Category Archives: Media

Are We Really THAT Dissatisfied?

Culture, Media

 

Among the questions included in the Reuters/Ipsos “Core Political Data” tracking poll is the following.

Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?

The sample size is 1607 American citizens with a sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.  Below are the results based on the latest responses on August 18, 2016.

Ipsos

These results are touted nightly on cable news to explain everything from the rise of outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to citizens’ concerns about national security, the economy and education.

I’m quite sure the survey developers, by starting with the phrase “generally speaking,” feel respondents are looking at the big picture.  But what if they are wrong.  What if passionate feelings about one or two issues is driving the negative feedback.  Let’s take a look at how that might happen on both sides of the political spectrum, starting with the Republicans.

What are some of the reasons the 90 percent of Republicans might think the country is heading in the wrong direction?

  • “I can’t believe Americans elected a foreign-born Muslim president.”
  • “Obamacare is just one more example of how America is moving from capitalism to socialism.”
  • “I don’t know what I get in return for all the taxes I pay.”
  • “America seems to be more and more divided along racial lines.”
  • “For me, marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.”

Many of the above sentiments are directly linked to policies advocated or implemented by the Obama administration and judges, many of whom Republicans view as liberal activists.  So how do you explain the plurality (45 percent) of self-described Democrats being equally dissatisfied?  All you need to do is consider the adverse of the reasons Republicans might have chosen the “wrong track” option.

  • “I can’t believe we live in an country where so many people can’t accept the fact an African-American citizen was elected president.”
  • “Obamacare is a cash cow for private health insurers.  We need a public option.”
  • “The wealthiest Americans do not pay their fair share of taxes.”
  • “America seems to be more and more divided between the haves and have nots.”
  • “There are still too many laws which discriminate against members of the LGBT community.”

I understand what the pollsters are trying to measure, and I’m not sure I could come up with a perfectly worded question which would more accurately gauge public sentiment.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan presented the satisfaction question in a different way when he asked Americans, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Political and ideological preferences might still influence one’s response.  But this makes it personal (am I?), not generic (is the country?).

The clearest evidence this individual versus collective phrasing might make a huge difference is another frequently asked question on political surveys.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

The Gallup organization’s last poll prior to the 2014 mid-term election (taken October 29-November 2) reported only 20 percent of respondents chose “approved” while 75 percent “disapproved,” a negative differential of 55 percent.  One might have expected a massive turnover.  However 96.4 percent of incumbents retained their seats.  In other words, even though we may collectively despise Congress, we like our individual representatives.

Which makes me wonder, “Even if the pollsters are asking the wrong questions, is there something we can learn from the responses?”  In the two examples above, I better realize why I think the country is on the wrong track.  For whatever reasons, opinions and voting preferences seem to be driven more by their impact on an individual than on the collective citizenry.  For me, America will be on the right track (i.e. the one the forefathers laid out in the Federalist Papers) when, for example, the one percent sincerely questions the impact of lower tax rates on everyone and Social Security recipients stop demonizing those who promote an honest debate about the future of entitlements.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Wrong Questions on Tax Returns

Media

 

Yesterday, Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence announced he plans to release his tax returns before the election.  The media’s response to the news was to ask the following questions of Donald Trump surrogates and their pundits.

Does this put more pressure on Donald Trump to release his own returns?

Do you think Pence cleared this with the Trump campaign or is this an instance of his “going rogue?”

Is Trump making a calculated decision that not releasing his returns is less damaging than what might be disclosed in them?

Is releasing tax returns more important to the media and Washington insiders than it is to voters?

In response, Trump surrogates reverted to the party line.  Release of the tax returns was dependent on completion of the IRS audit.  That being said, one CNN anchor asked, “Does that prohibit him from at least sharing his effective tax rate and his level of charitable giving?”  The interviewee answered with his own question, “What if those change based on the audit?”  He then suggested if only the IRS would “fast-track” the audit, the issue would be resolved. Both of these assertions went unchallenged.

Again, I believe the media were negligent in their coverage of this issue.  The follow-up questions should have been:

Does it matter if the numbers change based on the audit?

Should we not be more interested in what the candidate himself CLAIMS under penalty of law are his income, charitable donations, deductions and tax liability?

If the IRS challenges any of these declarations, how do you think Donald Trump will respond?  I think I know, but that is not important.  The issue in this electoral cycle is not just who becomes president or which party controls Congress.  Equally important is the question whether print and broadcast journalists have abdicated their public duty to not only question and nod, but to question and question and question.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

“Under the Bus” Is Full (For Now)

Media, Politics

 

Or people for whom I feel sorry.

One of the most bizarre episodes during the Republican National Convention was the inclusion of material from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech during the Democratic National Convention in Melania Trump’s address on Monday night.

After two days of denying the charges of plagiarism, the campaign finally released a statement by one Meredith McIver, who took responsibility for the “mistake” and tendered her resignation (which was not accepted).  As usual, the press accepted this account hook, line and sinker.

I’m sorry, but I’m more curious than that.  I know it is a political tradition for underlings to take one for the team.  And that would be satisfactory except for a couple of inconvenient truths.  First, on Tuesday morning Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort told CNN’s Chris Cuomo, “Melania Trump knew exactly what she was doing.”  As the primary person responsible for ensuring the convention went off without a hitch, Manafort chose to throw the candidate’s wife under the bus instead of holding himself accountable.

As you may have guessed by now, I am no fan of Donald Trump.  And this incident confirms my disdain.  It is one thing to use your spouse as a prop for your political ambitions.  It is another to hang her out to dry TWICE in a period of three days.  I have no idea what kind of person Melania Trump may be, but I understand she is a very private individual.  And, having been director of operations for Fritz Hollings’ presidential campaign in 1984, I have seen the impact on personal relationships caused by the rigors and pressure associated with a run for the White House. Speaking in front of the convention attendees and a national TV audience is not something that comes naturally to Ms. Trump.  And she performed well in support of her husband.  But when it was disclosed the speech contained lifted material, Mr. Trump had two responsibilities.  One was IMMEDIATELY to acknowledge the mistake and recognize how gracious  First Lady Michelle Obama had been under the circumstances.  Second, and more importantly, he needed to stand up for his wife.  Instead, he let staff and surrogates question her honor. If he had done the CORRECT thing, Manafort would not have had the opportunity to take her down on Tuesday morning.

But, remember I said he hung her out to dry TWICE.  Once Ms. Trump’s integrity was questioned, it opened other avenues of inquiry.  Did she have the “chops” to write the speech as she claimed?  Her speaker’s bio in the convention program states she “obtain a degree in design and architecture at University in Slovenia.” (NOTE: Their syntax, not typos.)  It did not take long to discover she had dropped out of school after one year and holds no degrees.  Donald Trump has repeated this falsehood multiple times.  Did he think no one would notice? You do NOT set up your wife to be embarrassed like this.

Unfortunately, there is more than one seat under the Trump campaign bus.  The second one is reserved for Ms. McIver, the staff writer who took the fall for plagiarizing Michelle Obama.  There’s only one problem.  Much like Melania Trump, the campaign put McIver in an untenable position.  As stated above, the media have failed to follow the leads to their obvious conclusion.

After reading the stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times, I realized none contained a picture of Ms. McIver.  Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what she looked like.  I Googled images of her and on the first row of thumbnails, I found the following two pictures.

640

The first came from McIver’s Twitter page with the caption, “I just wanted to set the record straight. @realDonaldTrump is a wonderful man.” The second is with Donna Root, an executive coach, from her website PRWEB.COM.  I doubt McIver has the PhotoShop skills to create the first image.  She is a former ballerina and English major.  Someone had to help her.  So once again, instead of taking personal responsibility, the campaign put her in an embarrassing position.  They also put her in a position where she had to lie.  On her Twitter page, a follower Brian Mahoney found the two images and pointed out the inconsistency in focus.  Her response? “The lighting was just off in the picture because Mr. Trump was standing by a brightly lit window.”  You be the judge.

UPDATE: Meredith McIver’s twitter account has been suspended and the fake picture of her and Donald Trump has disappeared.  The picture now on the left is a cropped version from another site.  Once the original PhotoShopped picture was deleted, the link to my blog was broken and the image could not be viewed.

This ruse makes everything else suspect.  As Judge Judy always says, “If it doesn’t make sense, it probably isn’t true.”  Which takes us back to her statement of contrition.  First, would we have been better informed if McIver or the campaign had simply released her resignation letter? I would have much preferred to see what she told the “boss” rather than the sanitized legalese contained in her statement.  Second, in her narrative of what happened, she actually throws Ms. Trump under the bus again.  “Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speeches.”  This confirms Manafort’s earlier statement, “She knew exactly what she was doing.”  Are we to believe Ms. Trump did not remember the material she had researched and shared with McIver?  I cannot help but wonder who approved this statement before it was released.  And I wonder why McIver, who claims a long personal and professional relationship with the Trump family, would do Ms. Trump such a disservice.

Two women, the candidate’s wife and a long-time associate, are placed in embarrassing positions and Paul Manafort,  a hired gun, still has his job.  It’s not very visible, but I imagine somewhere under the the Trump campaign bus is a sign that reads, “Reserved for Females.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Breaking News or Broken Record

Media

The term “breaking news” used to be reserved for momentous events.  Before the plethora of cable news channels, newsrooms employed the moniker judiciously as it meant breaking into regular programming and required approval from network executives.

Sadly, those days are long gone.  When EVERYTHING is breaking news, the label loses it value.  CNN is probably the most frequent perpetrator of this offense.  Consider the following examples.

BREAKING NEWS: Trump to speak at rally.   One hardly needs an alert when the network has been showing a vacant podium for two hours for an event which has been on the candidate’s calendar for days.

BREAKING NEWS: Repetition of elements of the Nice terrorist attack hours after they were initially reported.  Wouldn’t a more honest lead-in be in order? “For those of you just tuning in, we’re going to recap when we know about the situation in Nice.”

This morning, CNN outdid itself.  During a panel discussion from the site of the upcoming Republican convention, the anchor informed the panel she had to cut off the conversation, “as we have breaking news out of France.”  What could possibly be significant enough to terminate the never ending parade of talking heads speculating whether Donald Trump would be viewed as more likable coming out of the convention?

Was there another terrorist attack? Did CNN go to a correspondent in France?  NO!  First, they played a promo for their convention coverage.  Then they went to commercials.  And when they came back, they did one more segment from Cleveland.

Ironically, the eventual report from Nice did have breaking news.  French authorities had discovered a message from the attacker to an unknown recipient asking the recipient “to bring more weapons.”  In other words, the text or email suggested the attack was not the actions of a lone wolf.

Last weekend, my wife and I re-watched All the President’s Men, which chronicles how Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward covered Watergate for the Washington Post.  Some of the most compelling scenes are the discussions during which the editors of each of the news desks decide what will be in that day’s edition.  In one sequence, editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee (played by Jason Robards) understands the initial reports surrounding the break-in are not yet significant enough to warrant front-page coverage.  Bradlee was saying, “We’ll put the story on Page One when it deserves to be there.”

Perhaps, Jeff Zucker (CNN), Roger Ailes (FOX) and Phil Griffin (MSNBC) should take a two hour break this weekend, watch All the President’s Men and rediscover the roles and responsibility of managing editors of major news organizations.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Walk of Shame Nominees

Media

At the end of Season V of “Game of Thrones,” former King’s Landing queen Cersei Lannister was subjected to the “walk of shame” for her transgressions against the religious cult which was positioning itself to turn the Seven Kingdoms into a theocracy.  The “walk” consisted of being paraded naked from the temple to the royal palace during which townspeople shoved and spat on her while they repeated the word, “Shame!”

Fortunately, we live in a society which does not allow such barbaric rituals.  However, there are occasions in which public shaming is justified.  This week, media leads the list of nominees for the Walk of Shame Award.

The most obvious case is CNN’s decision to hire deposed Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to be an election year “commentator.”  My question is, “If CNN existed during the rise of the Third Reich, would Jeff Zucker, CNN president, have hired Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to join their election coverage.”  [Dear Reader: Before you start sending nasty comments, I am NOT comparing Trump to Hitler.]  This analogy is to point out that Goebbels sole mission in life was to promote and justify the actions of the German chancellor.  Should we expect anything less from Lewandowski?  His first paid appearance on CNN proved the point.  He claimed his former boss had predicted BREXIT would pass, even though the facts (i.e. Trump’s own words) suggest otherwise. That is what ministers of propaganda do.

Shame!  Shame!  Shame!  Shame!

Less obvious, but equally egregious, was Joe Scarborough’s comments this morning on Trump’s shift from a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States to a regional approach (better screening of entrants from countries with known ties to terrorist organizations).  Scarborough saw this as “a pivot.”  Okay, the presumptive Republican nominee is trying to roll back his previous biased, and by the way unconstitutional, position on how to protect America from terrorist attacks.  But Scarborough then showed how shallow his journalist skills are.  He said, “This puts Trump more in line with the position of the Secretary of Homeland Security.”  In other words, Trump, without realizing it, endorsed the current system of screening potential threats to Americans.  If Scarborough were a more acute analyst, his next comment has to be, “If Trump is now suggesting we currently are using the correct approach to screening potential threats, you have to ask what would he do differently.  And how, if he agrees, can he call the people who implement this system ‘not smart.?’ Is he equally ‘not smart?'”  One should keep in mind a “pivot” is a basketball move designed to “fake out” one’s opponent.  Scarborough seems overly susceptible to this ploy.

Shame!  Shame!  Shame!  Shame!

You may have noticed I left Fox News off the list of nominees.  They have already received a Walk of Shame Lifetime Achievement Award for media malpractice.  Therefore, they are no longer eligible for individual awards.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP