Was it something she said?

Posted on April 9, 2019 by bvanrysdam

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjyn Nielsen recently resigned. The besieged top person charged with protecting our borders often butted heads with President Trump and his desire to enforce tougher immigration.

“I hope that the next Secretary will have the support of Congress and the courts in fixing the laws which have impeded our ability to fully secure America’s borders and which have contributed to discord in our nation’s discourse,” Nielsen wrote in the two-page letter. “Our country — and the men and women of DHS — deserve to have all the tools and resources they need to execute the mission entrusted to them.”

What I find interesting is the timing of her resignation. It has been reported that Nielsen had no intention of quitting when she went to the meeting Sunday with the president and that she was forced to step down. The announcement of her departure came shortly after the meeting.

So why now? I wonder if Trump watched her interview with CNN’s Chris Como.

During the interview (which was not included by CNN in this clip), Como acknowledged the very difficult job border agents have and how he witnessed many of them showing compassion and working hard to keep everyone safe in the shelters. Como also pointed out how the current immigration laws often impede border agents from doing their job.

Nielson responded by thanking Como for recognizing the work being done and appreciated him making that point. She also agreed that immigration laws have to be improved to help solve this issue.

So was that the preverbal straw that broke the camel’s back? One has to wonder what Trump thought of his secretary appearing on CNN and thanking the host. The president and CNN have butted heads since he announced his candidacy and if history is any indication, it had to go over like a lead zeppelin.

Maybe it was time to for Nielson to go, but it sure seems like her CNN appearance did not do her any favors.

Return with us to those thrilling days of yesteryear

Posted on April 8, 2019 by bvanrysdam

iHEARTMEDIA is at it once again, this time trimming down news departments at radio stations in what appears to be an attempt to reduce expenses as they prepare to launch their initial public offering. The company was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2018 and are planning to use the net proceeds from the offering to pay off its debt.

Now as an old radio guy, I could get on my soapbox and preach how radio isn’t what it used to be (I’d be right, but that’s not the point). Check out this promo from NewsRadio 740 KTRH…

The point is things change. Over the past 50 years, media has changed from people turning to print for their information, followed by radio, television and now the internet.

With each passing new phase, the demises of the former media channels has been predicted with great gusto. The internet alone has been predicted to kill off newspapers, radio and television as we know it!

The Washington Post posted an op/ed piece in 2018 written by Douglas McLennan, founder and editor of ArtsJournal and Jack Miles, a Pulitzer Prize and MacArthur “genius” award-winning author that in part said…

Thomas Jefferson saw newspapers as so fundamental a democratic institution that they were the only alternative to repeated violent revolutions: “This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution.”

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about radio, television or Twitter. Oh, and this was the same person who started a “partisan” (which is a nice way of saying “fake”) newspaper, the National Gazette, to attack his rival Alexander Hamilton and the policies of the Washington administration.

There is no doubt the newspaper industry is changing and faces serious challenges. In the same op/ed piece the authors claim…

Weekday print circulation has shrunk from a high of nearly 60 million in 1994 to 35 million for combined print and digital circulation today — 24 years of decline. Advertising revenue has cratered, falling from $65 billion in 2000 to less than $19 billion in 2016. Newsroom employment fell nearly 40 percent.

I do think it’s important to remember part of the issue is the growing number of media outlets in general. Long gone are the days when there were five – seven radio stations, three TV stations and one newspaper. The world of media has expanded to where nobody can get the kind of circulation or ratings they once enjoyed. It doesn’t mean they are going away, it just means that a Washington Post or CBS Evening News audience is being more and more split up and thus shrinking.

Which brings us back to IHEARTMEDIA and their plans to cut newsroom staff. The problem is, there is no money to be made in radio news. Many stations that brand themselves as NewsRadio, are mostly talk stations that offer a bare amount of morning news.

So, this should not come as a shock to anyone longing for the thrilling days of yesteryear when radio was king and and you turned on the receiver to find out what was happening in the world.

Exonerate

Posted on April 3, 2019 by bvanrysdam

Here is a question for you; what do President Trump and actor Jussie Smollett have in common? The word “Exonerate”.

Merriam-Webster defines it is as…

to relieve of a responsibility, obligation or hardship
to clear from accusation or blame

When the long awaited Mueller report came out (we’re still waiting to see exactly what it said), U.S. Attorney William Barr, in letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote…

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The president immediately took to Twitter saying…

It is not surprising the president would interpret the memo to his advantage, while others have looked at this saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute collusion, which people much smarter than me say that charge is very difficult to prove in court.

Now let’s head from Washington D.C. to Chicago where Empire actor Jussie Smollett claimed to have been attacked by two people in what was thought to be a hate crime.

When Chicago police investigated the attack, they determined he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.” Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly conduct, but the story does end there.

A representative for Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office was prosecuting Smollett, said,

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

This of course led to the actor saying (through his attorneys)…

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.”

After the evitable fire storm hit the internet, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Mages (the lead prosecutor) told CNN affiliate WLS that dropping the charges did not mean the actor was exonerated. When asked whether he considered Smollett to be innocent, the prosecutor said “No.”

So where does that leave us? I would suggest on the road to nowhere.**

**a plan, project, development, or course of action that appears to have or offer no meaningful, desirable or useful conclusion.

The disappearing middle

Posted on February 19, 2019 by bvanrysdam

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has rolled out a health plan that would help provide universal child care. The proposal would create a federal program that establishes a network of public and family-run centers.

The care would be free for families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $51,500 for a family of four) and those earning more would pay a subsidized fee based on their income, with no households shelling out more than 7 percent of their income.

Experts estimate her child care initiative would cost the federal government $700 billion over 10 years which begs the question, how do we pay for that?

Tax the wealthy! (Please raise your hand if you think that will work) Other than being a far-fetched idea, it sounds eerily like another campaign promise regarding a certain border wall (whose going to pay for it? Mexico!).

While I applaud anyone trying to improve health care, fixing the immigration system and tackling any of the other hundreds of issues facing our country (roads, education, trade), throwing out ideas that are dead on a arrival are of very little help. This may play to her base (very much like the border wall plays to Trump’s base), but has about as much of a chance of working as me winning the lotto.

It feels that, when it comes to politics, the pendulum swings from left to right (or right to left depending on the year). Playing to the hard core case leaves out a very important segment of America, those in the middle looking for common ground and solutions that have a chance.

I would like to see the pendulum slow down and little and let America catch her breath.

Open mouth insert foot (repeat)

Posted on January 15, 2019 by bvanrysdam

“I never worked for Russia”

Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.

I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.

As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.

Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.

Remember these lines…

“Truth isn’t truth” – Rudy Giuliani
Spicer was giving “alternative facts” – Kellyanne Conway
“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock” – Anthony Scaramucci

In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.

Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.

Fear and loathing on the border

Posted on January 14, 2019 by bvanrysdam

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

Posted on January 10, 2019 by bvanrysdam

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

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.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.

Traditional radio turns a deaf ear to streaming music

Posted on December 19, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Bridge Ratings, who provide station-based on-demand music streaming data, released some interesting analysis. They report that traditional radio missed 40 percent of the most-streamed music by their listeners in December 2018.

According to their data, over 80 percent of Americans stream music in an average month. Unlike traditional methods of music research such as phone surveys, auditorium testing, etc., on-demand streaming accurately measures how much a song is being listened to.

Bridge Ratings points out that radio listeners who stream have different tastes than radio non-users or radio “lite-users”, but the research begs the question; could over-the-air radio stations perform better in the ratings if they play more of the music being listened to via the internet.

This chart compares each format’s “hit-delivery” with its 2017 performance…

(How to read: Urban radio missed or underplayed nearly 50% of the songs that were most-streamed by the format’s P1 or heavy listeners. Country radio missed 26%)

As anyone who has ever listened to traditional radio knows, increased commercial loads are reducing time spent listening, a key factor when calculating ratings. This increase in advertisers are causing more and more listeners to go to streaming sources for their music.

Factor in they are not hearing songs they like on the radio and you can start to see a formula for trouble. According to Bridge Ratings…

We know from our own experience over the past four years, that an increasing number of commercial radio programmers are using on-demand streaming research in some form to better-align their music playlists and to properly reflect the tastes of their listeners. Yet, there are far more programmers who do not believe in the data and do not use it either on its own or in combination with other forms of research they may be comfortable with.

It could turn out that streaming and not video will kill the radio star.