Over the weekend, Donald Trump disqualified himself as a candidate for President of the United States. It's interesting that he did it himself rather then some proposed opponent, or the mainstream media. No, it wasn't a rival in the Republican field or Hillary or Bernie from the Democratic side. It was Trump himself.
I'm speaking of course of his failure to disavow himself from the support of David Duke or the Ku Klux Klan when asked directly a number of times by Jake Tapper of CNN on Sunday. Now Trump's latest excuse is that he had already disavowed David Duke on Friday of last week. Of course it also doesn't help that he was preparing for a rally in the deep south later on Sunday. Frankly all of this makes his refusal to be clear even worse. How can you deny knowing anything about David Duke on Sunday when you disavowed him on Friday? Do you somehow believe that not making a clear comment about the Ku Klux Klan will help you in voting in the south? Thankfully the vast majority of people in the south have moved beyond that kind of pitiful thinking.
If Trump needs any reminders, the Klan stood for not just racial hatred but for murder, torture, burning homes and instilling fear while hiding their identity under hoods. David Duke was a former leader or Grand Dragon of the Klan.
It isn't hard to be clear about Duke or the Klan and for whatever reason, Trump refused. His excuses and response on Monday morning gives people more insight and is pretty typical of Trump. This whole thing is CNN's fault says Trump. According to Trump, he had already been clear and in addition, they had given him a faulty earpiece so he was unable to understand the question and any nuances. These are reactions and responses we should be familiar with from Trump. He is never accountable for his words or actions and it is always someone else's fault.
How difficult is it to say that the principles and beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan are despicable? Not at all - I just said it. The fact that Donald Trump can't or won't say anything that clearly on the issue really should disqualify him from the Presidential race. It's as simple as that.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Saturday, February 20, 2016
The Damage Done By Uncivil Discourse
It seems to me this is a topic that everyone should be thinking about. It's a topic that's bigger then just a Presidential election cycle, but that process and reality has certainly had a major impact on civil and uncivil discourse in our society recently. The fact is, how we talk to and about each other is an important part of how societies function. Most of the development of governing models has revolved around finding ways for people to communicate and discuss issues in a civil manner.
The discourse we're seeing today didn't just happen because of one particular candidate. All of this has been brewing for a long time and there's plenty of blame to go around relative to why people are feeling unrepresented, disenfranchised, beaten up and beaten down. I happen to believe that elected officials and bureaucrats are responsible for much of the problem as it has evolved over time. People have gone to meetings and to officials trying to approach things in a logical and respectful way. Too often they have been put off by excuses, shuffling of papers, or hearing blame placed on the opposition or some other political scapegoats. Enter Donald Trump, a nativist, a marketer and a showman.
I have to admit, there are some times when it's been enjoyable watching Trump at work just from the perspective of understanding human nature, marketing and showmanship. It's fascinating to watch him work a crowd with stream of consciousness like remarks. It's similar when he's questioned by reporters. Watching him not answer questions or bounce around the subject, raising new topics, etc. is certainly interesting. It does make one wonder how he gets away with it.
There is a very dark side however to what he has unleashed and to me, it all ties back to civil and uncivil discourse. The worst thing Trump has done, is that he's given permission to people to denigrate and speak ill of others. It's what school yard bullies do all of the time, perform for the crowd and put other people down. Say hurtful things and goad people into striking back. It's not just bad manners, it's dangerous. Some of what we're seeing play out is akin to mob rule and could easily evolve into that. As crowds shout USA, USA or Trump, Trump to silence protesters who raise their voice or a sign, it's easy to make a leap toward intolerance and violence. I've actually heard stories of people saying to someone else that they're going to "pull a Trump" on them and just be mean and rotten in their treatment and interaction. This is not at a rally but during normal day to day social contact.
Yes, the real danger and damage that Donald Trump has done is that he's made it acceptable to bully people, to dislike Mexicans because they are Mexican (not because they're immigrants), to build a hatred toward Muslims, to make fun of people with disabilities. This is certainly not civil discourse and honestly it will make it harder for civil discourse to take place as people lash out at people, things or systems they don't like.
In many communities there are groups of people trying to find ways to encourage civil discourse. Sometimes they are church based, organizational based or sometimes they just citizens trying to make sure there is a forum for reasonable and civil conversation. We should all try to seek them out or if necessary start the conversation ourselves.
The discourse we're seeing today didn't just happen because of one particular candidate. All of this has been brewing for a long time and there's plenty of blame to go around relative to why people are feeling unrepresented, disenfranchised, beaten up and beaten down. I happen to believe that elected officials and bureaucrats are responsible for much of the problem as it has evolved over time. People have gone to meetings and to officials trying to approach things in a logical and respectful way. Too often they have been put off by excuses, shuffling of papers, or hearing blame placed on the opposition or some other political scapegoats. Enter Donald Trump, a nativist, a marketer and a showman.
