a TV morning show host much more interested in Hillary Clinton’s emails than 100 other possible topics during a nationally broadcast interview that was supposed to deal with national security and who should command the most powerful military in the world. Maybe it was the realization that her dangerously unqualified opponent might win in November if the media keeps treating him as if he’s a normal candidate and a normal person.

But the editorial board of the influential Washington Post finally concluded that “the Hillary Clinton email story is out of control”. The editorial is here.

Of course, so is the Clinton Foundation story. Although the Clinton Foundation presents the possibility of conflicts of interest, the Trump Foundation is a scheme by which Trump takes credit for giving away other people’s money and uses “charitable contributions” to buy crap for himself and operate a political slush fund.  A Washington Post reporter, David Fahrenthold, has been telling that story in articles like this, this, this and this. A representative quote:

For months, The Washington Post has been looking for evidence to back up a key claim Donald Trump makes about himself: that, in recent years, he has given millions of dollars to charity out of his own pocket. There is no evidence of that in the files of Trump’s nonprofit, the Donald J. Trump Foundation. And Trump has not released his tax returns, which would detail his recent charitable giving.

In an effort to find proof of Trump’s personal giving, The Post has contacted more than 250 charities with some ties to the GOP nominee….

So far, The Post‘s search has turned up little. Between 2008 and this May [2016] — when Trump made good on a pledge to give $1 million to a veterans’ group — its search has identified just one personal gift from Trump’s own pocket.

If you have any information about a charitable gift given by Donald Trump, please email fahrenthold@washpost.com.

Anybody Who Still Admires Trump

Posted on by

There has been a lot of discussion lately about Trump’s supporters. One of the points frequently made is that we should try to understand their admiration for Trump from their perspective. We shouldn’t assume we know best.

Okay, I’ve tried to do that. This is the conclusion I’ve reached: 

Anybody who still admires Trump at this point is either an idiot, an ignoramus or a dupe.

In fact, I’ll share this further observation:

Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is the corrupt, untrustworthy candidate in this race is either an idiot, an ignoramus or a dupe.

Consider, for example, this article from The Washington Post: “Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?”

And this one from Salon that explains why so many people are wrongly convinced that Clinton is corrupt: “Press, lies and Hillary’s campaign: Years of smears have created a fictional version of Clinton. They’re also a disservice to voters”. Its subtitle is “Many Americans think Clinton is a congenital liar — that’s because of the right and the media, not her”.

Finally, here is well-known journalist James Fallows of The Atlantic showing how recent news coverage of the campaign was especially dangerous and misleading. The article’s title is “How the Media Undermine American Democracy”.

Fallows has been writing almost daily about this moment in history under the heading “The Daily Trump: Filling a Time Capsule”. His editors explain why:  

People will look back on this era in our history to see what was known about Donald Trump while Americans were deciding whether to choose him as president. Here’s a running chronicle from James Fallows on the evidence available to voters as they make their choice, and of how Trump has broken the norms that applied to previous major-party candidates.

This is Fallows’s first entry from back in May, in which he shows how Trump jumped to a conclusion about a missing plane. This is his most recent entry, which discusses Trump’s continuing refusal to release his tax returns. 

It’s great to know there are journalists who are doing a good job covering the presidential campaign. Despite the fact that you have to look for them, there’s no excuse at this point for being a political ignoramus or a dupe, whatever your perspective is. 

And one more thought: I should have said that you could still admire Trump at this point if you’re a thug. Obviously, one thug can appreciate another thug who’s getting away with thuggery.

Hillary Does a Press Conference

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton has been criticized for not doing a press conference this year. She’s pointed out that she’s done 300 or so interviews with members of the press since January, and of course there were those “debates” during which she responded to questions from the moderators, but she hasn’t stood in front of a crowd of reporters throwing random questions at her one after the other.

So  it must have been a relief to Trump and her other critics when she stood in front of a crowd of reporters throwing random questions at her this week. It happened after she gave a brief address to the joint convention of the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists yesterday.

But one might say it was really a question and answer session. And it didn’t involve the entire White House press corps. But it sure looked and sounded like a press conference. 

The first question is at 16:00 in the video below. Clinton’s detailed answer lasts 4 minutes and 40 seconds and shows yet again why she might be a great President. This being a press conference, of course, the next question has to do with emails.

A Post for Annette Scott and Everyone Else as the Summer Wears On

Posted on by

“I really don’t love either of the candidates. What do they say? It’s a choice between hot and hell,” said Annette Scott, 70, of Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Scott, a retiree, said she’s seeking answers to the country’s problems – and failing to find them from either candidate.

