The more you trash the media, the sharper their pencils get.
Public figures are fond of bad mouthing news outlets and reporters when their shortcomings are made public.
A certain candidate today launched particularly strong tirades at reporters during a televised news conference, slapping the terms sleaze and loser aganst individual reporters.
Many politicians and corporate executives believe that those who do not advocate their views are therefore adversaries. Reporters are neither. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked.
Typically, journalists ignore fulminations and diatribes aimed at them, and refrain from using such personal attacks in their writing. If a particularly juicy verbal assault is against an opposition candidate or business competitor, however, they will report it. And when they uncover illicit activities of a candidate, they will report that, too, because it's their job. Criticism of their own news-writing ability is usually ignored, since reporters answer to their editors and not to candidates.
There comes a time, however, when a line is crossed. Smart politicians know where that line is, and know not to cross it. They recognize that reporters have their job to do, and part of that job is to probe for truth and ask tough questions.
Some, however, have not learned where that line is, or they believe they are immune from repercussions.
Today, a certain candidate, in attacking journalists in general and some individually, was asked if his attitude toward the news media would be the same if he should be elected President.
His reply: "Yes. I'm not going to change."
Here are two things this candidate should consider:
1/ Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
2/ If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Poll Cats
The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.
Telephone surveys, the method most pollsters use, is at best a guesstimate, and pollsters always hedge their results by saying a report is within several percentage points of full accuracy.
This means, for example, that if a poll is said to have a margin of error of three percentage points, and depending on which point spread you choose, either candidate can be declared the "winner" by six points, or they can be said to be tied.
So who won, really?
Even with a lead of ten points, that margin can be narrowed by selecting numbers within the margin of error spread. Other polls conducted by other agencies will often show different ranges and results.
A second factor is phrasing. What is the question, and how is it presented? Questions can be phrased to elicit answers favorable or unfavorable to any given issue. Reliable, ethical polling firms try to avoid posing slanted questions, while others deliberately phrase questions designed to prompt answers favorable to one side.
As for telephone surveys, they face a problem endemic in America today. Many young Americans do not have landlines, and laws prohibit calls to mobile devices and cell phones.
Therefore, many surveys are inherently biased toward older citizens with traditional landline telephones, and their political views are likely to be quite different from those of younger folk.
A classic example of built-in survey bias to telephone households is the presidential election of 1948. At the time, telephones were more commonly found in middle- to upper-income households than in workers' homes, so the survey population was inherently biased toward Republican candidates.
Moreover, voting places throughout the country were in many areas still open in the evening, when workers -- who leaned Democratic -- were more likely to go to polling places.
Result: The classic Chicago newspaper headline, Dewey Defeats Truman.
Telephone surveys, the method most pollsters use, is at best a guesstimate, and pollsters always hedge their results by saying a report is within several percentage points of full accuracy.
This means, for example, that if a poll is said to have a margin of error of three percentage points, and depending on which point spread you choose, either candidate can be declared the "winner" by six points, or they can be said to be tied.
So who won, really?
Even with a lead of ten points, that margin can be narrowed by selecting numbers within the margin of error spread. Other polls conducted by other agencies will often show different ranges and results.
A second factor is phrasing. What is the question, and how is it presented? Questions can be phrased to elicit answers favorable or unfavorable to any given issue. Reliable, ethical polling firms try to avoid posing slanted questions, while others deliberately phrase questions designed to prompt answers favorable to one side.
As for telephone surveys, they face a problem endemic in America today. Many young Americans do not have landlines, and laws prohibit calls to mobile devices and cell phones.
Therefore, many surveys are inherently biased toward older citizens with traditional landline telephones, and their political views are likely to be quite different from those of younger folk.
A classic example of built-in survey bias to telephone households is the presidential election of 1948. At the time, telephones were more commonly found in middle- to upper-income households than in workers' homes, so the survey population was inherently biased toward Republican candidates.
Moreover, voting places throughout the country were in many areas still open in the evening, when workers -- who leaned Democratic -- were more likely to go to polling places.
Result: The classic Chicago newspaper headline, Dewey Defeats Truman.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Journalism Jeopardy
A nation that suppresses disagreement is not truly free.
The core of a democratic society is the freedom to disagree, publicly and without fear of retaliation, especially by government.
Yet, in the name of protecting a society, some act to suppress disagreement, not only by those perceived as The Other, but journalists who report on the disagreements.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees not only freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, but also "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Emphasize "peaceably." This term is often forgotten by many who disagree, and feel their right to protest includes the right to throw stones. They are so convinced of their own righteousness that they feel free to suppress those who disagree. And this is a problem both among protesters and those they protest against.
Control of information is the first tool of a dictatorship. And the first step to acquiring that tool is to suppress disagreement. A free society, then, must allow peaceful disagreement, if that society is to remain free.
In America today, disagreement and protest have become increasingly violent. In politics, candidates urge their followers to "rough up" protesters. And from protesters alleging police misconduct comes the demand "We want justice now!" Too often, however, protesters equate justice with revenge. They are less interested in a court verdict of guilt or innocence than in punishment of the accused.
Journalism, meanwhile, is caught in the middle, as each side demands favorable reports on their tactics and behavior while opponents are portrayed as demons.
This information conflict is fanned by media outlets, most blatantly by television and radio commentators who are themselves biased, slanting their coverage to match the prejudices of their audiences.
There are exceptions, of course. Many news presenters give neutral, balanced reports of events, and when protesters, candidates or police are clearly wrong, good journalists say so, even at the risk of political retaliation.
One of the most flagrant examples of political attempts to influence news coverage was when Morley Safer reported the story of U.S. Marines torching a village in Viet Nam, destroying the homes of civilians long after any enemy soldiers had left. This prompted President Lyndon Johnson to call the chief of CBS News and demand that Safer be fired.
It didn't happen. The report was true, and the network refused the President's demand.
Just as journalists -- both print and broadcast -- must preserve and protect the right of the people to know true and accurate information, their employers must stand behind them and resist attempts to control the flow of information.
And this includes attempts by unelected demagogues as well as by self-appointed government censors.
The core of a democratic society is the freedom to disagree, publicly and without fear of retaliation, especially by government.
Yet, in the name of protecting a society, some act to suppress disagreement, not only by those perceived as The Other, but journalists who report on the disagreements.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees not only freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, but also "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Emphasize "peaceably." This term is often forgotten by many who disagree, and feel their right to protest includes the right to throw stones. They are so convinced of their own righteousness that they feel free to suppress those who disagree. And this is a problem both among protesters and those they protest against.
Control of information is the first tool of a dictatorship. And the first step to acquiring that tool is to suppress disagreement. A free society, then, must allow peaceful disagreement, if that society is to remain free.
In America today, disagreement and protest have become increasingly violent. In politics, candidates urge their followers to "rough up" protesters. And from protesters alleging police misconduct comes the demand "We want justice now!" Too often, however, protesters equate justice with revenge. They are less interested in a court verdict of guilt or innocence than in punishment of the accused.
Journalism, meanwhile, is caught in the middle, as each side demands favorable reports on their tactics and behavior while opponents are portrayed as demons.
This information conflict is fanned by media outlets, most blatantly by television and radio commentators who are themselves biased, slanting their coverage to match the prejudices of their audiences.
There are exceptions, of course. Many news presenters give neutral, balanced reports of events, and when protesters, candidates or police are clearly wrong, good journalists say so, even at the risk of political retaliation.
One of the most flagrant examples of political attempts to influence news coverage was when Morley Safer reported the story of U.S. Marines torching a village in Viet Nam, destroying the homes of civilians long after any enemy soldiers had left. This prompted President Lyndon Johnson to call the chief of CBS News and demand that Safer be fired.
It didn't happen. The report was true, and the network refused the President's demand.
Just as journalists -- both print and broadcast -- must preserve and protect the right of the people to know true and accurate information, their employers must stand behind them and resist attempts to control the flow of information.
And this includes attempts by unelected demagogues as well as by self-appointed government censors.
Silly Questions
If ifs and ans were pots and pans, we'd have no use for tinkers. -- Irish proverb
"The saddest words of tongue or pen, are just these four:
It might have been." -- Rudyard Kipling
Interviewers are fond of asking questions that no sensible political candidate would answer. That assumes, however, that the candidate is, in fact, sensible. Even so, the questions are seldom answered directly, if at all.
Example question number 1: "If you knew then what you know now, would you have ,,, ":
Sensible answer: "But I didn't know then what I know now. I made decisions based on information available at the time. Information that became available months or years later may or may not have influenced any decisions. There's no way of knowing what might have been."
Example question number 2: ""If you don't win the nomination, will you support whoever the nominee is?"
Sensible answer: "That question opens the possibility that I will lose. I didn't enter this contest with the intention of losing. My goal is to win, so any question based on the likelihood of losing is unanswerable."