I have to admit, there are some times when it's been enjoyable watching Trump at work just from the perspective of understanding human nature, marketing and showmanship. It's fascinating to watch him work a crowd with stream of consciousness like remarks. It's similar when he's questioned by reporters. Watching him not answer questions or bounce around the subject, raising new topics, etc. is certainly interesting. It does make one wonder how he gets away with it.
There is a very dark side however to what he has unleashed and to me, it all ties back to civil and uncivil discourse. The worst thing Trump has done, is that he's given permission to people to denigrate and speak ill of others. It's what school yard bullies do all of the time, perform for the crowd and put other people down. Say hurtful things and goad people into striking back. It's not just bad manners, it's dangerous. Some of what we're seeing play out is akin to mob rule and could easily evolve into that. As crowds shout USA, USA or Trump, Trump to silence protesters who raise their voice or a sign, it's easy to make a leap toward intolerance and violence. I've actually heard stories of people saying to someone else that they're going to "pull a Trump" on them and just be mean and rotten in their treatment and interaction. This is not at a rally but during normal day to day social contact.
Yes, the real danger and damage that Donald Trump has done is that he's made it acceptable to bully people, to dislike Mexicans because they are Mexican (not because they're immigrants), to build a hatred toward Muslims, to make fun of people with disabilities. This is certainly not civil discourse and honestly it will make it harder for civil discourse to take place as people lash out at people, things or systems they don't like.
In many communities there are groups of people trying to find ways to encourage civil discourse. Sometimes they are church based, organizational based or sometimes they just citizens trying to make sure there is a forum for reasonable and civil conversation. We should all try to seek them out or if necessary start the conversation ourselves.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Money and Political Advertising
Think about it - $100 Million will be spent on TV advertising in New Hampshire by the primary election on Tuesday Feb. 9. $100 Million!! I don't know that particular media market well but I think there are only a few local stations that cover all of New Hampshire and then there are the stations from Boston that cover the southern portion of the state. Now that $100 Million is just New Hampshire and t's only this week. Millions more have been spent in Iowa and will be spent in So. Carolina, Nevada, etc. I even heard that Jeb Bush's Super Pac will be advertising during the Super Bowl. Think about that cost alone.
Of course this happens every Presidential election cycle and every political party and candidate takes part. In addition there's all that money spent on polling, brochures, buttons, flyers, t-shirts, etc. But I understand those dollars and their economic impact a little more clearly. Someone prints the brochures, does the polling, screen prints the shirts. These things equate into jobs done by real people and materials that need to be produced and purchased so I get that. My question is, what happens or what is produced by those millions, or more realistically billions of dollars spent on TV advertising? Producing the ads is one thing. There are real costs there. Again, people doing work and being paid for it. Those again are costs to the campaign. But what's the deal with millions to run an ad that are paid to the station?
I assume TV stations would say that those advertising charges go toward the cost of producing programing, affiliate fees, etc. Have you seen local programing recently? And who does the cost analysis on all of this? Maybe these revenues are just thrown in to a big pile and allocated over the next four years until the cycle begins all over again.
I saw something recently that indicated one of the candidates paid $500 for a short spot but a Super Pac then paid $5000 for the exact same spot. Makes you wonder if perhaps a studio upgrade is in order or if the Weather person will get a new wardrobe and perhaps some on air coaching to learn how to use that damn weather map mouse. Maybe an engineer working on the weekends would be possible instead of a co-anchor trying to bring up local news videos and failing miserably. Jewelry and makeup, haircuts and fashionable ties, all of these things could use a bit of an upgrade on my local stations. But I doubt that's where the campaign dollars go. Which leads me back to my original query. Where the heck does all that money go?
Of course this happens every Presidential election cycle and every political party and candidate takes part. In addition there's all that money spent on polling, brochures, buttons, flyers, t-shirts, etc. But I understand those dollars and their economic impact a little more clearly. Someone prints the brochures, does the polling, screen prints the shirts. These things equate into jobs done by real people and materials that need to be produced and purchased so I get that. My question is, what happens or what is produced by those millions, or more realistically billions of dollars spent on TV advertising? Producing the ads is one thing. There are real costs there. Again, people doing work and being paid for it. Those again are costs to the campaign. But what's the deal with millions to run an ad that are paid to the station?
I assume TV stations would say that those advertising charges go toward the cost of producing programing, affiliate fees, etc. Have you seen local programing recently? And who does the cost analysis on all of this? Maybe these revenues are just thrown in to a big pile and allocated over the next four years until the cycle begins all over again.
I saw something recently that indicated one of the candidates paid $500 for a short spot but a Super Pac then paid $5000 for the exact same spot. Makes you wonder if perhaps a studio upgrade is in order or if the Weather person will get a new wardrobe and perhaps some on air coaching to learn how to use that damn weather map mouse. Maybe an engineer working on the weekends would be possible instead of a co-anchor trying to bring up local news videos and failing miserably. Jewelry and makeup, haircuts and fashionable ties, all of these things could use a bit of an upgrade on my local stations. But I doubt that's where the campaign dollars go. Which leads me back to my original query. Where the heck does all that money go?
