Category Archives: Media

Putting a Human Back on the Story

Media, Religion

The common journalistic technique of focusing on one individual in order to bring attention and clarity to a global, complex issue is referred to as “putting a human face on the story.” There are numerous examples, many Pulitzer Prize winners, which remind us behind every statistic there are living, breathing human beings.  Perhaps the most iconic was Nick Ut’s photograph, taken during the Vietnam War of a young, naked girl suffering from napalm burns running down a road ahead of U.S. soldiers.  Some claim the image was a factor in their own shift of sentiment away from supporting the war effort.  Something the daily U.S. and Vietnamese casualty rates could not initially do.

Sometimes we need not even see the face.  Consider Jeff Widener’s 1989 picture of “tank man,” a solitary protester standing in front of four Chinese tanks the day following the massacre of students in Tiananmen Square.  Or Spider Martin’s snapshot of a woman’s blistered feet after a day of marching in Selma, Alabama on “Bloody Sunday.”

Many people prefer not to look.  Some find the pictures more obscene than the events they chronicle.  They are shocked the media would reproduce the images.*  But that is the point.  They are designed to shock us.  Shock us out of our apathy.  Our complicity.  And out of our lack of connection to the individuals, often innocent people, captured in horrific situations and unbearable conditions.

This morning we were again exposed to one of these personal moments behind the headlines.  The Associated Press “put a human back,” actually two backs, on the narrative of the continuing and unnecessary tragedy on our Southern border.   Julia Le Duc’s photograph depicts an El Salvadoran father Oscar Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter Valeria who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River, only because the family had been denied access at a border crossing to the LEGAL (yes LEGAL) procedure by which refugees can seek asylum under UNITED STATES and INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If their sacrifice in any way contributes to an easing of the suffering Donald Trump has inflicted on those who look to America with hope and promise, it makes me wonder, when Trump refers to “bad hombres” invading America, should we be more worried about the “bad hombres” in the White House?

POSTSCRIPT:  THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE EVEN UGLIER

In recent posts, I have been highly critical of both the media and the evangelical community, but coverage of the Trump administration’s actions and defense of those actions which require infants and children to live in sub-human conditions seems to have turned a few hearts, even among Donald Trump’s staunchest supports.  Yesterday, in response to the Associated Press stories about the detention center in Clint, Texas, Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted:

The reports of the conditions for migrant children at the border should shock all of our consciences. Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.

One could expect no louder clarion call from the religious right to remind Donald Trump and Mike Pence of Jesus’ teachings.  Sadly, some turned the other cheek (or should I say a deaf ear).  Among those was Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty College, who responded to Dr. Moore as follows:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Maybe Falwell missed the Bible lesson when, in John 2:16, Jesus says of money changers, “Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Was I surprised?  No and yes.  No, this is the same faux Christian who gives more mulligans to Trump than revelers hand out strings of beads at a Mardi Gras parade. I am, however, bewildered he could not come up with a more clever retort.  Maybe, “I’ll say it with great respect, these children are not my type.”

*NOTE: USA Today, after warning readers of the graphic nature of Le Duc’s photograph, wrote, “We believe the photo is important in telling the story of what is happening at the border.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Tweet Baby Flames

Media

Unable to sleep Thursday night, I began surfing late night talk shows.  There were all the usual suspects–Steven Colbert, the two Jimmy’s Kimmel and Fallon and Conan O’Brien followed by Seth Meyers and James Corden.  “Surfing” is not exactly what you would call it.  More like “speed dating” as no monologue, routine or guest captured my attention for more than a couple of minutes. Oh, did I ever miss Corden’s predecessor Craig Ferguson.

Image result for craig ferguson secretariat and geoff petersonIf wasn’t the two interns in the Secretariat horse costume.  Or his animatronic sidekick Geoff Peterson, operated and voiced by celebrity impersonator Josh Robert Thompson.  It was the fact Ferguson did not tell jokes, he told stories.  Whether during the opening monologue or sitting in the host’s chair with his feet up on his desk, this Scottish born naturalized U.S. citizen had your attention as he methodically wended his way from set-up to punchline.