Follow-up question: "Yes, but what if you do lose?"
Answer: "I'll deal with that remote possibility if it ever happens. Meanwhile, my goal is to win."
"The saddest words of tongue or pen, are just these four:
It might have been." -- Rudyard Kipling
Interviewers are fond of asking questions that no sensible political candidate would answer. That assumes, however, that the candidate is, in fact, sensible. Even so, the questions are seldom answered directly, if at all.
Example question number 1: "If you knew then what you know now, would you have ,,, ":
Sensible answer: "But I didn't know then what I know now. I made decisions based on information available at the time. Information that became available months or years later may or may not have influenced any decisions. There's no way of knowing what might have been."
Example question number 2: ""If you don't win the nomination, will you support whoever the nominee is?"
Sensible answer: "That question opens the possibility that I will lose. I didn't enter this contest with the intention of losing. My goal is to win, so any question based on the likelihood of losing is unanswerable."
Follow-up question: "Yes, but what if you do lose?"
Answer: "I'll deal with that remote possibility if it ever happens. Meanwhile, my goal is to win."
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Choices
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray, 1742
"Fools rush in where wise men never go." -- Johnny Mercer
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Barry Goldwater election campaign slogan, 1964.
One would like to think that most people vote with their heads, not their hearts. One would like to think that. However, one would very likely be mistaken.
Voters too often decide based on a likeability quotient, and cite such reasons as "I just like him, that's all." Or they say "He tells it like it is." Or voters insist that the candidate "doesn't take any crap from any body."
Candidates whose speeches stress emotional appeal over policy specifics regularly do better in elections than the "pointy headed liberals" assailed by conservative politicians such as Republican Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama. By stressing the "pointy headed" aspect of the opposition, candidates suggest that intellectualism is a fault. That tactic was used to help defeat Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat who lost twice to Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.
Some may claim that Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 had a higher emphasis on emotion over intellect ("In your heart, you know he's right.") compared to President Lyndon B. Johnson, but the Democratic incumbent's advantage was subtle, playing on the memory of his slain predecessor, John T. Kennedy, combined with the slogan, "Let us continue."
The current presidential election campaign shows a return of those tactics, as one candidate emphasizes experience and policy specifics, while the other relies heavily on personal attacks implying -- and often specifically saying -- opponents are stupid, or crooked, or lying, or any of several other negative personal characteristics, while avoiding specifics or even proclaiming as fact many things that are easily proven false.
Unfortunately, the True Believers readily accept the words of their Glorious Leader over more reliable information available from neutral fact checking organizations and journalists.
"Fools rush in where wise men never go." -- Johnny Mercer
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Barry Goldwater election campaign slogan, 1964.
One would like to think that most people vote with their heads, not their hearts. One would like to think that. However, one would very likely be mistaken.
Voters too often decide based on a likeability quotient, and cite such reasons as "I just like him, that's all." Or they say "He tells it like it is." Or voters insist that the candidate "doesn't take any crap from any body."
Candidates whose speeches stress emotional appeal over policy specifics regularly do better in elections than the "pointy headed liberals" assailed by conservative politicians such as Republican Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama. By stressing the "pointy headed" aspect of the opposition, candidates suggest that intellectualism is a fault. That tactic was used to help defeat Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat who lost twice to Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.
Some may claim that Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 had a higher emphasis on emotion over intellect ("In your heart, you know he's right.") compared to President Lyndon B. Johnson, but the Democratic incumbent's advantage was subtle, playing on the memory of his slain predecessor, John T. Kennedy, combined with the slogan, "Let us continue."
The current presidential election campaign shows a return of those tactics, as one candidate emphasizes experience and policy specifics, while the other relies heavily on personal attacks implying -- and often specifically saying -- opponents are stupid, or crooked, or lying, or any of several other negative personal characteristics, while avoiding specifics or even proclaiming as fact many things that are easily proven false.
Unfortunately, the True Believers readily accept the words of their Glorious Leader over more reliable information available from neutral fact checking organizations and journalists.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Equal Time and the Internet
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (America in the 1960s), radio and television stations were required to provide equal time to political candidates, lest they incur the wrath of the Federal Communications Commission and face losing their license.
Regularly scheduled news programs, however, were exempt from this rule, lest the government fun afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.
The equal time rule was set in the early days of radio, when many media markets had only one broadcast facility. Eventually, as stations proliferated and listeners had more choices, the rule was abandoned as no longer necessary.
Formerly, candidates with less money for ad buys could not compete with well-heeled competitors who could dominate the airwaves. In addition, sympathetic station owners would freeze out some candidates in favor of those with similar political views. Therefore, the equal time rule was essential to guarantee the spread of differing views.
The rule never applied to print media, however, because government did not have the leverage of licensing to force compliance. The idea of licensing or taxing newspapers went out in the 18th Century and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Broadcasting, however, was different, since the airwaves were deemed to be public, and someone had to decide who could use what portion of the broadcast spectrum, and for what purpose. That task fell to government and the FCC, which then allocated sections of the broadcast spectrum to various uses and users.
Commercial radio stations, for example, were assigned to different positions along the frequency spectrum of 530 to 1600 kilocycles. Police, military and amateur radio enthusiasts as well as international broadcasters operated on different assigned frequency ranges.
Along the way, international agreements set up arrangements as to who could broadcast on what frequency. In all, government regulation was needed to prevent chaos, and licensing was the cudgel to enforce order.
Then came television, and the equal time rule, coupled with the so-called fairness doctrine, combined to ensure all sides of an issue were discussed. One problem with that, however, was that there could be more than two or three opinions on an issue, not all of them equally valid. There was no room for editorial judgment, and no way to filter out crackpot theories. Consequently, some broadcast facilities opted for a third choice -- rather than present the two major sides, they chose none of the above, rather than be accused of propagandizing for one party, demonizing another and ignoring a third.
The little time allocated to news consisted largely of a five-minute segment at the top of each hour, thus filling the licensing requirement that the station serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. What's more, these short news segments were not subject to the equal time rule.
Then came cable television providers who, because they were not broadcasters using public airwaves, were not subject to the strictness of close FCC supervision, even though they did have to comply with local franchise regulation.
Broadcast stations, however, still had to abide by FCC rules.
So as the industry grew, saturating the market with radio, TV and cable outlets offering an ever-wider range of news, opinion and entertainment programming, the equal time rule and the fairness doctrine were no longer needed. Listeners and viewers had the ultimate consumer choice -- turn the dial or change the channel. One problem with that, however, is that people tend to focus on programmers, commentators and presenters whose approach to news and information coincides with their own. They are no longer exposed to neutral or opposing views.
This problem, by the way, is endemic in Congress, unlike years past when politicians who disagree strongly with each other during formal debates, socialized in friendly fashions in their off hours.
Today, the Internet enables anyone with a computer to vent opinions and to slant information to a worldwide audience. This has both benefits and drawbacks. For one thing, there is no editorial or government supervision, filtering or censorship. Conscientious and competent editors can filter out the more outlandish claims and dangerous propaganda. But this same lack of filtering enables the few to post their wildest ideas to the many. At the same time, this lack of filtering prevents government or corporate censorship and control of content.
At least, this is true in America and many other advanced nations, but not in others, where government control of information is strong.
So freedom of the press -- including Internet communication -- has both good and unpleasant aspects. It's up to individuals to do their own filtering, to consider the relative merits of one TV, radio or Internet personality's content, and either accept it as true or reject it, just as readers of newspapers and magazines exercise this choice of believing or not believing what appears in print.
People have long done this with newspapers, magazines and broadcast commentators (remember Walter Winchell, Paul Harvey and Drew Pearson?) -- choosing which to believe. The same is done today, as TV viewers select from among commentators such as Bill O'Reilly on the conservative Fox network, or Rachel Maddow, the liberal voice on MSNBC. Or neither of the above, and they tune to the nightly broadcast network news program on CBS, ABC or NBC.
There certainly have been, and will be, many changes in how news outlets operate, and the soaring rise of social media on the computerized Internet will cause many of these changes.
But newspapers are not likely to ever die. Some 80 years ago, it was said that radio would kill newspapers. It didn't. Later, it was said that television would kill newspapers. It didn't. Now we hear predictions that the Internet will kill newspapers. It won't.
Communication is a wonderful thing, and the more information more people have on more issues, the better society will be. There will always be a radical few who will attempt to control the free flow of information, and thereby control the many. And for all its faults, the Internet and its capacity to transmit vast amounts of information to more millions of people, the better for all.
Meanwhile, the old saying still applies: Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Or anywhere else.
Regularly scheduled news programs, however, were exempt from this rule, lest the government fun afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.
The equal time rule was set in the early days of radio, when many media markets had only one broadcast facility. Eventually, as stations proliferated and listeners had more choices, the rule was abandoned as no longer necessary.
Formerly, candidates with less money for ad buys could not compete with well-heeled competitors who could dominate the airwaves. In addition, sympathetic station owners would freeze out some candidates in favor of those with similar political views. Therefore, the equal time rule was essential to guarantee the spread of differing views.
The rule never applied to print media, however, because government did not have the leverage of licensing to force compliance. The idea of licensing or taxing newspapers went out in the 18th Century and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Broadcasting, however, was different, since the airwaves were deemed to be public, and someone had to decide who could use what portion of the broadcast spectrum, and for what purpose. That task fell to government and the FCC, which then allocated sections of the broadcast spectrum to various uses and users.
Commercial radio stations, for example, were assigned to different positions along the frequency spectrum of 530 to 1600 kilocycles. Police, military and amateur radio enthusiasts as well as international broadcasters operated on different assigned frequency ranges.
Along the way, international agreements set up arrangements as to who could broadcast on what frequency. In all, government regulation was needed to prevent chaos, and licensing was the cudgel to enforce order.
Then came television, and the equal time rule, coupled with the so-called fairness doctrine, combined to ensure all sides of an issue were discussed. One problem with that, however, was that there could be more than two or three opinions on an issue, not all of them equally valid. There was no room for editorial judgment, and no way to filter out crackpot theories. Consequently, some broadcast facilities opted for a third choice -- rather than present the two major sides, they chose none of the above, rather than be accused of propagandizing for one party, demonizing another and ignoring a third.
The little time allocated to news consisted largely of a five-minute segment at the top of each hour, thus filling the licensing requirement that the station serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. What's more, these short news segments were not subject to the equal time rule.
Then came cable television providers who, because they were not broadcasters using public airwaves, were not subject to the strictness of close FCC supervision, even though they did have to comply with local franchise regulation.
Broadcast stations, however, still had to abide by FCC rules.
So as the industry grew, saturating the market with radio, TV and cable outlets offering an ever-wider range of news, opinion and entertainment programming, the equal time rule and the fairness doctrine were no longer needed. Listeners and viewers had the ultimate consumer choice -- turn the dial or change the channel. One problem with that, however, is that people tend to focus on programmers, commentators and presenters whose approach to news and information coincides with their own. They are no longer exposed to neutral or opposing views.
This problem, by the way, is endemic in Congress, unlike years past when politicians who disagree strongly with each other during formal debates, socialized in friendly fashions in their off hours.
Today, the Internet enables anyone with a computer to vent opinions and to slant information to a worldwide audience. This has both benefits and drawbacks. For one thing, there is no editorial or government supervision, filtering or censorship. Conscientious and competent editors can filter out the more outlandish claims and dangerous propaganda. But this same lack of filtering enables the few to post their wildest ideas to the many. At the same time, this lack of filtering prevents government or corporate censorship and control of content.
At least, this is true in America and many other advanced nations, but not in others, where government control of information is strong.
So freedom of the press -- including Internet communication -- has both good and unpleasant aspects. It's up to individuals to do their own filtering, to consider the relative merits of one TV, radio or Internet personality's content, and either accept it as true or reject it, just as readers of newspapers and magazines exercise this choice of believing or not believing what appears in print.
People have long done this with newspapers, magazines and broadcast commentators (remember Walter Winchell, Paul Harvey and Drew Pearson?) -- choosing which to believe. The same is done today, as TV viewers select from among commentators such as Bill O'Reilly on the conservative Fox network, or Rachel Maddow, the liberal voice on MSNBC. Or neither of the above, and they tune to the nightly broadcast network news program on CBS, ABC or NBC.
There certainly have been, and will be, many changes in how news outlets operate, and the soaring rise of social media on the computerized Internet will cause many of these changes.
But newspapers are not likely to ever die. Some 80 years ago, it was said that radio would kill newspapers. It didn't. Later, it was said that television would kill newspapers. It didn't. Now we hear predictions that the Internet will kill newspapers. It won't.
Communication is a wonderful thing, and the more information more people have on more issues, the better society will be. There will always be a radical few who will attempt to control the free flow of information, and thereby control the many. And for all its faults, the Internet and its capacity to transmit vast amounts of information to more millions of people, the better for all.
Meanwhile, the old saying still applies: Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Or anywhere else.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Changng Times
News item: The New York Times is reducing its newsroom staff again as digital distribution gains.
Many believe the primary function of a newspaper is to inform the public. That's not quite true. A newspaper is a business, and while distributing information is a major function, the primary goal is to make money for the publisher. And the main source of revenue is advertising.
Without readers, of course, there would be no advertisers, so in a sense the two departments -- news and advertising -- are co-equals. The first attracts readers, who in turn attract advertisers, who bring in the money that pays reporters' salaries, printers' wages, press room expenses, clerical payrolls and other expenses. The cover price, moreover, barely pays for the newsprint the publication is printed on.
Meanwhile, the digital age of computers, interconnected in a worldwide web of information sources, is eroding the prime revenue source for news outlets. Result: Many are refocusing their efforts from print publications to digital distribution methods. Along the way, newsrooms are reducing their staff levels for print publications and expanding their staff in the new technology.
This doesn't mean that the new journalists are any less expert in covering the news. Rather, the distribution method for the information has changed. At root, the newsgathering process starts, as always, with a reporter and a notebook, who then goes to a keyboard to write the story. That's where technology takes over, so the public benefits from the availability of more information, sooner, faster and more complete than ever before.
It is also true that some advertisers, believing that they help to pay reporters' salaries, expect favorable treatment and threaten to cancel ads if they don't get their way. A good response to that, however, is to remind the advertiser that if he can influence coverage, so can his competitor.
In any case, as a newspaper loses its independence in covering the news, it loses readers. As readers leave, so do other advertisers, and thus revenue goes down and the publication goes out of business. That may be fine with the aggressive advertiser who demands favorable treatment, thus enabling him to start his own publication, which becomes little more than a marketing sheet without objective and neutral news coverage.
No readers, no advertisers. No ads, no revenue. No revenue, and the business fails.
Readers quickly recognize that the reports are slanted and biased, so they go to other sources of information.
Meanwhile, too many politicians and corporate executives confuse "fair" with "favorable." They believe that when news outlets report negative or unfavorable items, they are being "unfair." The reality, however, is that good reporters and editors are neutral. They don't care about the opinions of a politician or corporate executive. Their concern is finding and writing up a good story. And in the real world, readers care more about bad news than other kinds.
A Constitutionally guaranteed free press means that someone who is unhappy with coverage of his activities is free to start his own publication, or to buy an existing newspaper and demand that reporters and editors hew to the new owner's guidelines.
Recent events have led to the suspicion that the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who recently bought the Las Vegas Review Journal, has been pressuring reporters and editors to back off on coverage of the new owner's activities, and refocus their efforts with investigative reports on those he perceives as his adversaries.
The new publisher and the new editor, both appointed by Adelson, deny any such influence, but the evidence is clear enough for several reporters to resign.
It is true, of course, that in a free press society any newspaper owner can stipulate how and whether any particular story is handled, and can hire journalists sympathetic to his views to report and write stories favorable to his friends and critical of those who are not.
Historically, this was far more common in the 19th Century than today. But times have changed. News and information sources are far more in number as well as faster in their ability to spread news as well as gossip and rumor.
An important difference, however, is that responsible and independent news outlets, both print and broadcast as well as electronic, have thoughtful and neutral reporters and editors to filter out the propaganda and to expose the lies, half truths and innuendos so popular among those who seek to mold public opinion to their views.
Many believe the primary function of a newspaper is to inform the public. That's not quite true. A newspaper is a business, and while distributing information is a major function, the primary goal is to make money for the publisher. And the main source of revenue is advertising.
Without readers, of course, there would be no advertisers, so in a sense the two departments -- news and advertising -- are co-equals. The first attracts readers, who in turn attract advertisers, who bring in the money that pays reporters' salaries, printers' wages, press room expenses, clerical payrolls and other expenses. The cover price, moreover, barely pays for the newsprint the publication is printed on.
Meanwhile, the digital age of computers, interconnected in a worldwide web of information sources, is eroding the prime revenue source for news outlets. Result: Many are refocusing their efforts from print publications to digital distribution methods. Along the way, newsrooms are reducing their staff levels for print publications and expanding their staff in the new technology.
This doesn't mean that the new journalists are any less expert in covering the news. Rather, the distribution method for the information has changed. At root, the newsgathering process starts, as always, with a reporter and a notebook, who then goes to a keyboard to write the story. That's where technology takes over, so the public benefits from the availability of more information, sooner, faster and more complete than ever before.
It is also true that some advertisers, believing that they help to pay reporters' salaries, expect favorable treatment and threaten to cancel ads if they don't get their way. A good response to that, however, is to remind the advertiser that if he can influence coverage, so can his competitor.
In any case, as a newspaper loses its independence in covering the news, it loses readers. As readers leave, so do other advertisers, and thus revenue goes down and the publication goes out of business. That may be fine with the aggressive advertiser who demands favorable treatment, thus enabling him to start his own publication, which becomes little more than a marketing sheet without objective and neutral news coverage.
No readers, no advertisers. No ads, no revenue. No revenue, and the business fails.
Readers quickly recognize that the reports are slanted and biased, so they go to other sources of information.
Meanwhile, too many politicians and corporate executives confuse "fair" with "favorable." They believe that when news outlets report negative or unfavorable items, they are being "unfair." The reality, however, is that good reporters and editors are neutral. They don't care about the opinions of a politician or corporate executive. Their concern is finding and writing up a good story. And in the real world, readers care more about bad news than other kinds.
A Constitutionally guaranteed free press means that someone who is unhappy with coverage of his activities is free to start his own publication, or to buy an existing newspaper and demand that reporters and editors hew to the new owner's guidelines.
Recent events have led to the suspicion that the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who recently bought the Las Vegas Review Journal, has been pressuring reporters and editors to back off on coverage of the new owner's activities, and refocus their efforts with investigative reports on those he perceives as his adversaries.
The new publisher and the new editor, both appointed by Adelson, deny any such influence, but the evidence is clear enough for several reporters to resign.
It is true, of course, that in a free press society any newspaper owner can stipulate how and whether any particular story is handled, and can hire journalists sympathetic to his views to report and write stories favorable to his friends and critical of those who are not.
Historically, this was far more common in the 19th Century than today. But times have changed. News and information sources are far more in number as well as faster in their ability to spread news as well as gossip and rumor.
An important difference, however, is that responsible and independent news outlets, both print and broadcast as well as electronic, have thoughtful and neutral reporters and editors to filter out the propaganda and to expose the lies, half truths and innuendos so popular among those who seek to mold public opinion to their views.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
What Recovery?
Seven years into recovery from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, many Americans say they still face problems.
Nearly half the families surveyed by the Federal Reserve Board said they would struggle to meet emergency expenses. What's more, many Americans with a family income of less than $40,000 don't have bank accounts, according to the survey, which was conducted before last Christmas.
"Despite some signs of improvement overall," said Lael Brainard, a member of the Fed's Board of Governors, 46 percent of those surveyed admitted "they would struggle to meet emergency expenses of $400, and 22 percent of workers say they are juggling two or more jobs."
So while broader statistics dealing with output and employment have been reporting economic growth, however slow, "not all groups report improvement in their financial well-being," a Fed statement said.
Those with higher levels of education were most likely to say they did better in 2015. Even so, only 31 percent of those with at least a bachelor's degree reported an improvement in their status, the survey said, and 15 percent posted a decline.
And among those with a high-school degree or less, according to the statement, only 22 percent said their well-being improved over the previous 12 months, and 21 percent said they were worse off.
In short, Brainard noted, the survey results "shed important light on the economic and financial security of American families." It's important to find the reasons why so many families face continued financial struggles," she added, "and to find ways to help them overcome them."
Nearly half the families surveyed by the Federal Reserve Board said they would struggle to meet emergency expenses. What's more, many Americans with a family income of less than $40,000 don't have bank accounts, according to the survey, which was conducted before last Christmas.
"Despite some signs of improvement overall," said Lael Brainard, a member of the Fed's Board of Governors, 46 percent of those surveyed admitted "they would struggle to meet emergency expenses of $400, and 22 percent of workers say they are juggling two or more jobs."
So while broader statistics dealing with output and employment have been reporting economic growth, however slow, "not all groups report improvement in their financial well-being," a Fed statement said.
Those with higher levels of education were most likely to say they did better in 2015. Even so, only 31 percent of those with at least a bachelor's degree reported an improvement in their status, the survey said, and 15 percent posted a decline.
And among those with a high-school degree or less, according to the statement, only 22 percent said their well-being improved over the previous 12 months, and 21 percent said they were worse off.
In short, Brainard noted, the survey results "shed important light on the economic and financial security of American families." It's important to find the reasons why so many families face continued financial struggles," she added, "and to find ways to help them overcome them."
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Political Seance
In the dreamy world of political hope, people seek solutions, and candidates feed that hope with stardust muffins. But as the Hoagy Carmichael song, with lyrics by Mitchell Parish, suggests, the melody that haunts memory conjures a dream that once was new. But while that was long ago, people still cling to hope. And that could be for the love of his life, a person or a job he had planned for but is no longer there for him.
Successful campaigners, like popular songwriters, play on these hopes and dreams, conducting their audiences into the voting booth of nostalgia, thus transposing minor melodies into major marches for progress.
Does this strategy work? Often, yes. The art of speaking can be a symphonic oratorio to entrance many thousands of supporters.
Some of the most powerful leaders of the 20th Century were spellbinding orators, and included Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Such a list may also include such men as Huey Long, George Corley Wallace, or several European demagogues and dictators.
So while a powerful speaker can be at once entertaining and entrancing and a force for good, that speaker can also be capable of entrapment.
A responsible audience, therefore, must listen carefully, not only to the music but also to the message. Too often, the music and the cadence can be hypnotic, as the skilled orator buries the message -- such as it may be -- in the music, thus leading an uncritical audience down a primrose path to a tangled field of poisonous ivy.
Successful campaigners, like popular songwriters, play on these hopes and dreams, conducting their audiences into the voting booth of nostalgia, thus transposing minor melodies into major marches for progress.
Does this strategy work? Often, yes. The art of speaking can be a symphonic oratorio to entrance many thousands of supporters.
Some of the most powerful leaders of the 20th Century were spellbinding orators, and included Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Such a list may also include such men as Huey Long, George Corley Wallace, or several European demagogues and dictators.
So while a powerful speaker can be at once entertaining and entrancing and a force for good, that speaker can also be capable of entrapment.
A responsible audience, therefore, must listen carefully, not only to the music but also to the message. Too often, the music and the cadence can be hypnotic, as the skilled orator buries the message -- such as it may be -- in the music, thus leading an uncritical audience down a primrose path to a tangled field of poisonous ivy.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Nicknames
Blaming others does not cleanse the blamer.
Most folks bestow nicknames on others as a gesture of affection. Some, however, especially those in a position of authority or celebrity, use nicknames to disparage others, thereby enhancing their own egos.
Those who are secure in themselves respect others, and feel no need to remind subordinates that they are superior. They don't know the difference between subordinate and subservient.
Often, the stronger the negative nickname, the weaker the security sense of the one who casts the nickname. Moreover, insecure people use such tactics to cover up things they refuse to admit of themselves.
For example, those who accuse others of shortcomings may in fact have those same issues, so accusing others becomes a cover for their own failings.
The persistent use of negative nicknames thus transfers a character flaw away from the nicknamer and onto the target.
In the current political season in America, we have heard such nicknames as Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Weak Jeb, and Crooked Hillary, used more often and louder as substantive issues are ignored.
Consider: Focusing on alleged flaws among others can be a ploy to cover up those same flaws that the nicknamer himself has but will not acknowledge.
Blaming others does not cleanse the blamer.
Most folks bestow nicknames on others as a gesture of affection. Some, however, especially those in a position of authority or celebrity, use nicknames to disparage others, thereby enhancing their own egos.
Those who are secure in themselves respect others, and feel no need to remind subordinates that they are superior. They don't know the difference between subordinate and subservient.
Often, the stronger the negative nickname, the weaker the security sense of the one who casts the nickname. Moreover, insecure people use such tactics to cover up things they refuse to admit of themselves.
For example, those who accuse others of shortcomings may in fact have those same issues, so accusing others becomes a cover for their own failings.
The persistent use of negative nicknames thus transfers a character flaw away from the nicknamer and onto the target.
In the current political season in America, we have heard such nicknames as Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Weak Jeb, and Crooked Hillary, used more often and louder as substantive issues are ignored.
Consider: Focusing on alleged flaws among others can be a ploy to cover up those same flaws that the nicknamer himself has but will not acknowledge.
Blaming others does not cleanse the blamer.
The Politics of Fear
The Know Nothing Party has returned to American politics. This time, the target of anti-immigrant bigotry is not the Irish Catholics of the mid-19th Century, but Hispanics and Muslims. The "Others," the ones who "don't look like us," who will never be able to become "Real Americans."
But how long does that take? How many generations does it take for a family to become "Real Americans"? According to so-called nativists and their favored candidates, only "real Americans" are entitled to be here, and those whose arrival was in any way questionable should be sent back to where they came from, regardless of the turmoil in that country.
