Category Archives: Media

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

Right Under Your Nose Redux

Culture, Media, Politics

It happened again this weekend.  I guess the media never heard of “Occam’s Razor,” the problem solving principle which suggests, given a number of hypotheses, the one that requires the least assumptions is most preferable.  In more modern terminology, it is much like the acronym KISS or “keep it simple stupid.”

Yesterday, CNN reported on the sudden emergence of a 1991 interview between a “publicist” for Donald Trump and People Magazine writer Sue Carswell.  From the tape and transcripts of the interview, it is fairly certain Trump was using the pseudonym John Miller to brag about himself.  At first, everyone assumed Carswell or People Magazine had released the tape.  However, she claims that she has the only copy of the tape and has never shared it. On CNN,  Carswell speculated that Trump may have also recorded the conversation and was responsible for its release.

The CNN reporter then asks Carswell, “Why do you think Trump or his people would do that?” Did you really need to ask?  Just watch your own broadcasts.  For the last 48 hours, CNN and other news outlets had focused on Trump’s unwillingness to release his tax returns.  Newspapers and his critics (e.g. 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney) peppered the presumptive nominee about what he might be hiding.  Trump was  being trolled on Twitter with the hashtag “#weakdonald.”

If I were Trump’s campaign manager, I would be polling to see if this was the “last straw” for many Republicans and, more importantly, independents.  Could my candidate, who constantly reminds us he tells it like it is, weather the hypocrisy of not applying this adage to himself?  I would have two choices.  The most obvious one is release the returns.  This would either quiet the critics, or as some have suggested, confirm charges that Trump overstates his net worth, is less charitable than he claims and/or pays little if any taxes. As campaign manager, do I want to take that risk?  Probably not.

Say what you will about Trump, he and his team are masters at manipulating the media. Therefore, the campaign team’s second choice is to change the narrative.  And that is what they did.  They offered a more succulent piece of red meat to the media and the critics.  A tape in which Trump lauds his own greatness disguised as a publicist.  The modus operandus of a true narcissist. But everyone already knows that.  One more piece of evidence to confirm something about which Trump enthusiasts and potential supporters have been exposed many times and don’t seem to care.

Look at the headlines over the last 72 hours in the Washington Post which broke the story on Friday.  At the end of the week, everything was about Trump’s tax returns.  This morning’s Sunday edition is about the tape.  No story about tax returns.  No op-eds about Trump’s lack of transparency.  The Trump campaign successfully pulled the entree off the table and replaced it with dessert.

There is one more question.  Why the Washington Post? Why not the New York Times, Trump’s hometown paper of record? Just this week, Trump re-opened his Twitter attack on Post owner and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, claiming the Post was anti-Trump because Bezos is afraid Amazon will be charged with anti-trust violations by a Trump Department of Justice. What is more satisfying than using a hated adversary’s asset as a prop for his reality show?

For those of you who think the purpose of this post is to criticize Trump, you are wrong. Each of you needs to assess the Trump candidacy on your own.  I personally don’t agree with most of what Trump offers, but as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.  He is right when he chastises the media and calls them a disgrace.  However, I guess Trump and I reach that conclusion from different perspectives.

Trump is not the primary villain in this melodramatic magic show which turned “taxes” into “tape.”  He is only taking advantage of an audience that falls for his slight of hand and is afraid to ask how it is done.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Right Under Your Nose

Culture, Media

Renowned journalist Edward R. Morrow once said, “The obscure we see eventually.  The obvious, it seems, takes longer.”

I thought about this quote as I was watching analysis of the events in San Bernandino, California last week.  The cable news stations were inundated with “experts” who were trying to explain why Syed Farook and his wife chose the holiday party as their terrorism target.  The consensus was the couple were “amateur” terrorists and past cases suggest non-professionals choose a location with which they are familiar.

But there is a much more obvious reason which seems to be completely overlooked.  Witnesses report Farook left his coat on his chair when he left the room.  The couple NEVER intended to become martyrs.  The coat was to be part of Farook’s alibi.  Not only would he not be the killer, he was a potential victim.  You can almost hear his intended statement to the police.  “I was just lucky.  I had to go to the men’s room.  When I heard the shots, I fled the building.  I didn’t even retrieve the coat I’d left at the table where I was sitting.”

Other evidence supports this view.  The couple left their baby with the maternal grandmother and left nothing behind on-line or in their apartment suggesting she would have to care for the baby in the event something happened to them.  They fully expected to retrieve their child later that day.

The alibi would also have served Farook well if he and his wife had conducted a second attack as suggested by the weapons in the rented SUV.  He could always have claimed to have been at the Inland Regional Center attending the holiday party and awards ceremony.

Remember, Inland was not where Farook worked.  It was only the site of the office event.  Therefore, he probably was not as familiar with the layout as the “experts” suggest.

This is only one example where expert analysts, in an attempt to demonstrate their grasp of events beyond that of most people, just try to hard.  And by doing so, fail to see what is right under their noses.  They would be better served to employ Occum’s razor, “All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most probable.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Who are these so-called REAL PEOPLE?

Culture, Media

 

C-3PO_R2-D2_Im_Fadenkreuz

If you’ve been watching news programs lately, maybe you noticed there is an increasing need for reporters to talk to “real people.” For example, to get opinions about a topic of the day, the reporter will tell us, “We asked real people what they think?” Who else would they talk to? Artificial people? Animals? Trees?

The last time I looked, we were all REAL PEOPLE. So let’s start referring to individuals more accurately. For example, in Iowa, refer to individuals as potential participants in the party caucuses.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP