Reading lots of great tributes, so thought I would share this story. I was asked to produce a public service announcement that President Bush was to voice. After recording the script, he spent some time talking with me with no one other than an aide around who took photos (please excuse my wardrobe). I was a nobody, but felt so welcomed by this man and was amazed how easy it was to speak with him. I did not always agree with his policies, but the respect and dignity he showed to me that day will be something I’ll never forget. #RIP
Category Archives: Politics
War of the words
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.
Just swipe to the right
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.
We’re on the road to nowhere
How did we get here? That’s a question that’s being asked more and more. Where has civility gone? Have we come to the point where people are so tired of feeling bad that they feel the need to lash out at others?
I attended a recent conference that featured Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. He spoke about how, as a society, we are choosing to get our information from sources that think like we do. Consider yourself a conservative? You’re probably watching Fox News. Lean more liberal? You are probably turning to CNN for your news.
The problem is that you are only getting one side to story that may have several (meaning even more than two!). Americans are not looking to get information to learn something, but rather looking for someone to validate their own beliefs and that’s where the trouble starts.
Doing this leads us to thinking we don’t need to compromise because there are plenty of people who think like we do right? Why should we give in, let the other guy deal with it. This leaves us running in place for the most part because nothing gets done (which actually could be a good thing).
Here’s something else to remember. While the right is getting their information from Fox and the left from CNN, there is a common denominator between both media giants, they are driven by profits which means, just like politicians, they play to their base (or audience).
I am not suggesting it’s #FakeNews, but than again, it’s not very good coverage of the news either.
Can you run that by me again?
Its primary election season in Texas and that means we get to hear/see lots of political messaging.
While most end up in the recycling bin, one direct mail piece caught my attention. It was from the Freedom & Liberty Conservatives PAC. The headline across the top said “Let’s Make Montgomery County Great Again” following the successful mantra President Trump used during his campaign.
As anyone familiar with Montgomery County knows, republicans control just about every political position available, which begs the question; why isn’t Montgomery County great now?
The flyer introduces us to “the magnificent nine reformers who will make Montgomery County great again!” (I counted and the phrase ‘Make Montgomery County great again’ appears six times on the mailer) Leading the charge is Mark Keough who is running for county judge.
Their website promotes their values saying “conservatives support less government spending and lower taxes. If some take the foregoing beliefs as divisive, that is no concern to us. We agree with Thomas Jefferson that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
The mailer asks voters ‘don’t you long for mornings when’…
- Property taxes didn’t threaten to force you out of your home?
- You didn’t have to fight traffic gridlock, potholes and tolls?
- Sexual harassment by people in power is no longer tolerated?
So why isn’t Montgomery County great? The city of Conroe (the county seat) is the fastest growing city in the U.S., so there must be something being done right, or why would so many people want to move there?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that we have the wrong kind of conservative republicans in office. Maybe we could come up with uniforms that indicate the rank of how conservative someone is so that we can make an informed decision March 6.
What’s the frequency Kenneth?
The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether or not to keep the main studio rule which requires stations to maintain “main studios” in their primary coverage area.
Organizations like the National Association of Broadcasters claim this rule is inconsistent” with listener and viewer expectations, and suggested that eliminating the rule would result in cost savings, better deployment of resources, efficiency and better service.
The broadcast industry, like many other industries, has seen massive challenges and change over the last few decades. Years of consolidation, debt and emerging technologies like the internet have forced to it to come up with new ways to remain viable and profitable.
Long gone are the days where powerful radio stations were owned by families like the Jones (who owned KTRH & KLOL). Those families were part of the fabric of the community, and while making a profit was important, so was service.
LPTV operator Venture Technology Group said “the purpose of the rules has been bypassed by technology,” but has it? I thought the purpose was to serve the community that the station was licensed to.
There is fear that broadcasting emergency information can be impacted. Can you imagine someone in Los Angles providing coverage of a hurricane that is headed toward Houston? There is also concern if you eliminate the main studio rule, you run the risk of losing places for talent to pay their dues and gnaw their teeth. It is very rare for someone to be an overnight sensation and make it to the major markets.
So where do new and aspiring broadcasters start? Internet radio? Pod-casting? YouTube? All are possible, but that begs the question, who needs a broadcast station to begin with.
Many feel the industry shot themselves in the foot when they opened the door to consolidation and allowed companies to own multiple stations in a single market. They might be shooting themselves in the other foot if the main studio rule goes away which will make it very hard for them to remain standing.
U.S. Supreme Court ruling clear as mud
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled parts of President Trump’s travel ban were indeed constitutional, over-turning many lower courts. The justices have allowed a water-downed version to stand and plan to revisit the issue in the fall.
President Trump said the decision was a “clear victory” and tweeted:
“Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!”
So that issue is now settled for the time being, or is it? The court added three words to the travel ban that now have people trying to understand exactly who is banned. People from the six majority-Muslim nations who can demonstrate a “bona fide relationship” with a “person or entity” will not be effected and allowed to enter.
So what is a bona fide relationship? The justices cited some examples including visiting relatives in the United States, attending a university or taking a job offer. That seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.
Is having ties to a non-profit organization assisting refugees a “bona fide relationship”? Who is responsible to verify if they have a relative living in the U.S. or are enrolled in a university?
It seems, once again, Washington provides the kind of clarity only lawyers understand and bill for.
All the news that’s fit to swallow
NBC News is facing heat that doesn’t involve Brian Williams. Their new superstar Megyn Kelly is set to broadcast an interview with Infowar’s Alex Jones. Jones is famous for his wild conspiracy theories including his assertion that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting which killed 20 children and six adults was faked.
Kelly and the show have responded that the interview is important because Jones is extremely popular with a large segment of America and that Jones has even been praised by President Trump. Kelly’s contention is that people need to know who he is.
As seems to be trend today, many advertisers have pulled out the program for fear of consumer retaliation. Kelly was even bumped from being the emcee for a victims of Sandy Hook Promise gala.
It’s an interesting debate. Should someone so controversial be given national primetime exposure? Will giving him this platform increase his popularity, or hold him more accountable. Kelly told CNN “what I think we’re doing is journalism. While it’s not always popular, it’s important.”
While that may be true, we should not forget that her new endeavor “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” has seen a big decline in the ratings from the debut program that featured her interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Her follow up episode lost badly to a repeat of “60 Minutes”.
It seems journalism and ratings/revenue can sometimes create an uneasy concoction of information that ends up being hard to swallow.
Why are we meeting again?
In the wake of Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris climate agreement, there’s been increased controversy over CEO participation in the president’s business council.
Several key members have decided not to participate in the council because of the decision to back out of the agreement, but what exactly does the council do to begin with?
John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote about Herbert Hoover’s meetings with top business leaders in the wake of the stock market crash in his book “The Great Crash of 1929” made an interesting point about meetings that are called without a real purpose …
“Yet to suppose that President Hoover was engaged only in organizing further reassurance is to do him a serious injustice. He was also conducting one of the oldest, most important — and, unhappily, one of the least understood — rites in American life. This is the rite of the meeting which is called not to do business but to do no business. It is a rite which is still much practiced in our time. It is worth examining for a moment.
Men meet together for many reasons in the course of business. They need to instruct or persuade each other. They must agree on a course of action. They find thinking in public more productive or less painful than thinking in private. But there are at least as many reasons for meetings to transact no business.
Meetings are held because men seek companionship or, at a minimum, wish to escape the tedium of solitary duties. They yearn for the prestige which accrues to the man who presides over meetings, and this leads them to convoke assemblages over which they can preside. Finally, there is the meeting which is called not because there is business to be done, but because it is necessary to create the impression that business is being done.
Such meetings are more than a substitute for action. They are widely regarded as action.”
In other words, doing nothing can be considered an action plan. Now don’t we all feel better?
To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question
Donald J. Trump likes to tweet. He has turned to Twitter to announce his Director of the FBI nomination, criticize his critics and his thoughts on why the ratings were poor for The Apprentice.
While pundits have been talking for days on how seriously people should take his tweets, there is another discussion taking place regarding the constitutionality of how he manages his Twitter account.
It seems @realDonalTrump has blocked several accounts that reply to his tweets with comments that are, shall we say, not very nice (and really, who could blame him?). Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them and there-in lies the potential problem.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York sent a letter to President Trump, requesting he unblock certain Twitter users on the grounds it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They claim blocking the tweets is a form of suppressed speech in a public forum which is protected.
President Trump isn’t the first politician to block users, members of congress, governors and other elected officials have all blocked/deleted people on various social media channel. The problem, according to Deborah Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union legal director, is that many politicians are using social media in place of town hall meetings. It makes sense in the fact that it’s much easier to control the conversation.
Legal experts have said that President Trump’s tweets have effected public policy, hampering efforts to have his so-called travel ban become law. It has also been reported that many White House staffers learn of new initiatives by his tweets.
So where could this lead us to? Most likely that proverbial road to the courthouse.