Monday, February 1, 2016
Journalism or Reality TV
I hate to generalize about the media or journalism in general, but the ongoing coverage of the presidential races forces the issue I guess. There certainly are good if not excellent journalists out there doing a terrific job of keeping people informed on issues throughout the world. Investigative reporters and commentators who dig into stories, find facts and report them without much fanfare. These professionals appear in well respected media giant as well ast in small local outlets, including daily and weekly papers.
Sadly however, the cable news networks have a much bigger presence and a louder voice it seems. CNN, MSNBC, FOX and others bombard us 24/7 with nonsensical patter and personality wars. Many of us want to stay informed on important issues and presidential politics are right up there. These huge corporate media outlets are run by a few individuals who cast a long shadow on how we get the news or opinions.
This year (actually last year & this year) started out differently from presidential races of the past. The GOP had multiple candidates, something that should have been a good thing. The Democrats also had a field of candidates that should have been viewed as a positive. But what has evolved is truly a three ring circus.
You can always expect candidates to push the envelope, to cause controversy, to stretch the truth, to state and misstate things to suit their own purposes. The political process feeds on such behavior. Historically the voting public has had to deal with that reality. Also in the past, we've been able to depend on journalists to help us clear up the fuzziness and get to the real facts. But this year has ended up being different. It seems the media, yes the main stream media, has become as enthralled and hoodwinked as everyone else with one particular candidate, a showman for sure. As a matter of fact, the showman had a reality TV show where he set contestants out to perform a showman like task, compete for money and even fundraise for favorite charities. The showman has taken that model and is using it quite effectively in the presidential election, his latest gimmick taken directly from his show, collecting millions of dollars from his wealthy friends for charities of his choice.
The media, cable news specifically, has fallen for the whole thing. Providing millions if not billions of unpaid advertising to one candidate, first treating him as a joke and then covering every move he makes. It's relentless. It goes on everyday, every night. Interviews, mostly called in to shows where the showman is allowed to say whatever he wants. There have been very view challenges to this one candidate's statements. Very few requests for how he would govern or produce the results he hammers away at in irreverent tirades. The more outrageous his comments, the more hostile, the more confrontational, the more coverage he receives.
All of this seems to be feeding on itself. Pent-up frustrations, base and simple solutions to world problems and worse. Indications of mob type behavior are emerging as where people are at. Media access is a good part of what seems to be feeding all of this. The more coverage, the more support seems to be built. Talking heads are vying for the spotlight. It will play out, but whatever happens, journalists will have played a huge role and will need to analyze that role. The public will need to look more closely at corporate journalism. But I fear there's really no turning back. Choices have been made and reality TV journalism seems to be in vogue and God help us, driving this election.
Sadly however, the cable news networks have a much bigger presence and a louder voice it seems. CNN, MSNBC, FOX and others bombard us 24/7 with nonsensical patter and personality wars. Many of us want to stay informed on important issues and presidential politics are right up there. These huge corporate media outlets are run by a few individuals who cast a long shadow on how we get the news or opinions.
This year (actually last year & this year) started out differently from presidential races of the past. The GOP had multiple candidates, something that should have been a good thing. The Democrats also had a field of candidates that should have been viewed as a positive. But what has evolved is truly a three ring circus.
You can always expect candidates to push the envelope, to cause controversy, to stretch the truth, to state and misstate things to suit their own purposes. The political process feeds on such behavior. Historically the voting public has had to deal with that reality. Also in the past, we've been able to depend on journalists to help us clear up the fuzziness and get to the real facts. But this year has ended up being different. It seems the media, yes the main stream media, has become as enthralled and hoodwinked as everyone else with one particular candidate, a showman for sure. As a matter of fact, the showman had a reality TV show where he set contestants out to perform a showman like task, compete for money and even fundraise for favorite charities. The showman has taken that model and is using it quite effectively in the presidential election, his latest gimmick taken directly from his show, collecting millions of dollars from his wealthy friends for charities of his choice.
The media, cable news specifically, has fallen for the whole thing. Providing millions if not billions of unpaid advertising to one candidate, first treating him as a joke and then covering every move he makes. It's relentless. It goes on everyday, every night. Interviews, mostly called in to shows where the showman is allowed to say whatever he wants. There have been very view challenges to this one candidate's statements. Very few requests for how he would govern or produce the results he hammers away at in irreverent tirades. The more outrageous his comments, the more hostile, the more confrontational, the more coverage he receives.
All of this seems to be feeding on itself. Pent-up frustrations, base and simple solutions to world problems and worse. Indications of mob type behavior are emerging as where people are at. Media access is a good part of what seems to be feeding all of this. The more coverage, the more support seems to be built. Talking heads are vying for the spotlight. It will play out, but whatever happens, journalists will have played a huge role and will need to analyze that role. The public will need to look more closely at corporate journalism. But I fear there's really no turning back. Choices have been made and reality TV journalism seems to be in vogue and God help us, driving this election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)