“Please give me solutions. Whether they are workable or not workable, at least propose them so everybody can talk about it,” she said. 

It’s July. We haven’t had either of the conventions yet. We haven’t had the “debates”. Perhaps the “average American voter” isn’t really paying attention at this point. It’s often said that most voters don’t pay attention to politics until after Labor Day. That’s about eight weeks before the election.

That would explain why Annette Scott, who lives in Monmouth County, New Jersey, thinks neither candidate is offering any solutions. She probably gets her news from television, like most older people do. Although she’s almost certainly heard of a couple solutions offered by one candidate (since we’ve all heard about “the wall” and keeping out the Muslims), she’s definitely heard more about the other candidate’s email than any solutions she’s offered.

For Annette:

In case you read this blog, below are links to the two candidates’ websites. One page is labeled “Positions” and the other is labeled “Issues”. (Notice how one refers to what the candidate thinks and the other refers to the problems we face?)

Candidate 1 lists seven positions on his page (in capital letters, so you know he means business):

  • PAY FOR THE WALL
  • HEALTHCARE REFORM
  • U.S.-CHINA TRADE REFORM
  • VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REFORMS
  • TAX REFORM
  • SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
  • IMMIGRATION REFORM

Candidate 2 lists thirty-two issues on her page:

  • Addiction and substance use
  • Autism
  • Campaign finance reform
  • Campus sexual assault
  • Climate change
  • Criminal justice reform
  • Disability rights
  • Early childhood education
  • Fixing America’s infrastructure
  • Gun violence prevention
  • Health care
  • HIV and AIDS
  • Immigration reform
  • K–12 education
  • Labor and workers’ rights
  • LGBT rights and equality
  • Making college affordable and taking on student debt
  • Manufacturing
  • National security
  • Paid family leave
  • Protecting animals and wildlife
  • Racial justice
  • Raising incomes and fighting inequality
  • Rural communities
  • Seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s disease
  • Small business
  • Social Security and Medicare
  • Veterans, the armed forces, and their families
  • Voting rights
  • Wall Street reform
  • Women’s rights
  • Workforce skills and job training

You might not agree with the set of positions or issues they decided to list, but you’ll have to admit the two lists provide food for thought and discussion, whether the solutions are “workable or not”.

For everyone else:

Until proven otherwise, I have to believe that most Americans have more sense than the opinion polls suggest, especially the polls that purport to show this will be a close election. Remember that we actually hold 51 separate elections for President (one for each state and one for the District of Columbia). Those elections generate electoral votes, and those electoral votes determine who will be President. A single national poll is merely a summary of how voters across the country felt when the poll was taken. It doesn’t tell us how voters in particular states will feel in November. It certainly doesn’t tell us, four months before the election, who is going to win 51 separate elections and receive a majority of electoral votes. Given this fact, it’s fair to say that publicizing national polls at this point is journalistic malpractice.

One other thing: We still hear a lot about the “trust issue”, as in “I just don’t trust her”. I would love to hear at least one reporter ask what’s called a “follow-up” question: “You say you don’t trust her, but what specifically don’t you trust her to do? Are you concerned that she won’t try to do any of the things her record or positions indicate? Do you think she’s actually been a secret Goldwater Republican all these years? Or that she wants to introduce sharia law socialism in her first 100 days? Or that she’s going to steal the White House silver? Or are you saying you don’t trust her simply because it sounds better than saying there’s something about her you don’t like?”

When it comes to trusting people running for office, the issue is whether we think they will seriously try to keep their promises after they’re elected. One candidate this year has made some very big promises, but has been sued hundreds of times in his checkered career, leaned in various directions over the years, is very sketchy about details and is world-famous for making shit up. The other has been accused of all kinds of bad behavior, public and private, but was in public office for 12 years and has spoken out on all manner of political issues for decades. Nobody really knows what the first candidate would do as President. Everyone should have a very good idea what the second candidate will do. But it’s the second candidate people don’t trust? 

Since I should be doing something else with my time instead of getting worked up about the election, and given the amount of journalistic malpractice that’s practiced these days (just once, please ask the follow-up question), this may be it for me until November.

In conclusion, therefore, you all have a good rest of the summer, remember to avoid the comments and, when we finally get to November, vote a straight Democratic ticket! Candidate 2 is going to need cooperation from Congress when she’s President.