Meanwhile, anti-immigrant groups are also gaining strength in Britain, France, Germany and several other major European countries, for similar reasons that activate the "America First" sentiments here. In fact, one group of partisans in Europe calls itself the "Austria First" party.
For years, the violence of "Paki-bashing" was done mainly by street gangs in Britain, but now anti-immigrant prejudice is spreading with opportunistic politicians fomenting such bigotry to gain favor with voters and win office.
If the label of "Real American" is to be applied only to those whose families have been here longest, then only those native tribes who were here before Columbus would qualify. All other Europeans, Asians, Canadians and newcomers from Central and South America would be banned, and their descendants already here would be sent back to where their great-great-great-grandparents came from.
That, however, would take a Constitutional amendment to rescind the provision -- approved just after the Civil War -- which specifies that those born here are citizens. Specifically, Amendment XIV, ratified in July, 1868, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And while it may have been originally intended to protect those born in slavery, it also applies to anyone born here. The exception would be those born to members of the international diplomatic corps who, as accredited diplomats and citizens of another nation, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Even so, lawyers will argue that there are some exceptions to what's known as diplomatic immunity.
But how long does that take? How many generations does it take for a family to become "Real Americans"? According to so-called nativists and their favored candidates, only "real Americans" are entitled to be here, and those whose arrival was in any way questionable should be sent back to where they came from, regardless of the turmoil in that country.
Meanwhile, anti-immigrant groups are also gaining strength in Britain, France, Germany and several other major European countries, for similar reasons that activate the "America First" sentiments here. In fact, one group of partisans in Europe calls itself the "Austria First" party.
For years, the violence of "Paki-bashing" was done mainly by street gangs in Britain, but now anti-immigrant prejudice is spreading with opportunistic politicians fomenting such bigotry to gain favor with voters and win office.
If the label of "Real American" is to be applied only to those whose families have been here longest, then only those native tribes who were here before Columbus would qualify. All other Europeans, Asians, Canadians and newcomers from Central and South America would be banned, and their descendants already here would be sent back to where their great-great-great-grandparents came from.
That, however, would take a Constitutional amendment to rescind the provision -- approved just after the Civil War -- which specifies that those born here are citizens. Specifically, Amendment XIV, ratified in July, 1868, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And while it may have been originally intended to protect those born in slavery, it also applies to anyone born here. The exception would be those born to members of the international diplomatic corps who, as accredited diplomats and citizens of another nation, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Even so, lawyers will argue that there are some exceptions to what's known as diplomatic immunity.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Health Care Hypocrisy
When we do something, it's good. When you do it, it's evil.
Health care is too important to be left entirely to the profit-based private sector.
For all the fuss when government-mandated health insurance was being introduced, very little opposition was heard from the insurance industry.
No surprise, since the industry was being offered a massive new customer base, with a government subsidy for those who could not afford the market rate.
In short, the law says you must buy insurance, and if you have a problem, the government will help you pay for it. Thus, government subsidizes private industry.
Moreover, the Democrat plan put in place by the Obama Administration was modeled almost completely on the Massachusetts program set up by Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican.
Yet Republicans derided the Democrat plan proposed at the federal level as an interference with private enterprise and an assault on individual rights.
Odd that they had no such objections to similar plans set up by Republicans. But then, the GOP was not getting credit for the program.
Now, however, come reports that several companies are dropping out of the health insurance market in various states because it's no longer profitable for them to do business in those states.
Could it be that they were unable to raise rates, despite higher income from an increased customer base as well as a government subsidy?
At the core of any insurance plan is the concept of spreading the risk of loss. That is, the more people who pay into the pool, the lower the risk for the carrier. In theory, the greater the client base, the lower the risk. Therefore. the individual policy cost should be lower.
Nonetheless, the companies insist that since they have to pay out more in claims, they need higher premiums, despite greater income from a greater number of customers, plus the government subsidy.
Figure filberts and number nuts, in the guise of accountants and statisticians, trot out reams of data to support their companies' insistence that they deserve more money in premiums because they pay out more in claims
Whatever happened to the lower risk to larger customer base ratio?
Health care is too important to be left entirely to the profit-based private sector.
For all the fuss when government-mandated health insurance was being introduced, very little opposition was heard from the insurance industry.
No surprise, since the industry was being offered a massive new customer base, with a government subsidy for those who could not afford the market rate.
In short, the law says you must buy insurance, and if you have a problem, the government will help you pay for it. Thus, government subsidizes private industry.
Moreover, the Democrat plan put in place by the Obama Administration was modeled almost completely on the Massachusetts program set up by Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican.
Yet Republicans derided the Democrat plan proposed at the federal level as an interference with private enterprise and an assault on individual rights.
Odd that they had no such objections to similar plans set up by Republicans. But then, the GOP was not getting credit for the program.
Now, however, come reports that several companies are dropping out of the health insurance market in various states because it's no longer profitable for them to do business in those states.
Could it be that they were unable to raise rates, despite higher income from an increased customer base as well as a government subsidy?
At the core of any insurance plan is the concept of spreading the risk of loss. That is, the more people who pay into the pool, the lower the risk for the carrier. In theory, the greater the client base, the lower the risk. Therefore. the individual policy cost should be lower.
Nonetheless, the companies insist that since they have to pay out more in claims, they need higher premiums, despite greater income from a greater number of customers, plus the government subsidy.
Figure filberts and number nuts, in the guise of accountants and statisticians, trot out reams of data to support their companies' insistence that they deserve more money in premiums because they pay out more in claims
Whatever happened to the lower risk to larger customer base ratio?
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Clinton Republicans
Remember Reagan Democrats, the disaffected liberals who supported the Republican Ronald Reagan?
Now we have a growing number of Clinton Republicans, who will vote Democratic because it would pain them so much to support Donald Trump.
Among other things, these staunch conservatives cite the presumptive GOP nominee's arrogance, ignorance, vagueness, exaggerations and flat-out lies about his plans and policies (?), as well as his bullying insults and vilification of anyone who dares to disagree with him or question him for details of his allegations and proposals.
It's a spreading quandary. Many Republicans dislike the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton, but it would hurt too much to vote for Trump. It's an old principle in candidate selection. People vote not so much for one candidate as they vote against the other guy.
Now we have a growing number of Clinton Republicans, who will vote Democratic because it would pain them so much to support Donald Trump.
Among other things, these staunch conservatives cite the presumptive GOP nominee's arrogance, ignorance, vagueness, exaggerations and flat-out lies about his plans and policies (?), as well as his bullying insults and vilification of anyone who dares to disagree with him or question him for details of his allegations and proposals.
It's a spreading quandary. Many Republicans dislike the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton, but it would hurt too much to vote for Trump. It's an old principle in candidate selection. People vote not so much for one candidate as they vote against the other guy.
Wealth and Worth
So how much is You Know Who really worth, and why should we care?
The size of a candidate's wealth does not matter any more than the size of anything else about him matters. What does matter is whether the candidate, if elected, will be beholden to others, to the detriment of the general public, and that is the rationale behind the custom of seeing details of a candidate's personal finances.
Wolf Pack Journalism
Too many journalists are followers. They chase after the easy targets in search of a "juicy" story, one that an editor once said should "sizzle."
There's often a thin line between news and gossip, and that's why so many reporters focus on robberies, shootings, fires, crime or loud-mouthed politicians.
Or as another editor once noted, "If it bleeds, it leads." Such stories go on Page One, while others with more important economic, governmental or political consequences are relegated to inside pages.
It's true, of course, that some folks are interested mainly in politics, business and economics, while others prefer to know what Hollywood celebrities are up to.
Somewhere, however, there is a balance, and a conscientious news outlet tries to provide all elements to readers and viewers.
At the same time, it's true that many general assignment reporters feel that writing on business and economic stories is "too hard." They prefer to chase after the easy, colorful, dramatic stories such as fires, crime and talkative celebrities and politicians who yammer on about their own alleged greatness while evading the business of government. One difference, of course, is that politics is about getting elected. Government is about getting something done.
But the more important stories are often not what the wolf pack is chasing, but what's happening on the fringe of the social field. It's up to reporters and writers to spark interest in an important story.
There's often a thin line between news and gossip, and that's why so many reporters focus on robberies, shootings, fires, crime or loud-mouthed politicians.
Or as another editor once noted, "If it bleeds, it leads." Such stories go on Page One, while others with more important economic, governmental or political consequences are relegated to inside pages.
It's true, of course, that some folks are interested mainly in politics, business and economics, while others prefer to know what Hollywood celebrities are up to.
Somewhere, however, there is a balance, and a conscientious news outlet tries to provide all elements to readers and viewers.
At the same time, it's true that many general assignment reporters feel that writing on business and economic stories is "too hard." They prefer to chase after the easy, colorful, dramatic stories such as fires, crime and talkative celebrities and politicians who yammer on about their own alleged greatness while evading the business of government. One difference, of course, is that politics is about getting elected. Government is about getting something done.
But the more important stories are often not what the wolf pack is chasing, but what's happening on the fringe of the social field. It's up to reporters and writers to spark interest in an important story.
Monday, May 16, 2016
A Taxing Problem
A columnist referred to the public release of tax returns as "a prerequisite for anyone running for the White House."
Not so. There is no Constitutional or legal mandate that any candidate make his or her tax returns public. It has been customary since Gerald Ford voluntarily released his, following the IRS proof that Richard Nixon filed a false return. As for the writer's defense that releasing one's tax information "has become a prerequisite in the modern era," that still does not mean such action is mandatory or necessary.
Want a dictionary definition? Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1958 edition, uses the term "necessary" before some other action. And the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary says "necessary in advance," citing the first use in print as the year 1633.
The U.S. Constitution of 1789 makes no mention of a candidate's tax status in listing qualifications for the office of President, since federal income taxes did not exist at the time. Not until the early 20th Century was the Internal Revenue Service established. And the tradition of presidential candidates making their tax returns public did not begin until another 50 years went by.
Since the days of Richard Nixon, such action has been customary, so in a very general sense -- in that all other candidates do it -- it has become required by custom. It is not, however, mandated by law or by the Constitution.
So despite all the pressure on Donald Trump to release his tax returns, he is not obligated to do so. He can legally say, "That's none of your business," which he did when asked by TV interviewer George Stephanopoulos. Trump maintains that he will release that information when he is ready, which may or may not be before the November General Election.
Some ten years ago, Trump was ordered by a court to show his tax returns during a libel suit he filed against a reporter. But when he finally got around to submitting the forms to the court, they were "so heavily redacted they looked like a crossword puzzle," according to Tim O'Brien, the Bloomberg reporter who was the defendant in the libel suit and who saw the forms.
Later, Trump submitted a clean copy, and the case was closed. Trump lost, since the information written by O'Brien was true, and therefore not libelous. However, a court order kept the tax information under seal, so it did not become public.
In any case, the candidate is free to release his tax returns any time he chooses, according to an IRS spokesman. Trump claims he cannot, because they are under audit. All of them? Every year?
Incidentally, the best defense against a libel suit is that what was printed was true. Just because a person doesn't like it does not make it libel. That principal was established in New York in 1760, when the colonial governor objected to John Peter Zenger printing the fact that the governor had a mistress. The governor was upset, and charged the editor with printing a "false libel." The defense was that the report was true, and many people knew the governor had a mistress. Therefore, it was not libel. The jury agreed.
Not so. There is no Constitutional or legal mandate that any candidate make his or her tax returns public. It has been customary since Gerald Ford voluntarily released his, following the IRS proof that Richard Nixon filed a false return. As for the writer's defense that releasing one's tax information "has become a prerequisite in the modern era," that still does not mean such action is mandatory or necessary.
Want a dictionary definition? Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1958 edition, uses the term "necessary" before some other action. And the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary says "necessary in advance," citing the first use in print as the year 1633.
The U.S. Constitution of 1789 makes no mention of a candidate's tax status in listing qualifications for the office of President, since federal income taxes did not exist at the time. Not until the early 20th Century was the Internal Revenue Service established. And the tradition of presidential candidates making their tax returns public did not begin until another 50 years went by.
Since the days of Richard Nixon, such action has been customary, so in a very general sense -- in that all other candidates do it -- it has become required by custom. It is not, however, mandated by law or by the Constitution.
So despite all the pressure on Donald Trump to release his tax returns, he is not obligated to do so. He can legally say, "That's none of your business," which he did when asked by TV interviewer George Stephanopoulos. Trump maintains that he will release that information when he is ready, which may or may not be before the November General Election.
Some ten years ago, Trump was ordered by a court to show his tax returns during a libel suit he filed against a reporter. But when he finally got around to submitting the forms to the court, they were "so heavily redacted they looked like a crossword puzzle," according to Tim O'Brien, the Bloomberg reporter who was the defendant in the libel suit and who saw the forms.
Later, Trump submitted a clean copy, and the case was closed. Trump lost, since the information written by O'Brien was true, and therefore not libelous. However, a court order kept the tax information under seal, so it did not become public.
In any case, the candidate is free to release his tax returns any time he chooses, according to an IRS spokesman. Trump claims he cannot, because they are under audit. All of them? Every year?
Incidentally, the best defense against a libel suit is that what was printed was true. Just because a person doesn't like it does not make it libel. That principal was established in New York in 1760, when the colonial governor objected to John Peter Zenger printing the fact that the governor had a mistress. The governor was upset, and charged the editor with printing a "false libel." The defense was that the report was true, and many people knew the governor had a mistress. Therefore, it was not libel. The jury agreed.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Bad News Bears Watching
Respect cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
Many folks criticize news media for extensive coverage of negative events. But corporations are always eager to publicize good news, and politicians seldom miss an opportunity to talk, especially about how great they are and to brag about the wonderful things they have accomplished.
However, nobody's perfect, and it is journalism's responsibility to ask tough questions and to report the bad news.
Journalists do this not just because they are inherently cynical, although they are, but because they have taken on the job of keeping the general public informed of what they need to know. Not just what they want to know, nor what the government and corporations want them to know, but what voters and consumers need to know as part of a well functioning democratic republic.
Much of the information coming from politicians is propaganda, and that from corporations, marketing and advertising. Moreover, some of what comes from these sources amounts to lies, half truths and innuendo.
Readers and viewers don't always have the resources to cross-check, critique, analyze and verify what they are fed by candidates at political rallies, government officials declaiming their goals and accomplishments, or corporate advertisers marketing their products and services.
Therefore, the general public relies on an independent, free press to monitor, investigate and inform them of things they need to know when deciding who to vote for and what to buy,
There are laws, of course, that establish standards to ensure many safety, health and welfare issues, and government agencies to enforce these standards. It is also true that many of these agencies and standards resulted from news reports by an active, aggressive press.
"Trust me. Believe me. They'll do what I tell them. I guarantee it, that I can tell you."
These are some of the phrases used repeatedly by a current major political candidate in urging support for his campaign.
But he provides few, if any, details on why he should be trusted or believed or what his policies are or how he would "fix" things. When challenged, he routinely insults the challenger, whether the challenger be a political opponent or a journalist doing a journalist's job.
Without details on just what the candidate's promises and positions are, voters are unable to make informed decisions, because they are not well informed. The message from the candidate, then, is that voters should believe him just because he says so, and that's reason enough.
No, it's not.
Such an attitude is circular reasoning, based on a demand for respect on the sole ground that he demands respect.
But respect, Hair Drumpf, cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
Many folks criticize news media for extensive coverage of negative events. But corporations are always eager to publicize good news, and politicians seldom miss an opportunity to talk, especially about how great they are and to brag about the wonderful things they have accomplished.
However, nobody's perfect, and it is journalism's responsibility to ask tough questions and to report the bad news.
Journalists do this not just because they are inherently cynical, although they are, but because they have taken on the job of keeping the general public informed of what they need to know. Not just what they want to know, nor what the government and corporations want them to know, but what voters and consumers need to know as part of a well functioning democratic republic.
Much of the information coming from politicians is propaganda, and that from corporations, marketing and advertising. Moreover, some of what comes from these sources amounts to lies, half truths and innuendo.
Readers and viewers don't always have the resources to cross-check, critique, analyze and verify what they are fed by candidates at political rallies, government officials declaiming their goals and accomplishments, or corporate advertisers marketing their products and services.
Therefore, the general public relies on an independent, free press to monitor, investigate and inform them of things they need to know when deciding who to vote for and what to buy,
There are laws, of course, that establish standards to ensure many safety, health and welfare issues, and government agencies to enforce these standards. It is also true that many of these agencies and standards resulted from news reports by an active, aggressive press.
"Trust me. Believe me. They'll do what I tell them. I guarantee it, that I can tell you."
These are some of the phrases used repeatedly by a current major political candidate in urging support for his campaign.
But he provides few, if any, details on why he should be trusted or believed or what his policies are or how he would "fix" things. When challenged, he routinely insults the challenger, whether the challenger be a political opponent or a journalist doing a journalist's job.
Without details on just what the candidate's promises and positions are, voters are unable to make informed decisions, because they are not well informed. The message from the candidate, then, is that voters should believe him just because he says so, and that's reason enough.
No, it's not.
Such an attitude is circular reasoning, based on a demand for respect on the sole ground that he demands respect.
But respect, Hair Drumpf, cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Perspective
The current population of the United States is double the 152 million counted in 1950.
To say that a candidate has won more votes in primary elections than any other candidate in the party's history may be a true statement. But it is also true that the voting population is larger than ever.
Further, it is also true that the percentage of party voters favoring a particular candidate is only 5 percent this year.
So if the total voter population soars, any candidate will get more votes, even if the percentage of those turning out to vote remains the same. Gross numbers are important, of course, but an equally important point is the percentage of those eligible actually voting for any single candidate.
TV commentator Rachel Maddow made much of the fact that Donald Trump attracted more votes in primary elections so far this year than any other Republican, ever, and there are still several primary elections remaining. But as the population grows, it follows that more people will vote, even if the voter participation rate remains the same, or even lower.
For example, the U.S. Census Bureau reported a year ago that the number of unmarried women of voting age more than doubled from 1978 to 2014, from 27.7 million to 56.8 million. The registration rate for that group rose from 58.6 percent in 1978 to 60.5 percent in 2014. But the percentage of those who actually voted faded, from 39.2 percent to 35.6 percent.
However, in the last presidential election year, 2012, the percentage of unmarried women who registered was 68.6 percent and the turnout rate was 57.8 percent. Moral: A set of some 60 million potential voters is not one to be ignored or insulted.
Meanwhile, it was reported that Trump collected just 4.7 percent of Republican voters in primary contests so far this year. That's lower than the rate counted by Mitt Romney four years ago.
The Pew Research Center said that in 2012, "nearly 18.8 million people voted in 39 Republican primaries, or 9.8 percent of eligible voters. Mitt Romney won 30 states (plus DC), with 9.8 million votes -- representing just 5.1 percent of eligible voters in the primary states."
This implies that either 95 percent of Republican voters opposed the candidate, or that many voters did not bother to show up.
As it is, only about 60 percent of eligible voters turn out on Election Day in November.
Even so, as the total population grows, any candidate is likely to gather more votes, despite a decline in the voter participation rate.
Want more numbers? Nearly 133 million people voted in the last presidential election year, 2012, compared to 105 million in 1996, according to Census Bureau data. And the voter participation rate ranged from 58 percent in 1996 to a high of 64 percent in 2012.
So it seems that more than one-third of American citizens eligible and registered to vote don't bother to show up for presidential elections. And the turnout rate is worse during off-year, non-presidential elections.
All this as the American population continues to grow, to 323.5 million currently, according to a Census Bureau estimate, from the 310.2 million in the formal census of 2010, and 282 million in 2000.
To say that a candidate has won more votes in primary elections than any other candidate in the party's history may be a true statement. But it is also true that the voting population is larger than ever.
Further, it is also true that the percentage of party voters favoring a particular candidate is only 5 percent this year.
So if the total voter population soars, any candidate will get more votes, even if the percentage of those turning out to vote remains the same. Gross numbers are important, of course, but an equally important point is the percentage of those eligible actually voting for any single candidate.
TV commentator Rachel Maddow made much of the fact that Donald Trump attracted more votes in primary elections so far this year than any other Republican, ever, and there are still several primary elections remaining. But as the population grows, it follows that more people will vote, even if the voter participation rate remains the same, or even lower.
For example, the U.S. Census Bureau reported a year ago that the number of unmarried women of voting age more than doubled from 1978 to 2014, from 27.7 million to 56.8 million. The registration rate for that group rose from 58.6 percent in 1978 to 60.5 percent in 2014. But the percentage of those who actually voted faded, from 39.2 percent to 35.6 percent.
However, in the last presidential election year, 2012, the percentage of unmarried women who registered was 68.6 percent and the turnout rate was 57.8 percent. Moral: A set of some 60 million potential voters is not one to be ignored or insulted.
Meanwhile, it was reported that Trump collected just 4.7 percent of Republican voters in primary contests so far this year. That's lower than the rate counted by Mitt Romney four years ago.
The Pew Research Center said that in 2012, "nearly 18.8 million people voted in 39 Republican primaries, or 9.8 percent of eligible voters. Mitt Romney won 30 states (plus DC), with 9.8 million votes -- representing just 5.1 percent of eligible voters in the primary states."
This implies that either 95 percent of Republican voters opposed the candidate, or that many voters did not bother to show up.
As it is, only about 60 percent of eligible voters turn out on Election Day in November.
Even so, as the total population grows, any candidate is likely to gather more votes, despite a decline in the voter participation rate.
Want more numbers? Nearly 133 million people voted in the last presidential election year, 2012, compared to 105 million in 1996, according to Census Bureau data. And the voter participation rate ranged from 58 percent in 1996 to a high of 64 percent in 2012.
So it seems that more than one-third of American citizens eligible and registered to vote don't bother to show up for presidential elections. And the turnout rate is worse during off-year, non-presidential elections.
All this as the American population continues to grow, to 323.5 million currently, according to a Census Bureau estimate, from the 310.2 million in the formal census of 2010, and 282 million in 2000.
Friday, May 13, 2016
What's He Hiding?
The American electoral campaign this year has become a reality show, with about as much substance as backyard gossip or locker room taunting. Moreover, it's being led by a political pharaoh, or king of denial, who proudly proclaims that his foreign policy experience, for example, is based on having once sponsored a Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
That puts him on the same level as Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, who cited her foreign policy credentials as being able to "see Russia from my house," and "living next door to Canada."
Here's a thought: What if You Know Who played a Republican woman card and selected Palin as his running mate?
The snark money is on the current GOP leading candidate to keep playing the caustic card, defying opponents to match his skill at insult and vilification.
Dissent is a good thing in a democratic society, but dissing for its own sake is not.
Meanwhile, the Voldemort candidate refuses to make public his tax returns, claiming they are under audit, and when the IRS audit is complete, which may not be until after the November election, he may release them. Then again, he may not.
Today, he told a reporter his tax level was "none of your business."
The IRS has pointed out that, contrary to the candidate's insistence that he can't release his tax returns until the audits are complete, he can indeed release them anytime he chooses to.
And this raises these questions: Why does he refuse, when there is a tradition going back to the days of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford that every President and Presidential candidate has voluntarily released his or her tax returns?
The current GOP candidate claims he is audited by the IRS every year. Why every year, when very few American taxpayers are audited at all, unless the IRS suspects something? What is he hiding? How about releasing tax returns of previous years, audits of which by now should be complete?
He claims to be worth $10 billion. But why should we believe him, when he refuses to follow a political tradition of six decades in making his net worth public?
Technically, he's correct in telling a reporter that his tax returns are "none of your business." But other candidates routinely release their tax returns and document their net worth, showing a respect for the trust of American voters. Therefore, it has become the American electorate's business.
But You Know Who does not show respect for those who question him, and he routinely dismisses any challenge to his veracity with insults and personal abuse.
Why not just answer the question? A good reporter's only agenda is to gather information on behalf of the public, so voters can make informed decisions. Reporters are, first and foremost, citizens themselves, and they ask tough questions because they need to be asked.
This candidate does not answer direct questions, especially those that deal with positions and comments he makes that directly contradict what he has said in the past.
And that raises these questions: Does he really know what he's talking about? Does he really have any knowledge or expertise in anything, beyond his self-glorifying praise of everything he says and does, with no evidence that any of what he says is true?
That puts him on the same level as Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, who cited her foreign policy credentials as being able to "see Russia from my house," and "living next door to Canada."
Here's a thought: What if You Know Who played a Republican woman card and selected Palin as his running mate?
The snark money is on the current GOP leading candidate to keep playing the caustic card, defying opponents to match his skill at insult and vilification.
Dissent is a good thing in a democratic society, but dissing for its own sake is not.
Meanwhile, the Voldemort candidate refuses to make public his tax returns, claiming they are under audit, and when the IRS audit is complete, which may not be until after the November election, he may release them. Then again, he may not.
Today, he told a reporter his tax level was "none of your business."
The IRS has pointed out that, contrary to the candidate's insistence that he can't release his tax returns until the audits are complete, he can indeed release them anytime he chooses to.
And this raises these questions: Why does he refuse, when there is a tradition going back to the days of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford that every President and Presidential candidate has voluntarily released his or her tax returns?
The current GOP candidate claims he is audited by the IRS every year. Why every year, when very few American taxpayers are audited at all, unless the IRS suspects something? What is he hiding? How about releasing tax returns of previous years, audits of which by now should be complete?
He claims to be worth $10 billion. But why should we believe him, when he refuses to follow a political tradition of six decades in making his net worth public?
Technically, he's correct in telling a reporter that his tax returns are "none of your business." But other candidates routinely release their tax returns and document their net worth, showing a respect for the trust of American voters. Therefore, it has become the American electorate's business.
But You Know Who does not show respect for those who question him, and he routinely dismisses any challenge to his veracity with insults and personal abuse.
Why not just answer the question? A good reporter's only agenda is to gather information on behalf of the public, so voters can make informed decisions. Reporters are, first and foremost, citizens themselves, and they ask tough questions because they need to be asked.
This candidate does not answer direct questions, especially those that deal with positions and comments he makes that directly contradict what he has said in the past.
And that raises these questions: Does he really know what he's talking about? Does he really have any knowledge or expertise in anything, beyond his self-glorifying praise of everything he says and does, with no evidence that any of what he says is true?
Monday, May 9, 2016
Media Enablers
"If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do." -- Pug Mahoney, editor of The Snark Report.
Major news media have finally begin to acknowledge their role in enabling the rise and successes of a demagogue in politics.
Popular entertainment personalities have succeeded in politics before, of course, notably such Hollywood folk as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who become governor of California, and Ronald Reagan, who served two terms as President.
Both were trained actors, and this was especially helpful for Reagan. The ability to play a role and convince an audience of their competence is crucial to both actors and politicians, and there is often little difference between an actor and a candidate.
It's important for government officials to persuade voters of their competence, but less so for actors. A dramatic role is by its nature an act, and the person in that role does not have to believe in the reality of the personality the actor portrays. The actor need only persuade the audience temporarily, so the performance is essentially an illusion.
The danger to society comes when an entertainer or a business executive enters politics and tries to persuade the electorate of his competence in government.
Show business people memorize a well written script. But when journalists transcribe comments by politicians, the result is rambling to point of being incoherent gibberish.
Success in one field does not guarantee success in another.
Major news media have finally begin to acknowledge their role in enabling the rise and successes of a demagogue in politics.
Popular entertainment personalities have succeeded in politics before, of course, notably such Hollywood folk as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who become governor of California, and Ronald Reagan, who served two terms as President.
Both were trained actors, and this was especially helpful for Reagan. The ability to play a role and convince an audience of their competence is crucial to both actors and politicians, and there is often little difference between an actor and a candidate.
It's important for government officials to persuade voters of their competence, but less so for actors. A dramatic role is by its nature an act, and the person in that role does not have to believe in the reality of the personality the actor portrays. The actor need only persuade the audience temporarily, so the performance is essentially an illusion.
The danger to society comes when an entertainer or a business executive enters politics and tries to persuade the electorate of his competence in government.
Show business people memorize a well written script. But when journalists transcribe comments by politicians, the result is rambling to point of being incoherent gibberish.
Success in one field does not guarantee success in another.
The Snark Report
Our snarky editor Pug Mahoney reports these sillies perpetrated by allegedly professional users of the English language:
"In living memory ..." Dead memory, of course, being of little use. Still, some lives have longer memories than others. Teenagers, for example, do not remember as many events as their grandparents. Likewise, "in recent memory" is pointless, because it doesn't specify how long ago was "recent."
A TV news anchor referred to "battle royals." By analogy, perhaps, to "attorney generals." There are a few instances in the English language where an adjective comes after a noun, but usually, the sentence structure is adjective-noun-verb-object. The first item listed above refers to several battles that rise to a very important, or royal, level. The second would likely be a lawyer in the military. A general attorney would be a lawyer who is not a specialist, whereas a gathering of government prosecutors supervising a staff of lawyers would be attorneys general.
There is a widespread use among many broadcasters who speak of a "fight to the finish." Let's face it, they all are.
Here's a headline that ran on a CNN streaming line: "Russian jet barrel roles over U.S. warplane."
And Snarky Vicki asks, "When did 'conversating' become an acceptable word on news broadcasts?"
Correspondents are welcome to submit further examples of the misuse and abuse of the language by those who should know better to Snark Central.
"In living memory ..." Dead memory, of course, being of little use. Still, some lives have longer memories than others. Teenagers, for example, do not remember as many events as their grandparents. Likewise, "in recent memory" is pointless, because it doesn't specify how long ago was "recent."
A TV news anchor referred to "battle royals." By analogy, perhaps, to "attorney generals." There are a few instances in the English language where an adjective comes after a noun, but usually, the sentence structure is adjective-noun-verb-object. The first item listed above refers to several battles that rise to a very important, or royal, level. The second would likely be a lawyer in the military. A general attorney would be a lawyer who is not a specialist, whereas a gathering of government prosecutors supervising a staff of lawyers would be attorneys general.
There is a widespread use among many broadcasters who speak of a "fight to the finish." Let's face it, they all are.
Here's a headline that ran on a CNN streaming line: "Russian jet barrel roles over U.S. warplane."
And Snarky Vicki asks, "When did 'conversating' become an acceptable word on news broadcasts?"
Correspondents are welcome to submit further examples of the misuse and abuse of the language by those who should know better to Snark Central.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Political Economics
"A Country is not a Company." -- Paul Krugman
Time was, high school girls took classes in Home Economics, on the premise that they would stay at home while their husbands held jobs, which the boys trained for by taking wood shop classes, auto mechanics, or print shop.
Those days are gone, but a principle of basic economics remains that of what you do with what's available. In its original sense, the ancient Greeks had a manager who ran the household and decided what to do with what was available. When enlarged from a household level to a state level, the subject become known as Political Economics, or what the people of the polis, the entire city-state, did with what was available. And when academics of the 18th Century began studying the topic, they borrowed the ancient Greek concept as a label for what they were doing.
Eventually, the first word of the phrase was dropped, and we now deal with the study of Economics, whether it be at a household, corporate, state, national or international level.
However, to use the same strategies that are successful for a family or a corporation and use them as a national policy can be dangerous.
For example, negotiating a "better deal" on bonds to pay them off at 50 cents on the dollar, or even less, as some corporations have done in bankruptcy proceedings, may be beneficial to the company, but harms people who bought the bonds. And since the company may wind up going out of business anyway, the investors may be happy to get even half the value of their bonds.
But to do that with government bonds, as was recently suggested by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, in order to reduce the national debt, will bring higher interest rates on new bond issues, since people will fear for the safety of their investments. If, in fact, major investors take the risk at all.
Historically, U.S. bonds have been deemed the safest of all investments, because they have the government's guarantee that the bonds will be redeemed at 100 cents on the dollar. This practice goes all the way back to the days of Alexander Hamilton, who insisted that bonds issued by the provisional government during the War for Independence be redeemed at full value, in order to build confidence in the government.
So to start a policy of negotiating for a "better deal" on government bonds would bring higher interest rates, a lack of confidence in the government, and an overall increase in debt, rather than an alleged aim of reducing debt.
The strategy of buying back bonds at less than face value may work well for a company heading for bankruptcy -- a ploy that worked well for Trump in several of his failed businesses -- but when applied to a country it will likely drive the nation into economic turmoil and bankruptcy.
In short, "A Country is not a Company," as explained by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in his book of the same name (Harvard Business Press, 2009).
Time was, high school girls took classes in Home Economics, on the premise that they would stay at home while their husbands held jobs, which the boys trained for by taking wood shop classes, auto mechanics, or print shop.
Those days are gone, but a principle of basic economics remains that of what you do with what's available. In its original sense, the ancient Greeks had a manager who ran the household and decided what to do with what was available. When enlarged from a household level to a state level, the subject become known as Political Economics, or what the people of the polis, the entire city-state, did with what was available. And when academics of the 18th Century began studying the topic, they borrowed the ancient Greek concept as a label for what they were doing.
Eventually, the first word of the phrase was dropped, and we now deal with the study of Economics, whether it be at a household, corporate, state, national or international level.
However, to use the same strategies that are successful for a family or a corporation and use them as a national policy can be dangerous.
For example, negotiating a "better deal" on bonds to pay them off at 50 cents on the dollar, or even less, as some corporations have done in bankruptcy proceedings, may be beneficial to the company, but harms people who bought the bonds. And since the company may wind up going out of business anyway, the investors may be happy to get even half the value of their bonds.
But to do that with government bonds, as was recently suggested by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, in order to reduce the national debt, will bring higher interest rates on new bond issues, since people will fear for the safety of their investments. If, in fact, major investors take the risk at all.
Historically, U.S. bonds have been deemed the safest of all investments, because they have the government's guarantee that the bonds will be redeemed at 100 cents on the dollar. This practice goes all the way back to the days of Alexander Hamilton, who insisted that bonds issued by the provisional government during the War for Independence be redeemed at full value, in order to build confidence in the government.
So to start a policy of negotiating for a "better deal" on government bonds would bring higher interest rates, a lack of confidence in the government, and an overall increase in debt, rather than an alleged aim of reducing debt.
The strategy of buying back bonds at less than face value may work well for a company heading for bankruptcy -- a ploy that worked well for Trump in several of his failed businesses -- but when applied to a country it will likely drive the nation into economic turmoil and bankruptcy.
In short, "A Country is not a Company," as explained by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in his book of the same name (Harvard Business Press, 2009).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)