This is never more evident than when he hits the road with his periodic one-man shows.  My wife and I experienced this in 2010 when Ferguson came to Cincinnati on his “Does This Need to Be Said” tour.  The set-up came in the first minute.

 I wanna try something I don’t normally do. Um, I’m gonna try and tell you a joke. I know what you’re thinkin’.
“Oh, Craig, come on.
“Not a joke!
“Not from you, Craig! There’s professional comedians for that kind of thing.
“Not a joke from you, Craig. From you, we want tales of the old country,
“Craig. Tell us about the time you lived in the swamp with Shrek. Tell us about that! What was that like, Craig?”

For the next 90 minutes, Ferguson promises he’s going to get to the joke but time after time self-diverts with, you guessed it, tales of the old country, what it’s like to choose a Yankee aristocrat to be his third wife or how he thinks Shrek voice-over Mike Meyers makes a living plagiarizing Ellen Degeneres’ material.  “New Craig” is pulled from the shelves and replaced with “Classic Craig.”

But if you’re patient, VERY, VERY patient the payoff is worth it.  The joke is about a simple lesson everyone needs to learn.  But even then you have one more set-up.

People are not meaner than they used to be. People have always been assholes, except you guys. But they… But they are, and people are not meaner. What happens is the technology is just faster. It’s just faster. What happens is, you have this crazy idea, And there’s a crazy, angry thought, and you’re like, “I’ve got a crazy, angry thought.” Tickety-Tick, tick, tick, boom! And it’s out. And you don’t have time.

And here it comes.  The joke.  The next two sentences as clear (and a bit as blue) as a cloudless sky.

You don’t have time to slow down and self-edit and ask yourself the three things you must always ask yourself before you say anything, which is, “does this need to be said? “Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me now?” Three fucking marriages it took me to learn that.

As Ferguson began that fall night in 2010, “I know what you’re thinkin’.” Damn it, Dr. ESP, get to the point.  You’re asking, “Why did you just spend so much time telling us about Craig Ferguson?  Where is this going?”  See, it works.

It was something Bill Maher said to George Will last night on HBO’s “Real Time.”  The conservative columnist has just released a new book titled The Conservative Sensibility, which chastises both parties for ignoring the basic tenets within the Constitution.  Not surprisingly, Maher admitted he disagreed with much of Will’s thesis, but praised the author for having presented his arguments in a way that forced him to rethink why he differed in opinion.  And then he asked, “Don’t you get frustrated when you spend so much time making a cogent argument and people don’t buy into it?”  Will’s response, “Books still matter.”

Later in the show, several of the panelists admitted they do not use Twitter.  The underlying reason being serious dialogue does not occur in 280 character segments.  Which is why more and more truly talented individuals–actors, writers, musicians–have abandoned the platform, leaving it to those with no talent other than promoting their own celebrity.

I have twice signed up for a Twitter account.  And twice I have abandoned it.  For the same reasons Craig Ferguson needs 90 minutes to tell a story or deliver a narrative disguised as a joke.  As I was preparing this post, I went back to a feature on WordPress called “drafts.”  These are blog entries which I started but never finished or published.  Sometimes it is the content, seemingly less important than when I began to flesh it out.  Often I am personally uncomfortable being the messenger.  Or maybe the timing just isn’t right.  In other words:

Does this need to be said!
Does it need to be said by me!
Does it need to be said by me NOW!

Thanks Craig, for having reminded us to think before we post and never to let writing become a lost art. It still matters.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Sound Bites v. Sound Policies

Media, Politics

The results of the latest Des Moine Register/CNN poll of Democratic candidates were released this morning.  Here are the numbers for the five top-tier contenders for the nomination.

Candidate/Percentage Support/Change Since March

Joe Biden/24 %/-3 %
Bernie Sanders/16 %/-9 %
Elizabeth Warren/15 %/+6 %
Pete Buttigieg/14 %/+13 %
Kamala Harris/7 %/unchanged

The remaining 18 announced candidates polled at two percent or lower.  Eight months before the Iowa caucuses, absolute numbers mean nothing.  The same cannot be said about changes in those figures.  Each trend represents a data point which is more about what rather than who is resonating with potential voters.

