New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seeking reelection. One of his opponents is TV star Cynthia Nixon. Nixon has called our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a "terrorist" organization which should be abolished.
Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.
Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."
Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Newspapers Across the Country Unite For Freedom of the Press
Today, August 16, 2018, over 300 newspapers across the country expressed - in separate editorials - why a free press is of critical importance to this country. Big City papers, small town papers, weeklies all joined in the call made by The Boston Globe to make today's editorials on this one topic. As I said at the beginning of the last post, I support newspapers. I like holding them, and folding the pages. There is no doubt that newspapers provide a great service to this country - from challenging abusive or corrupt government and businesses, to human interest stories, to sports, business and entertainment. Whether in print or online, it is how we find out what is happening in our communities, our state, our country and our world. In fact, the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition, during college football season, is my favorite paper - covering most of the Saturday games.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Just Lazy Reporting? Or Fake News?
Let me begin with my own biases about the media. As someone who is "old school" I like to hold newspapers in my hands. I have no desire to see newspapers go out of business. As a conservative I am often annoyed and disheartened by the agenda driven reporting of the mainstream media. Here is just one example. On page A13 of the August 12, 2018 edition of the LA Times is an article titled "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa ' a lowlife.'"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)