Government and social media

Posted on December 6, 2018 by bvanrysdam

As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.

A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.

The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)

The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…

Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.

In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.

The tangled web of American history

Posted on December 5, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Today is National Repeal Day.

On January 16th, 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing alcohol and the following year, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote.

In a strange way, these two events were connected to each other. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had been promoting prohibition for many years, believing alcohol was the cause of many social ills facing our nation. In those days, a man controlled the household money and could drink away the family’s life savings with the wife having little recourse to stop him.

Another factor that played a large role in all of this was World War I. Many women became involved in the war efforts, working in factories, running the house with husbands at war, allowing them to earn their own money and even great freedom.

All of this led America into the Roaring Twenties where consumerism took off. Advances in printing found magazines entering more and more homes, offering a plethora of manufactured goods just waiting to be gobbled up. Sensing a growing market, many companies began to market directly at women, thus giving them an even greater voice to advance their status.

Fast forward thirteen years and America found itself in the Great Depression. Because of Prohibition, organized crime grew with gangsters taking control of big cities. Both men and women struggled to survive. Many Americans were looking for something to cheer about and their thoughts soon turned to drink.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a repeal during the 1932 presidential campaign. He won the election in a landslide and Prohibition was dead one year later. On December 5th, 1933, Utah (being the final state needed for a three quarters majority) the 21st Amendment was ratified repealing Prohibition.

Riding the storm out

Posted on December 4, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.

Wall Street experienced another volatile day. The market fell nearly 800 points (down 3.10%) following the realization that the meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi was not all it was cracked up to be.

The smiling optimism that came out of the G20 meeting quickly turned to panic after investors realized that, not only is the trade war not over, but could be worse. Tech stocks seemed to take the brunt of the blow with Apple and Alphabet losing more than 4 percent each.

So what happened? Investors took what President Trump said to heart and thought we had turned a corner until they realized that nothing was even close to being settled. You would think these so-called experts would understand that this president enjoys a bit of exaggeration when he explains his dealings with others (remember how the republicans won big in the last election?).

So once again, investors are looking at a “correction”. With fears of more tariffs and trade wars and talk of a possible recession, investors may want to baton down the hatches and get ready for a really bad storm.

Is broadcast television dying on the vine?

Posted on November 28, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Newspapers have long been seen as a dying medium, but it may soon be joined by broadcast television. The New York Times is reporting that viewership continues to fall. Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are snatching up younger demos left and right.

The Wall Street Journal reported more than 1 million consumers cut the cable in the past quarter (May-Aug. 2018), and moving to streaming services so what is going on? (Streaming services can include broadcast television and cable programming, but makes it harder to count the number of viewers) .

Much of the programming offered on broadcast TV these days are “re-boots,” shows brought back from the past that get a face lift (Murphy Brown, Hawaii 5-0, Will and Grace and show formally known as Rosanne). While this strategy worked for a while, it is becoming clear that audiences are looking for more.

Broadcast television can still tout franchises like Law & Order, and medical shows still are able to pull in decent ratings, but at much smaller audience sizes. Reality shows are also not immune from this trend. Dancing With the Stars has fallen by more than 31 percent this season and Shark Tank has loss of 33 percent causing us to wonder when the investor hosts bail on a sinking ship.

Re-boot shows that were relevant 20 – 30 years ago no longer fit the today’s millennial lifestyle. Take a look at what programs won an Emmy in 2018. While not a good way to measure ratings, cable outlets and streaming services dominated with wins which you have to believe is due to superior programs.

There’s another challenge for broadcasters. Long gone are the days when viewers only had two to three choices. Jack Benny ruled Sunday nights with enormous shares having President Kennedy quipping that he was too busy to watch most television but that he made the time to watch The Jack Benny Program each week.

There’s still some good news for broadcasters, it’s called football. The ratings for the week of Nov. 5, 2018, saw 6 of the top 10 programs tied to football programming (not just the games, but pre/post game programs). The rights to broadcast the games continue to soar, but so far, over the air broadcasters are able to hold on to them.

As we used to say in the biz, content is king or put another way “if you build it, they will come”.

Cultural lines being drawn in The Netherlands

Posted on November 19, 2018 by bvanrysdam

There is a clash of cultures taking place in the Netherlands that is dividing many people in a land known for its tolerance.

The controversy involves a character named Zwarte Peit (Black Pete) who is the companion of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) and part of the annual feast of Saint Nicholas when the saint is welcomed with a parade as he arrives from Madrid. This Dutch Santa Claus leaves well-behaved children presents and punishes those who have been very naughty. The tradition is that Zwarte Piet is black because he is a Moor from Spain and first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman.

So what’s the problem? Many Dutch people (the white ones) put on blackface makeup with curly wigs and light red lipstick to portray Zwarte Peit. Some protesters consider the figure to be an insult to their ancestry while supporters consider the character to be an inseparable part of their cultural heritage.

Many schools and business in Holland are taking notice by changing Zwarte Peit’s clothing and look all together. The U.N. even declared that it was a “vestige of slavery” in 2015 and many cities including Amsterdam and The Hague have reimaged him or done away with him altogether.

Growing up, my parents belonged to a Dutch Club where people who immigrated from Holland came together to meet and socialize. My dad was often chosen to play Sinterklaas and I was given the role of Zwarte Peit with blackface makeup and all to help him hand out presents. I did not think about it at the time, but today can see how it would offend people.

Morales and society change over the years, leaving older generations to lament the good old days and younger ones wondering what were you thinking. I am not smart enough (or Dutch enough) to know what the answer is, other than I hope this can become a teachable moment where people can better understand where we came from and where we can go moving forwards.

War of the words

Posted on November 16, 2018 by bvanrysdam

There continues to be a blurring of the lines in the fourth estate. The most recent incident involves CNN reporter Jim Acosta who had his credentials removed after a testy exchange with President Trump. The White House claims Acosta made contact with an intern when he refused to give back the microphone. CNN has sued the White House in an effort to reinstate Acosta. A judge issued a court order to temporarily reinstate his pass, but it’s going to be tough for viewers (especially of Fox News) to accept Acosta can remain objective in his reporting.

This is not about whether or not the White House has the right to revoke a reporters credentials (I do in fact believe they have that right under the proper circumstances). There are other CNN reporters that have access to the White House, so it’s not like the entire news organization has been banned. My problem with all of this is when a reporter becomes part of the story.

Having reporters like Acosta appear on programs such as Anderson Cooper 360 puts them in a tough spot. Any time a reporter shows up on a talking head show, they run the risk of delving into the land of speculation which can lead them down the slippery slope of offering an opinion. Now he has become part of the story which in the minds of many, (myself included) casts doubts on his ability to be objective in his reporting.

And this issue is not exclusive to CNN. The White House promoted Fox News broadcaster/journalist Sean Hannity was scheduled to appear with President Trump at a campaign rally before November’s election. That immediately set off an uproar about journalistic integrity. Hannity later said he was broadcasting his show from the rally, but was not there to make an appearance, although when the president invites you up to stage, what are you going to do, say no? Even Fox News called it an “unfortunate distraction” and Hannity, who was advertised to appear on Fox News election coverage ended up being a no show.

I personally don’t consider Hannity a journalist in the true sense of the word. I also don’t find Anderson Cooper one either, but that’s okay, talk show hosts can play an important role in updating and educating their audience, but I do think we need to hold reporters and news anchors (not talking heads) to a higher standard and have them report the news, not be a part of it.

Saving face

Posted on October 29, 2018 by bvanrysdam

I’m Back (maybe)

Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.

It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.

Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.

Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.

Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.

Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.

Just swipe to the right

Posted on October 22, 2018 by bvanrysdam

How bad has politics gotten? There are now dating apps that help you locate someone who follows your political leaning.

Introducing Donald Daters, a brand new dating app for people who support President Trump and want to find like-minded partners. The app, whose slogan is “Make America Date Again”, is available on the App Store and Google Play.

Every day you will receive 25 finely curated matches to connect with for free! Then, after you go through your daily matches, it’s time to see what other singles are up to in your area in the activity feed. There you can like, send messages and connect with any of your matches.

Now before you think this app is a private party just for those on the right, Donald Daters encourages freethinking and welcomes anyone to download the app and enjoy their community although they also mention you can join without bias, judgement, or liberal intolerance (so much for freethinking).

Unlike some political gatherings, Donald Daters say they will not allow abusive language and bigotry is not acceptable (which is kinda sad that a dating website offers more self-control than today’s political rallies). The site even offers actual testimonials from users including Laura R. from Ohio who said “finally I can meet people with the same values and beliefs as me”.

“For many young Trump supporters, liberal intolerance has made meeting and dating nearly impossible. Support for the president has become a deal breaker instead of an icebreaker. That’s why we created a new platform for Trump supporters to meet people without being afraid of talking politics,” Emily Moreno, CEO of Donald Daters, posted to the website.

It remains to be seen how successful this new dating app will be, but one has to wonder if the Trump Organization will sue for intellectual property theft.