The differences from March to June for Biden and Harris are within the margin of error and should largely be ignored.  At best, one could say they are holding on to their initial support.  Sanders is a different story.  Conventional wisdom says his decline is due to the fact the policy lane he had to himself in 2016 has gotten more crowded.  If you compare his latest standing against the results of the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his support has dropped by a whopping 33 percent (49.6 versus 16).  This morning, Joe Scarborough made an observation which deserves our attention.  While Sanders talks the talk, he has been relatively unsuccessful delivering the goods.  His record of enacting legislation he has sponsored is not what anyone would call distinguished.

In contrast, you have Warren and Buttigieg.  Warren was among the first and loudest voices calling for Wall Street reform before the 2008 recession.  And her strong advocacy for fair treatment of customers by banks and other financial institutions was key to creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Likewise, Mayor Pete has converted words into action.  One example is the South Bend “Community Resident Card” program.  Buttigieg worked with local businesses and La Casas de Amistad, a Latino outreach center, to create a government supported, but privately run program by which undocumented residents were issued ID cards honored for local services and as valid identification to open bank accounts and pick up prescriptions.

Which brings me to the title of today’s post.  The first Democratic candidates debate is scheduled for June 26-27.  And, based on the new Iowa poll, the pundits are already suggesting this may be the last chance for those below the top five contenders to “break through.”  Any candidate who is pinning his/her hopes on that might as well close down their campaigns now.  The numbers for Warren and Buttigieg tell us this is both wishful thinking and bullshit.

What do Warren and Buttigieg have in common?  They have both sought venues where they can explain their positions to voters.  And the fact they have both benefited even when they have taken opposite positions proves the point.  One example is Buttigieg’s decision to participate in a Fox News town hall and Warren’s adamant refusal to do the same.  Buttigieg wanted to talk to people who might not otherwise hear his message.  Warren did not want to normalize an organization which she believes is controlled by executives “who are running a hate for profit scam.”  While one can argue with either position, you have to appreciate Warren and Buttigieg have a well thought out rationale and shared it with their supporters.  Their June numbers suggest neither had few if any defections.

So here is the reason relying on debates to give us a better idea of who the candidates are is a “circus for profit scam.”  First, the most memorable moments in most debates are not enlightening about any issue or policy.  They are more likely to be gaffes or suggest that the candidates are not as “fast on their feet” as we had hoped.  Rick Perry’s “Ooops.”  Gerald Ford’s misstatement in 1976 Poland was not under Soviet control.  Mike Dukakis’ being caught off guard by Bernie Shaw’s personalizing capital punishment.  In fact, debate prep often focuses on getting through 90 seconds without destroying your candidacy.

More importantly, debates have nothing to do with governance.  I would argue, among his many instances of executive malpractice, one of the most obvious is Donald Trump does not understand the difference between campaigning and governing.  He thinks he makes policy by tweeting 280 character sound bites. Is that what we want from our next president?

You don’t need three degrees in political science, 13 years in state government or staffing several campaigns to recognize the answer is a resounding “NO!”  One example, the Cuban missile crisis, when we came the closest to nuclear war since the advent of the atomic age, is all you need to understand why.  John Kennedy huddled with his advisors and generals for days to first analyze the situation and then choose a course of action.  He then went on television to explain to the American people his decision to blockade Cuba and what was at stake.  No “fire and fury” or “Nikita Rocketman.” Now that is what I call an actual MAGA moment in presidential history.

Why do we want candidates to debate when presidents never have to?  It is not in their job description.  I’d much prefer seeing how they would do what presidents actual need to do.  Instead of a debate, why not have the networks agree to a series of “presidential moments.”   Candidates would be given a topic–e.g. immigration, income inequality or infrastructure–two weeks before the actual event.  They would have 10 minutes of air time to make a live presentation in which they would address the nation and:

  • Lay out the issue.
  • Tell viewers what they propose to do.
  • Explain why they chose that course of action.

They could select the venue–sitting at a desk, from a podium, as a fireside chat or at a campaign rally.  Some will argue it is all staged.  But have we not learned by now everything a president does is staged.  Do you think those advance staff, speechwriters, camera operators, White House photographers, lighting specialists, etc. are just part of a federal job creation program?   Isn’t it much more important to learn how, given the time, a future commander-in-chief would make policy or a momentous decision?

There is a reason they are called 30-second sound BITES.  That’s exactly what they do.  BITE.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Non-Reality Shows

Media

There is nothing more mis-labeled than reality shows.  Just ask comedian Dana Gould who describes them as follows.

You will never experience less reality than when you are watching a reality show. You’re watching people who aren’t actors, put into situations created by people who aren’t writers and they’re second guessing how they think you would like to see them behave if this were a real situation, which it’s not. And you are passively observing this; watching an amateur production of nothing. It’s like a photo of a drawing of a hologram.

Welcome to Washington, D.C., where America is subjected on a daily basis to Gould-style reality programming which eclipses anything Mark Burnett, producer of Survivor, The Voice and of course The Apprentice, ever pitched to television executives.

Since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives last January, the airwaves have been saturated with hype for the Congress’ latest contribution to the reality show genre The Impeachment.  (NOTE:  If it airs on NBC, the name may be changed to Law and Order: Special Counsel’s Unit.)  To understand why this spectacle will be up for an Emmy in the reality show category, versus drama, limited series or even comedy, we need to parse Gould’s take on this unique brand of entertainment.

  • The House of Representatives will become a grand jury without actually being a grand jury.
  • Members of the House Judiciary Committee will act as prosecutors when they are not.
  • Throughout the proceedings, Democrats and Republicans will both behave the way they think their constituents want them to behave.
  • And finally, the ultimate goal is to maintain ratings to ensure the program is renewed.  Except in the political arena, it is known as re-election.

How do I know this?  Let me share a personal experience.  In 2003, I was asked to join a television production team to create a reality show called Risk It All, designed to introduce viewers to the rewards and challenges of entrepreneurship.  Each season,  six contestants would have to give up their “day jobs” to start a new business venture.  We eventually got to pitch the show to an ABC programming executive.  Her first concern?  How could we guarantee there would be constant conflict and enough salacious (her word) moments?  In other words,  damn the facts, just make sure it has soft-core SEX and staged VIOLENCE.  If you want to educate people, pitch it to The Learning Channel or PBS.  Although Risk It All never made it to a living room near you, I do take some perverse joy knowing we were on the right track, especially when Shark Tank premiered six years later on (drum roll) ABC.

That is why I have no doubt The Impeachment will eventually be picked up by multiple news channels and broadcast networks.  There will be no lack of conflict.  In the promo for episode one, the announcer will hype a potential “must see” moment when Judiciary Chairman Gerald Nadler (D-NY) and former Ohio State assistant wrestling coach Jim Jordan (R-OH) take off the gloves and hit the mats.  And talk about salacious.  Not only do we have porn stars and Playboy playmates, we have FBI agents engaged in illicit love affairs.

Check your local listings for days and times.

POSTSCRIPT/Sorry Nancy

As much as Nancy Pelosi might prefer “prison” over “impeachment,” Donald Trump is never going to jail.  You cannot honestly believe the team that brought us Matt Whitaker and William Barr has not figured out how to stack the deck to avoid Trump’s incarceration.  There are four scenarios in which prison could be in his future.  Here’s why none will ever come true.

  • The impeachment hearings force Trump to resign a la Richard Nixon.  Mike Pence pulls a  Gerald Ford and issues a blanket pardon covering known and and yet unknown federal crimes.
  • Trump is impeached and convicted.  Same ending.  Pence pardons him to put an end to “our long national nightmare.” [Maybe Pence is impeached for plagiarism.]
  • Trump wins in 2020 and is saved when the five year statute of limitations for obstruction of justice expires.
  • Trump loses in 2020, which triggers the fail-safe option.  Since the courts would reject any self-pardon before leaving office, Trump resigns on January 18, 2021.  Pence become Prez-for-a-Day at noon on January 19, issues the pardon, then transfers power to the new president 24 hours later.

Justice may not be served, but I can live with any of these outcomes.  Why?  Because Trump becomes the two thing he fears most.  Unloved and broke.  From reporting in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal,  the Trump brand is taking a beating.  The one exception is the Trump DC hotel where those who curry favor with this administration bow down at the altar of the Trump Organization.  But those same lobbyists and foreign governments will not want to cross a Democratic president by patronizing Trump properties.  And no more hosting dignitaries at Mar-a-Lago on the taxpayers’ dime.  The decade during which Trump lost a trillion dollars will make the MAGA king believe those were the “good old days” to which he so much wanted to return.  What’s more, no future generation will ever have to attend Donald J. Trump High School.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Sodom and King’s Landing

Media, Religion

Spoiler Alert:  If you have not yet seen Season 8 of “Game of Thrones” and plan to do so, you may want to wait before reading this post.

“Game of Thrones” has certainly generated its share of post-finale press coverage.  Unfortunately, most of it has been about viewer reaction to the resolution of the question, “Who would eventually end up sitting on the Iron Throne?”  Or the pace of storytelling in the final season.  Yesterday, I had a little fun with those issues myself.  Following my mandatory post-episode debriefing with our daughter and one more night to sleep on it, this morning I realized the creators missed an opportunity to engage the 19.3 million viewers (live and delayed streaming) in a more important debate.

In Season 8, Episode 5, the major controversy centered on Daenerys Targarian’s “take no prisoners” approach to reclaiming King’s Landing, a theme which was reinforced at the beginning of Episode 6 when Grey Worm at his Queen’s command, slashes the throats of warriors who had been captured during the battle for the city.  Her justification being the need to rid the Kingdom of anyone who had been loyal to Cersei Lannister, even if it included the murder of innocent children.  Where would anybody get such an abhorrent idea?

How about the Old Testament?  Not once, but three times in the first two books (Genesis and Exodus), God takes Dany-like revenge against populations he feels have not been loyal to his laws.  [NOTE: I only use masculine pronouns to be consistent with the biblical narrative.  Daenerys proved the desire to unleash mass destructive forces is gender neutral.]  The first time is the great flood.  I have always wondered why any deity would instruct his servant to save two of each animal species while showing no compassion or mercy for innocent children.

Related imageThe second iteration is at Sodom and Gommorah, pictured here.  Look familiar?  The only difference is God did not need dragons to obliterate a city.

Perhaps the biblical story which best aligns with the death of innocent children at King’s Landing is the tenth plague in Exodus, when God takes the life of Egypt’s first-born sons to break Pharaoh’s will.  Only then are the Israelites freed from their bondage of slavery.  When Jon Snow asks Daenerys if she has seen the burnt bodies of the children, she says it was necessary to “break the wheel which enslaved them.”  Two mythological narratives which very well could have been written by the same author.

Did God snap like Daenyrus?  Was this an overreaction in the heat of the moment?  It’s hard to make that case when we find the descriptions of the plagues in Exodus 7:14 through 12:36.  And then, having had time to reflect on his own actions, in Exodus 34:7, God states that although he will lavish steadfast love for thousands,  he will, “…by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

“Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss want us to believe the problem is solved through the election of a new monarch incapable of producing heirs.  As is too often the case today, those with the power to change the course of history are day traders, interested only in the next transaction.  The future is about the long game.

Having said all this, what do I believe would have been a more appropriate and meaningful conclusion to a story about power, revenge and destruction?  One that might have driven a more productive dialogue among fans of the show?  If, when Samwell Tarly presents Tyrion Lannister with the chronicle of the competition among rival houses for the Iron Throne (conveniently titled, “A Song of Ice and Fire”), Tyrion had said, “This is old history (read our “Old Testament”).  Perhaps it is time we tell a new story.  One that does not glorify death and blind obedience.  One that does not require a king or queen to tell us how to behave toward each other.  But lays that responsibility at our own feet.”  This is a dilemma every civilization from ancient times through the present has faced.

Yes, Samwell is soundly ridiculed when he suggests, “Maybe the decision about what’s best for everyone should be left to, well, everyone.”  The Seven (or Six) Kingdoms are not ready for democracy.  But a constitutional monarchy would have been a step in the right direction.  As we know, democracy is messy and takes time to accept and appreciate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP