Category Archives: Media

“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

When You Hate Yourself

Culture, Media, Politics

When I started this blog, my stated purpose was to promote counter-intuitive thinking which forces us to challenge conventional wisdom. It encourages us to ask “what if,” opening our minds to new possibilities. Let me be clear. Contrarian approaches to events and issues does not necessarily lead you to truth, but it ensures you do not overlook alternative interpretations of the facts.

Today, I was watching the continuing coverage of the tragic events this weekend in Orlando. The intersection of possible ISIS influence and homophobia makes this a complex case. Was the shooter’s declaration of support for ISIS a cover for homophobia or was the selection of an LGBT nightclub as his target consistent with avowed ISIS persecution of individuals with alternative lifestyles?

There is, however, one other possibility. What if the anger which brought about Sunday morning’s massacre at the Pulse nightclub resulted from a need to disavow the shooter’s own sexual preferences? There are numerous instances in which the most anti-gay politicians and clergy have voluntarily admitted or been forced to confront their own homosexuality. These include George Reker, co-founder of the Family Resource Council; former conservative California State Senator Roy Ashburn; Pastor Ted Haggard, former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former head of the Young Republicans.

My purpose is not to shame these individuals. In fact, I feel sorry for them. They were surrounded by people who believed they were unnatural and sinners. I can only imagine the personal hell they endured pretending to be something they were not. Which brings us back to Omar Mateen and a counter-intuitive explanation of his motives and actions. An alternative conclusion could be it was both a hate crime and influenced by ISIS, but not the way we normally think of these situations. Did Mateen hate himself? When, as his father reports, he railed at the site of two men kissing in Miami, did he hate these individuals or did he hate the fact that they were living the life he wanted but could not have? And to what extent was this self-hate confirmed and magnified by visits to ISIS websites which reminded him he was emblematic of the worst of western culture? Is it possible, sometime this past week, Mateen realized he could not live with himself, decided it was unfair others were able to pursue their preferred sexual orientation, purchased a handgun and assault rifle and planned the attack at the Pulse? I do not pretend to have unraveled the mystery which led to Sunday morning’s massacre. The eventual narrative will come from more rigorous due diligence by law enforcement and psychiatrists.

Earlier this evening I shared this hypothesis with my wife. I acknowledged it was far-fetched. However, it gained a bit more credibility when I turned on the news after dinner to learn several members of the Orlando LGBT community thought they recognized Mateen. Some said they had seen his photo posted on Grindr, the social networking app geared toward gay and bisexual men. A couple of people believed they had seen Mateen at the Pulse on previous occasions. And this makes sense. If there is any truth to this counter-intuitive perspective, Mateen would not frequent gay establishments near his home in Ft. Pierce where he might be recognized and outed. His secret existence would have to play out somewhere else.

Bottom line? Maybe Mateen did not hate America or Americans. Maybe he did not hate the fact there were gays and lesbians. Maybe, he was the victim of another kind of hate, hating oneself. And regardless of the source or target, hate too often manifests itself in violence. While we were shocked by the magnitude of bloodshed in this latest case, the number of dead and wounded should not matter. One life, cut short by hate, is one life too many.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

All “Press” Is Not Created Equal

Media, Uncategorized

NOTE:  Today I am adding “Media” as a new category.  I originally thought posts related to the media would fall under either “Politics” or “Culture.”  However, the quality of coverage during this electoral cycle continues to raise so many questions I now feel they deserve their own category.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This addition to the Constitution, along with the next nine amendments, is referred to as the “Bill of Rights.”  As  documented in numerous Supreme Court cases, none of these rights are absolute.  Freedom of speech, famously, does not give you permission to shout “fire” in a crowded theater.  Assembly must be done “peaceably.” Petitioning the Government does not include threatening the life of public officials.  In general, access to these rights demands a modicum of responsibility by each citizen.

How does this apply to “freedom of the press?”  First, we need to explore what the founding fathers meant by the word “press.”  There was no “media” in 1789; the written word was the primary means of distributing the news in the form of newspapers or circulars which were produced on printing presses.  Thus, the distinction between “freedom of speech” (i.e. individual expression of an idea) versus “the press” (mass distribution).

Second, we must understand the difference between written journalism and television/radio journalism.  One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was, “Never send the first draft of a negative email.”  My mentor was promoting the value of avoiding conflict by finding a more factual and less emotional way of communicating my displeasure with an event or issue.  Print journalists have this advantage over their electronic-based colleagues.  Newspaper reporters or columnists have an opportunity to edit and re-edit their work.  They have the luxury of fact checking.  And in many instances, they seek feedback from their editors or colleagues before submitting their work for publication.

What we see on TV or hear on radio is often immediate and presented in raw form.  Correspondents on digital media generally do not stop in the middle of an interview and ask, “Would you mind if we take a break while I Google whether what you just said is true?” Nor do they have the luxury of rephrasing a statement or opinion.  Let me give you a recent example.  On cable news, a reporter questioned a Trump surrogate about his having changed his mind whether Japan should have its own nuclear weapons rather than depending on the United States for its defense.  The surrogate’s response, “Mr. Trump did not say that.”  The interviewer, “So, you’re saying his position has not changed.”  Unintentionally (giving him the benefit of the doubt), the interviewer had shifted the conversation from Trump’s veracity to whether the Republican nominee’s position had evolved or not.

In contrast, a print journalist would have pulled the quote from the CNN town hall on March 29 in which the candidate stated:

You have so many countries already — China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia — you have so many countries right now that have them. Now, wouldn’t you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?

Equally important, the print journalist had time to reflect on the interview and determine the major takeaway from the conversation.

In hindsight, the TV commentator should have been able to do the same thing, but that required better preparation.  Was he caught off guard when the surrogate denied her candidate had ever suggested Japan obtain nuclear weapons?  Shouldn’t he have had the March 29 quote in his notes, just in case she did?

As stated earlier, I believe print journalists have an advantage in reporting the news.  But the disadvantage to TV and radio personalities does not relieve them on their journalistic responsibilities.  If TV reporters want to benefit from constitutional protections such as “freedom of the press,” they need to find a way to emulate their in-print colleagues.

For what it’s worth,
Dr. ESP