Do newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates matter?
Historically, there's no clear evidence that they do, and such endorsements may be largely a reflection of reader and voter sentiment.
After all, it can be said that newspapers don't shape public opinion so much as they reflect it.
With that in mind, consider this: Of the major newspapers that have endorsed a presidential candidate so far this year, Republican Donald Trump has none. Zero. Nada. Zip.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, he of "Aleppo moment" fame, has six major newspaper endorsements to his credit, most recently that of the Chicago Tribune. Others include The Detroit News, the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Winston-Salem Journal and The Caledonian Record.
In making its choice, the Tribune said Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, is "undeniably capable," but cited "serious questions about honesty and trust," as well as her plans to increase federal spending and taxes.
On the other hand, the Chicago Tribune called Trump "not fit to be President."
The New York Times, listing similar reasons, has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
In the past, USA Today has refrained from endorsing any Presidential candidate, but this year the national daily urged readers not to vote for Trump.
The Arizona Republic has never before endorsed a Democrat, but for the first time in its 126-year history, the paper's editorial board said Hillary Clinton "has the temperament and experience to be President. Donald Trump does not." There was some blowback from readers in traditionally conservative Arizona, as many cancelled their subscriptions.
The Dallas Morning News endorsed Clinton, with the comment that Trump does not deserve the votes of Texas citizens.
The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Clinton.
And the San Diego Union-Tribune, for the first time in its 148-year history, endorsed a Democrat for President -- Hillary Clinton.
Many of the major papers choosing Clinton are not fully satisfied with her, but given the choice of backing her or the volatile Trump, they listed numerous reasons why Trump would be too dangerous to occupy the Oval Office.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Econ Progress
More people are working, fewer are seeking unemployment benefits, and national output (GDP) is rising. Yet aspirants for political office complain that the economy is a wreck. This may play well with those who are having a hard time, but the population as a whole is doing OK, according to various sets of data. This contrast, however, never slows the disaffected from complaining, and opting to believe a demagogue rather than data.
Here are some numbers to consider.
Some 254,000 workers applied for unemployment relief in the week ended Sept. 24, according to the Department of Labor, below the moving average of 256,000. "This marks 82 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1970," the DOL said.
More than 145 million people are now employed in America, compared to 130 million in 2009, when the nation was struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
Separately, the Department of Commerce reported that GDP rose by an annualized rate of 1.4 percent during the second quarter, up from 0.8 percent in the first three months of the year.
And disposable personal income throughout the nation increased by $31.9 billion in August, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Here are some numbers to consider.
Some 254,000 workers applied for unemployment relief in the week ended Sept. 24, according to the Department of Labor, below the moving average of 256,000. "This marks 82 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1970," the DOL said.
More than 145 million people are now employed in America, compared to 130 million in 2009, when the nation was struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
Separately, the Department of Commerce reported that GDP rose by an annualized rate of 1.4 percent during the second quarter, up from 0.8 percent in the first three months of the year.
And disposable personal income throughout the nation increased by $31.9 billion in August, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Follow the Money
Be careful what you wish for.
"Follow the money!" is the latest call by Donald Trump in his efforts to show that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
The Republican nominee has repeatedly called his Democratic opponent "Crooked Hillary" for allegedly misusing funds from the Clinton Foundation as well as for collecting high speechmaking fees in return for political favors.
None of these allegations have yet been proven, but Trump has renewed his demand for investigations to find evidence.
"Follow the money!" he challenges.
However, his own businesses, including the Trump Foundation, have been shown in media investigative reports to use donations to what is billed as a charitable organization to support other political candidates and to pay for some of his campaign expenses.
Moreover, Trump has consistently refused to release his tax returns, claiming they are "still under audit," but won't show anything relevant anyway. Other published reports as well as New Jersey state government documents show that in some years he has paid nothing in federal income taxes. (The Internal Revenue Service has said Trump is free to release his tax return documents at any time, whether they are being audited or not.)
So now the challenge is to "Follow the money!" Suppose that were done to the Trump money trail. What will be found?
"Follow the money!" is the latest call by Donald Trump in his efforts to show that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
The Republican nominee has repeatedly called his Democratic opponent "Crooked Hillary" for allegedly misusing funds from the Clinton Foundation as well as for collecting high speechmaking fees in return for political favors.
None of these allegations have yet been proven, but Trump has renewed his demand for investigations to find evidence.
"Follow the money!" he challenges.
However, his own businesses, including the Trump Foundation, have been shown in media investigative reports to use donations to what is billed as a charitable organization to support other political candidates and to pay for some of his campaign expenses.
Moreover, Trump has consistently refused to release his tax returns, claiming they are "still under audit," but won't show anything relevant anyway. Other published reports as well as New Jersey state government documents show that in some years he has paid nothing in federal income taxes. (The Internal Revenue Service has said Trump is free to release his tax return documents at any time, whether they are being audited or not.)
So now the challenge is to "Follow the money!" Suppose that were done to the Trump money trail. What will be found?
Rigging the Polls
"Vote early and often" used to be the watchword for machine politicians more than 80 years ago to stuff the ballot boxes for candidates the party bosses favored, but stricter regulation and electronic voting put a stop to that, regardless of what some claim these days.
However, in the Internet Age of online polling, it's easier to recruit an army of volunteers to click on a survey site, make a choice, then click refresh or delete, then access the site again and vote again. thus stacking the online deck to help produce a "strong lead" for the party's candidate.
Suppose Sean Hannity of the Fox TV network asked viewers of his show which candidate won the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That poll, conducted through the Breitbart web site, will show an overwhelming majority felt strongly that Trump was the clear winner.
Both Hannity and the Breitbart operators are known conservatives and strong supporters of the Trump candidacy.
And with the results of this and similar "polls," the candidate can then proudly announce to followers at campaign rallies that he "won" the debate, citing the results of "major polls."
That's the major flaw in the concept of online polling -- it relies on volunteers to participate in the survey, and avid supporters are happy to vote early and often to support their Beloved Leader.
In contrast, the more reputable surveys conducted by established polling organizations use scientific sampling methods developed over many decades to obtain a valid sampling of a population, and using careful phrasing to avoid leading questions.
It has taken a few weeks, but major news media have finally noticed that online polling of volunteer participants sponsored by partisan support groups are not as reliable as the results obtained by scientific polls.
Granted, the online volunteer polls are faster, and can publish results within an hour of the conclusion of a televised political debate, but that alone doesn't make it reliable.
In a way, that's like asking Chicago Cubs fans which is the finest team in Major League Baseball. It's a good bet what the answer will be, even though their beloved Cubbies have not won a World Series Championship since 1908. That's right, 1908, more than 100 years ago. But hope springs eternal, and it is indeed possible that this may be The Year. However, many Cubs fans are reluctant to talk about it, lest it jinx the team's chances.
So do the Chicago Cubs stand as good a chance as winning the World Series Championship as Donald Trump has of winning the presidential election?
That's a question for pollsters to include in their next survey. But when the results come in, consider the source.
However, in the Internet Age of online polling, it's easier to recruit an army of volunteers to click on a survey site, make a choice, then click refresh or delete, then access the site again and vote again. thus stacking the online deck to help produce a "strong lead" for the party's candidate.
Suppose Sean Hannity of the Fox TV network asked viewers of his show which candidate won the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That poll, conducted through the Breitbart web site, will show an overwhelming majority felt strongly that Trump was the clear winner.
Both Hannity and the Breitbart operators are known conservatives and strong supporters of the Trump candidacy.
And with the results of this and similar "polls," the candidate can then proudly announce to followers at campaign rallies that he "won" the debate, citing the results of "major polls."
That's the major flaw in the concept of online polling -- it relies on volunteers to participate in the survey, and avid supporters are happy to vote early and often to support their Beloved Leader.
In contrast, the more reputable surveys conducted by established polling organizations use scientific sampling methods developed over many decades to obtain a valid sampling of a population, and using careful phrasing to avoid leading questions.
It has taken a few weeks, but major news media have finally noticed that online polling of volunteer participants sponsored by partisan support groups are not as reliable as the results obtained by scientific polls.
Granted, the online volunteer polls are faster, and can publish results within an hour of the conclusion of a televised political debate, but that alone doesn't make it reliable.
In a way, that's like asking Chicago Cubs fans which is the finest team in Major League Baseball. It's a good bet what the answer will be, even though their beloved Cubbies have not won a World Series Championship since 1908. That's right, 1908, more than 100 years ago. But hope springs eternal, and it is indeed possible that this may be The Year. However, many Cubs fans are reluctant to talk about it, lest it jinx the team's chances.
So do the Chicago Cubs stand as good a chance as winning the World Series Championship as Donald Trump has of winning the presidential election?
That's a question for pollsters to include in their next survey. But when the results come in, consider the source.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
American Jobs
There was a time, in the 1940s and 1950s, when America was a land of jobs offering high pay for relatively low to moderate skills. But those days are gone, and are not likely to return.
Now, the emphasis is on higher skills and greater productivity, aided by technology, and any attempt to return to high pay, low skill jobs is a demagogue's dream.
Evidence? The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that more than 38 percent of American Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of goods and services produced in the U.S., comes from jobs related to intellectual property industries. These 45 million jobs contribute to more than $6 trillion to total U.S. GDP.
These 45 million jobs -- roughly 30 percent of all jobs in the nation -- are in software publishing, sound recording, audio and video equipment manufacturing, performing arts, broadcasting, and similar jobs.
Separately, the Labor Department said unemployment rates in major metropolitan areas were generally lower in August than a year earlier in 242 of the 387 metro areas surveyed, and higher in 123 areas. Moreover, payroll employment rose in 320 metro areas, and fell in only 58 areas. Nationally, the unemployment rate in August was 5 percent. When seasonally adjusted, the jobless rate was slightly below 5 percent.
In addition, personal income rose in the second quarter of this year, according to a separate government report. Overall, personal income increased by 1.1 percent throughout the nation, with every state posting a rise.
Now, the emphasis is on higher skills and greater productivity, aided by technology, and any attempt to return to high pay, low skill jobs is a demagogue's dream.
Evidence? The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that more than 38 percent of American Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of goods and services produced in the U.S., comes from jobs related to intellectual property industries. These 45 million jobs contribute to more than $6 trillion to total U.S. GDP.
These 45 million jobs -- roughly 30 percent of all jobs in the nation -- are in software publishing, sound recording, audio and video equipment manufacturing, performing arts, broadcasting, and similar jobs.
Separately, the Labor Department said unemployment rates in major metropolitan areas were generally lower in August than a year earlier in 242 of the 387 metro areas surveyed, and higher in 123 areas. Moreover, payroll employment rose in 320 metro areas, and fell in only 58 areas. Nationally, the unemployment rate in August was 5 percent. When seasonally adjusted, the jobless rate was slightly below 5 percent.
In addition, personal income rose in the second quarter of this year, according to a separate government report. Overall, personal income increased by 1.1 percent throughout the nation, with every state posting a rise.
News Media Challenge
Medium; plural media; something in the middle.
The responsibility of journalism is to report, explain and interpret, yet remain neutral. By its nature, this is a challenge, and the term "media" as applied to news outlets, is well chosen, because journalists are in the middle of the information process. Reporters gather information and pass it on to the general public through print and broadcast news outlets.
In the process, reporters and editors rely heavily on the classic Five Ws of journalism: Who, what, where, when and why, plus how. This technique applies to virtually any story or message, whether hard news, feature stories, or political reports. Moreover, an astute candidate will be aware of this process and use it to help spread his or her message to potential voters, using the news media to help do that.
Clearly, however, some candidates are more astute than others. Some utilize the 5 Ws to assist them in spreading their announcements and policies to voters, while others use the same tactics to obscure their goals and hope reporters don't see the consequences of what the candidates propose.
Here again is the challenge. Journalists are expected to remain neutral even as they report and explain what the candidate says and does. Sometimes, that responsibility includes interpreting the consequences of the political message, often by contacting experts in the topic as well as opponents.
The downside is that candidates often see this act of asking tough or even reasonable questions about the proposed policies, and seeking contrary opinions, as being hostile to the candidate.
As a result, the candidate then protests that the reporter or debate moderator is unfair and/or biased. This happens especially when a neutral and balanced story depicts negative things about what the candidate says and does.
Note to candidates: Most reporters don't care. The do care about getting a good story. They record and report what you say and do, as they exercise their journalistic responsibility to inform the public of what you say and do, as well as reporting opposing views and the potential consequences of what you say and do.
Does that mean they are biased? No. That means they're doing their jobs. To pout that reporters are biased and unfair is the mark of a loser.
Realistically, however, some reporters are indeed biased and opinionated, and they work for partisan media outlets. All the more important, then, that politicians know the difference, and not condemn all journalists for the faults of a few.
The responsibility of journalism is to report, explain and interpret, yet remain neutral. By its nature, this is a challenge, and the term "media" as applied to news outlets, is well chosen, because journalists are in the middle of the information process. Reporters gather information and pass it on to the general public through print and broadcast news outlets.
In the process, reporters and editors rely heavily on the classic Five Ws of journalism: Who, what, where, when and why, plus how. This technique applies to virtually any story or message, whether hard news, feature stories, or political reports. Moreover, an astute candidate will be aware of this process and use it to help spread his or her message to potential voters, using the news media to help do that.
Clearly, however, some candidates are more astute than others. Some utilize the 5 Ws to assist them in spreading their announcements and policies to voters, while others use the same tactics to obscure their goals and hope reporters don't see the consequences of what the candidates propose.
Here again is the challenge. Journalists are expected to remain neutral even as they report and explain what the candidate says and does. Sometimes, that responsibility includes interpreting the consequences of the political message, often by contacting experts in the topic as well as opponents.
The downside is that candidates often see this act of asking tough or even reasonable questions about the proposed policies, and seeking contrary opinions, as being hostile to the candidate.
As a result, the candidate then protests that the reporter or debate moderator is unfair and/or biased. This happens especially when a neutral and balanced story depicts negative things about what the candidate says and does.
Note to candidates: Most reporters don't care. The do care about getting a good story. They record and report what you say and do, as they exercise their journalistic responsibility to inform the public of what you say and do, as well as reporting opposing views and the potential consequences of what you say and do.
Does that mean they are biased? No. That means they're doing their jobs. To pout that reporters are biased and unfair is the mark of a loser.
Realistically, however, some reporters are indeed biased and opinionated, and they work for partisan media outlets. All the more important, then, that politicians know the difference, and not condemn all journalists for the faults of a few.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Trumpery
Trumpery -- noun: Something deceptively showy; hence, vain or valueless things; rubbish. -- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, second edition, 1957.
The Republican candidate for President of the United States displayed his namesake characteristics again last night during the first one-on-one debate with the Democratic nominee.
And throughout the evening, the issue became one of fact versus claims, but there were almost no challenges from the moderator or the opponent when false and misleading allegations were made, nor statements contradicting previous public comments were brought up, nor when one of the debaters failed to answer a direct question.
When asked a specific question by moderator Lester Holt of NBC News, such as, "How do you propose to bring jobs back to America?" an issue that candidate Donald Trump has spoken of many times recently, claiming that millions of jobs have been "stolen" by foreign competitors, the candidate replied, "First, don't let them leave."
That's a good start, but it didn't answer the question, which was how to bring them back. After that initial sentence, the GOP nominee proceeded to talk at length on his past allegations of who stole what, without giving any specifics.
When moderator Holt asked when he would release his tax returns, as every Presidential candidate has done for decades, Trump replied, "I will release them after the routine audit is finished," and launched into a challenge that he would release them if his opponent, Hillary Clinton, "releases her 33,000 emails first."
Holt interjected that the Internal Revenue Service has said that anyone can release his tax returns at any time, but Trump ignored that and resumed his attack on the email controversy.
At another point, Trump criticized the Federal Reserve Board and Fed Chair Janet Yellen for "doing political things" rather than acting to improve the nation's economy. Fact: The Fed is an independent agency responsible for regulating the nation's money supply and encouraging full employment, and through those actions, helping to build economic growth.
Other allegations perpetrated by Trump during the debate included a claim that "thousands" of people have been killed by guns so far this year in Chicago, and repeated the word "thousands" several times within a 30-second claim. Fact: FBI data released earlier yesterday showed an increase in gun homicides in the city of 478 in 2015, up from 411 the year before. So far this year, more than 500 people in Chicago had been killed by gunfire.
That's surely a very high number, but it's not multiple thousands, as claimed by the GOP candidate.
Moreover, while crime nationwide "did increase over all last year, 2015 still represented the third-lowest year for violent crime in the past two decades," according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
In another claim, Trump announced that ICE has endorsed his candidacy. Fact: The department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a government agency, and cannot make political endorsements. It may be that an organization of officers and employees of the agency has endorsed Trump, but that's not to say that the agency itself has done so.
To imply otherwise is gross trumpery.
Finally, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been caught bending or modifying truth to suit her agenda, but all politicians do that, and much depends on how important, showy, outrageous or egregious the claim is.
As for the email controversy, in which documents supposedly marked "secret" were routed through her private email server, Clinton has acknowledged that having her own email server was a mistake, but multiple investigations by Congressional committees and the FBI have shown no crime was committed, and not enough evidence was found to warrant prosecution.
As for the many thousands of emails uncovered and searched by the FBI, fewer than 50 were determined to have been marked "confidential" or "secret," and there is doubt as to whether they were marked as such before they were transmitted.
So who won the debate, and who is more qualified to be elected President? Voters will decide that on Election Day in November. Meanwhile, the decision will be based on who speaks with fewer questionable allegations, claims and rhetoric contrary to fact.
The Republican candidate for President of the United States displayed his namesake characteristics again last night during the first one-on-one debate with the Democratic nominee.
And throughout the evening, the issue became one of fact versus claims, but there were almost no challenges from the moderator or the opponent when false and misleading allegations were made, nor statements contradicting previous public comments were brought up, nor when one of the debaters failed to answer a direct question.
When asked a specific question by moderator Lester Holt of NBC News, such as, "How do you propose to bring jobs back to America?" an issue that candidate Donald Trump has spoken of many times recently, claiming that millions of jobs have been "stolen" by foreign competitors, the candidate replied, "First, don't let them leave."
That's a good start, but it didn't answer the question, which was how to bring them back. After that initial sentence, the GOP nominee proceeded to talk at length on his past allegations of who stole what, without giving any specifics.
When moderator Holt asked when he would release his tax returns, as every Presidential candidate has done for decades, Trump replied, "I will release them after the routine audit is finished," and launched into a challenge that he would release them if his opponent, Hillary Clinton, "releases her 33,000 emails first."
Holt interjected that the Internal Revenue Service has said that anyone can release his tax returns at any time, but Trump ignored that and resumed his attack on the email controversy.
At another point, Trump criticized the Federal Reserve Board and Fed Chair Janet Yellen for "doing political things" rather than acting to improve the nation's economy. Fact: The Fed is an independent agency responsible for regulating the nation's money supply and encouraging full employment, and through those actions, helping to build economic growth.
Other allegations perpetrated by Trump during the debate included a claim that "thousands" of people have been killed by guns so far this year in Chicago, and repeated the word "thousands" several times within a 30-second claim. Fact: FBI data released earlier yesterday showed an increase in gun homicides in the city of 478 in 2015, up from 411 the year before. So far this year, more than 500 people in Chicago had been killed by gunfire.
That's surely a very high number, but it's not multiple thousands, as claimed by the GOP candidate.
Moreover, while crime nationwide "did increase over all last year, 2015 still represented the third-lowest year for violent crime in the past two decades," according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
In another claim, Trump announced that ICE has endorsed his candidacy. Fact: The department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a government agency, and cannot make political endorsements. It may be that an organization of officers and employees of the agency has endorsed Trump, but that's not to say that the agency itself has done so.
To imply otherwise is gross trumpery.
Finally, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been caught bending or modifying truth to suit her agenda, but all politicians do that, and much depends on how important, showy, outrageous or egregious the claim is.
As for the email controversy, in which documents supposedly marked "secret" were routed through her private email server, Clinton has acknowledged that having her own email server was a mistake, but multiple investigations by Congressional committees and the FBI have shown no crime was committed, and not enough evidence was found to warrant prosecution.
As for the many thousands of emails uncovered and searched by the FBI, fewer than 50 were determined to have been marked "confidential" or "secret," and there is doubt as to whether they were marked as such before they were transmitted.
So who won the debate, and who is more qualified to be elected President? Voters will decide that on Election Day in November. Meanwhile, the decision will be based on who speaks with fewer questionable allegations, claims and rhetoric contrary to fact.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Just the Facts, Ma'am
"I don't think it's the job of the media to be virtual fact checkers," according to Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager for Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate.
Wrong, Ms. Conway. That's precisely the news media's job, and the sooner and more thoroughly, the better.
As posted here June 1, under the title Diss Train, "Trump's policy statements -- such as they are -- show an appalling ignorance of the real world of government, economics, diplomacy and international relations."
"Meanwhile, a watchful, independent and free press has a job to do, informing the public in general and voters in particular of every flaw, error and downright lie in his speeches."
As Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
And to borrow from Woody Guthrie,
This train don't carry no liars this train
This train don't carry no liars, con men,
Wheeler dealers, here and gone men.
So it is in fact journalism's job to check the candidates' veracity, especially during live televised debates, and it is the moderator's duty to call out the distortions, half-truths, misstatements and other nonsense perpetrated by them, and to do it then and there.
And if you don't like it, get off the train.
Wrong, Ms. Conway. That's precisely the news media's job, and the sooner and more thoroughly, the better.
As posted here June 1, under the title Diss Train, "Trump's policy statements -- such as they are -- show an appalling ignorance of the real world of government, economics, diplomacy and international relations."
"Meanwhile, a watchful, independent and free press has a job to do, informing the public in general and voters in particular of every flaw, error and downright lie in his speeches."
As Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
And to borrow from Woody Guthrie,
This train don't carry no liars this train
This train don't carry no liars, con men,
Wheeler dealers, here and gone men.
And if you don't like it, get off the train.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Power Names and Name Power
"What's in a name?" -- Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"
"Who steals my purse steals trash." -- Shakespeare, "Othello"
Every writer and public speaker knows that words have power. Advertising and marketing executives know that the name of a product or service can easily enhance or destroy success.
When it comes to people, mocking a person's name, altering it or refusing to use it can diminish that person's worth and influence.
J.K. Rowling knew that, as Harry Potter and friends referred to the Dark Lord of the Wizard Otherworld only as You Know Who, or as "He Who Must Not Be Named."
As children, many of us are warned not to speak of the Devil, because that's an invitation for him to intervene in our lives.
In the 1930s, many wealthy Americans thought of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class," and spoke of him with contempt as "that man in the White House," rather than use his name.
Now, we see a real estate developer and presidential candidate who splashes his name on every project he undertakes, whether hotels, casinos, an airline, a university, or anything else, whether the project succeeds or not.
The name must be the most prominent part of the project. Even with the current presidential campaign, the lead candidate's name is above that of the vice presidential nominee, and in larger type, even though both have the same number of letters.
The goal is to demonstrate who is bigger, more important and has more power -- on the campaign posters it shows who's on top.
The candidate has changed or modified the names of his opponents to diminish them as well as to enhance himself to potential voters.
Mockery is a powerful weapon, as is satire. But sometimes such tactics can backfire, and make the assailant appear abusive and unworthy of trust.
So what happens if the name of the abuser himself is analyzed in terms of sound value and symbolism? Linguistics, the study of language and how it works, can contribute a great deal of insight into a society's cultural preferences and practices, in addition to detailing how changing a name enhances or sabotages reputation.
George Lakoff, professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, writes that "the sound symbolism of a name has become a central issue in the 2016 presidential campaign."
How? Consider the sounds in the name of one candidate. The first sound, represented by the letter T, is made by forcing the tip of the tongue away from the ridge behind the upper teeth, while expelling air. A forceful sound, helping to enhance the reputation of the name and the person. The next sound, represented by the letter R, also requires some force to release it.
Lakoff offers examples of other words beginning with tr-, many of which imply force, strength and movement: trip, trim, truncate, trigger, tremor, truck and tractor.
Now consider the next part of the candidate's name, represented by the letters -ump. This rhymes with chump, lump, rump, plump and stump, all of which imply weakness. Thus, the pair of sounds represent strength over weakness, a powerful message for a Presidential candidate.
Moreover, spreading and marketing this power name to everything the owner of the name does helps to build the message of strength and competence, whether the message is valid or not.
Now comes a strategy for defeating this marketing strategy. One way is to alter the name to diminish its power. The candidate himself has resorted to name modification to defeat his opponents. Examples include Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Crooked Hillary. Whether these changes are accurate doesn't matter. The sound symbolism is a very powerful vehicle.
So how to combat the threat of a powerful name? Change it. That's something that people have always done, using nicknames or minor changes in the sound. The 'r' sound, for example, is difficult for some very young children to pronounce. Often it comes out as 'w' until the child matures. Later, when adults want to imitate childish talk, they will deliberately change an 'r' to a 'w' so the candidate's name can come out as "Twump."
To further reduce the strength of the name, you can use diminutives, as the candidate himself has done to Marco Rubio, referring to him as "Little Marco." Applying this strategy of name alteration, the candidate would become "Little Donnie Twump."
Words are power. Be careful how you use them.
For the full treatment of Prof. Lakoff's idea, visit his web site, https://georgelakoff.com.
"Who steals my purse steals trash." -- Shakespeare, "Othello"
Every writer and public speaker knows that words have power. Advertising and marketing executives know that the name of a product or service can easily enhance or destroy success.
When it comes to people, mocking a person's name, altering it or refusing to use it can diminish that person's worth and influence.
J.K. Rowling knew that, as Harry Potter and friends referred to the Dark Lord of the Wizard Otherworld only as You Know Who, or as "He Who Must Not Be Named."
As children, many of us are warned not to speak of the Devil, because that's an invitation for him to intervene in our lives.
In the 1930s, many wealthy Americans thought of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class," and spoke of him with contempt as "that man in the White House," rather than use his name.
Now, we see a real estate developer and presidential candidate who splashes his name on every project he undertakes, whether hotels, casinos, an airline, a university, or anything else, whether the project succeeds or not.
The name must be the most prominent part of the project. Even with the current presidential campaign, the lead candidate's name is above that of the vice presidential nominee, and in larger type, even though both have the same number of letters.
The goal is to demonstrate who is bigger, more important and has more power -- on the campaign posters it shows who's on top.
The candidate has changed or modified the names of his opponents to diminish them as well as to enhance himself to potential voters.
Mockery is a powerful weapon, as is satire. But sometimes such tactics can backfire, and make the assailant appear abusive and unworthy of trust.
So what happens if the name of the abuser himself is analyzed in terms of sound value and symbolism? Linguistics, the study of language and how it works, can contribute a great deal of insight into a society's cultural preferences and practices, in addition to detailing how changing a name enhances or sabotages reputation.
George Lakoff, professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, writes that "the sound symbolism of a name has become a central issue in the 2016 presidential campaign."
How? Consider the sounds in the name of one candidate. The first sound, represented by the letter T, is made by forcing the tip of the tongue away from the ridge behind the upper teeth, while expelling air. A forceful sound, helping to enhance the reputation of the name and the person. The next sound, represented by the letter R, also requires some force to release it.
Lakoff offers examples of other words beginning with tr-, many of which imply force, strength and movement: trip, trim, truncate, trigger, tremor, truck and tractor.
Now consider the next part of the candidate's name, represented by the letters -ump. This rhymes with chump, lump, rump, plump and stump, all of which imply weakness. Thus, the pair of sounds represent strength over weakness, a powerful message for a Presidential candidate.
Moreover, spreading and marketing this power name to everything the owner of the name does helps to build the message of strength and competence, whether the message is valid or not.
Now comes a strategy for defeating this marketing strategy. One way is to alter the name to diminish its power. The candidate himself has resorted to name modification to defeat his opponents. Examples include Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Crooked Hillary. Whether these changes are accurate doesn't matter. The sound symbolism is a very powerful vehicle.
So how to combat the threat of a powerful name? Change it. That's something that people have always done, using nicknames or minor changes in the sound. The 'r' sound, for example, is difficult for some very young children to pronounce. Often it comes out as 'w' until the child matures. Later, when adults want to imitate childish talk, they will deliberately change an 'r' to a 'w' so the candidate's name can come out as "Twump."
To further reduce the strength of the name, you can use diminutives, as the candidate himself has done to Marco Rubio, referring to him as "Little Marco." Applying this strategy of name alteration, the candidate would become "Little Donnie Twump."
Words are power. Be careful how you use them.
For the full treatment of Prof. Lakoff's idea, visit his web site, https://georgelakoff.com.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Neutrality and Accuracy
There is no conflict between journalism's twin goals of being both neutral and accurate in reporting, especially of what political candidates say and what they actually do.
Campaign teams complain mightily that any news report detailing anything negative about their candidate is unfair, biased, incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, they add that news coverage of the opposing candidate overplays the good and ignores the negative aspects of the other candidate's character.
'Twas ever thus, and this year is no exception, with the added note that the complaints are louder and more extreme.
First, journalism's duty is to report fully and accurately on Candidate A.
Second, it must report fully and accurately on Candidate B.
Third, report the truth. Perhaps there is some truth in what each says. Then again, perhaps not.
Finally, report the possibility, plausibility and likelihood that both are wrong.
Indeed, it's possible that one candidate is more wrong than the other. But to adhere to a practice of treating each candidate with equal time and space, as if both are equally wrong (or equally right) is a false balance.
Sometimes, one candidate is far more wrong about more things more often another. By definition, this puts the reporting out of balance. To pursue lesser errors of Candidate B and give them equal emphasis in news coverage is a false equivalence.
Do politicians lie? Of course they do, and some lies are more egregious than others. Furthermore, when a candidate persists in propounding an egregious lie in the face of mountains of evidence, journalism has a duty to present the evidence in a fair and impartial fashion, as well as to label the candidate's claims for what they are: Lies.
This is not to say, however, that Candidate B gets a pass because that candidate tells fewer lies less often and doesn't resort to the sound and fury of double-down denial.
All lies are wrong. Some lies are more wrong than others, and so deserve more exposure. It is journalism's duty to expose the lies, and the bigger the lie, the more exposure it should get.
But a lying candidate does not deserve more coverage simply because said candidate lies more. Nor does the lesser lie deserve as much time and news space simply in the name of "balanced" coverage.
There is always the journalistic duty to offer perspective, and it is the editor's responsibility to decide the relative importance of each set of lies.
That's what is meant by fair and balanced.
Campaign teams complain mightily that any news report detailing anything negative about their candidate is unfair, biased, incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, they add that news coverage of the opposing candidate overplays the good and ignores the negative aspects of the other candidate's character.
'Twas ever thus, and this year is no exception, with the added note that the complaints are louder and more extreme.
First, journalism's duty is to report fully and accurately on Candidate A.
Second, it must report fully and accurately on Candidate B.
Third, report the truth. Perhaps there is some truth in what each says. Then again, perhaps not.
Finally, report the possibility, plausibility and likelihood that both are wrong.
Indeed, it's possible that one candidate is more wrong than the other. But to adhere to a practice of treating each candidate with equal time and space, as if both are equally wrong (or equally right) is a false balance.
Sometimes, one candidate is far more wrong about more things more often another. By definition, this puts the reporting out of balance. To pursue lesser errors of Candidate B and give them equal emphasis in news coverage is a false equivalence.
Do politicians lie? Of course they do, and some lies are more egregious than others. Furthermore, when a candidate persists in propounding an egregious lie in the face of mountains of evidence, journalism has a duty to present the evidence in a fair and impartial fashion, as well as to label the candidate's claims for what they are: Lies.
This is not to say, however, that Candidate B gets a pass because that candidate tells fewer lies less often and doesn't resort to the sound and fury of double-down denial.
All lies are wrong. Some lies are more wrong than others, and so deserve more exposure. It is journalism's duty to expose the lies, and the bigger the lie, the more exposure it should get.
But a lying candidate does not deserve more coverage simply because said candidate lies more. Nor does the lesser lie deserve as much time and news space simply in the name of "balanced" coverage.
There is always the journalistic duty to offer perspective, and it is the editor's responsibility to decide the relative importance of each set of lies.
That's what is meant by fair and balanced.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Standup Chameleon
Start the countdown to the most widely viewed television event of this election year, if not in all television history.
The first debate between the two leading candidates for President of the United States is set for Monday evening, and already there is much speculation about the strategies and performances of each of the candidates.
Policy statements aside, the Big Question is whether the debate will be a civil exchange between two knowledgeable and well prepared people who will answer questions from the host clearly, completely and cogently, or will the exchange quickly degenerate into an exchange of insults, vituperation and abuse.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, comes to the debate stage with a history of reserve when dealing with journalists and their questions. She has held few formal press conferences with news media reporters, and whether that's because of dislike for the media or something else remains to be seen.
She also is perceived by many voters as untrustworthy, and many of them speak of a personal dislike, regardless of her past experience in government and law, most recently as Secretary of State, and before that as a U.S. senator from New York.
On the other hand, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has no experience in government, but many years in business, as a developer of hotels, casinos and housing.
In past appearances, Clinton has relied on her knowledge and experience, and has spoken at length and in detail about problems and possible solutions, to the point of seeming dry and dull in her presentations.
Trump has shown a great talent for one-liner jabs and insults, but this time he promises to "be nice" to his opponent, even as he warns, "if she's nice to me, I'll be nice to her." In the past, Trump has emphasized that if someone "hits me first, I'm gonna hit back."
So which set of characteristics will show up for the debate Monday evening? Will viewers see the a solid, steady, if not stodgy but knowledgeable Hillary Clinton, or will she present a sharp wit and challenging debater ready to cut down an opponent whom many perceive as an arrogant bully?
Early reports indicate that Trump has been spending little or no preparation time, storing details and policy points and going through mock debates as practice sessions. More likely, according to early reports, his debate performance will rely heavily on his gut feelings and instincts, honed over many years as a real estate contract negotiator and host of a reality TV show.
It seems clear that many debate viewers will see the same Hillary Clinton they have known for decades. Others will see the same person they have mistrusted for at least as long.
But which Donald Trump will take the stage? Will he continue as the aggressive performer who relies on insult and abuse to attack an opponent who disagrees with him? Or will he become someone else?
It's a sure bet that Hillary Clinton will disagree with him on many points. That's what a debate is for. But whether he responds with lucid counter-arguments or launches a barrage of personal attacks will depend on which Donald Trump shows up for the performance.
Either way, it will be a standup show, with a political chameleon as the main attraction.
The first debate between the two leading candidates for President of the United States is set for Monday evening, and already there is much speculation about the strategies and performances of each of the candidates.
Policy statements aside, the Big Question is whether the debate will be a civil exchange between two knowledgeable and well prepared people who will answer questions from the host clearly, completely and cogently, or will the exchange quickly degenerate into an exchange of insults, vituperation and abuse.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, comes to the debate stage with a history of reserve when dealing with journalists and their questions. She has held few formal press conferences with news media reporters, and whether that's because of dislike for the media or something else remains to be seen.
She also is perceived by many voters as untrustworthy, and many of them speak of a personal dislike, regardless of her past experience in government and law, most recently as Secretary of State, and before that as a U.S. senator from New York.
On the other hand, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has no experience in government, but many years in business, as a developer of hotels, casinos and housing.
In past appearances, Clinton has relied on her knowledge and experience, and has spoken at length and in detail about problems and possible solutions, to the point of seeming dry and dull in her presentations.
Trump has shown a great talent for one-liner jabs and insults, but this time he promises to "be nice" to his opponent, even as he warns, "if she's nice to me, I'll be nice to her." In the past, Trump has emphasized that if someone "hits me first, I'm gonna hit back."
So which set of characteristics will show up for the debate Monday evening? Will viewers see the a solid, steady, if not stodgy but knowledgeable Hillary Clinton, or will she present a sharp wit and challenging debater ready to cut down an opponent whom many perceive as an arrogant bully?
Early reports indicate that Trump has been spending little or no preparation time, storing details and policy points and going through mock debates as practice sessions. More likely, according to early reports, his debate performance will rely heavily on his gut feelings and instincts, honed over many years as a real estate contract negotiator and host of a reality TV show.
It seems clear that many debate viewers will see the same Hillary Clinton they have known for decades. Others will see the same person they have mistrusted for at least as long.
But which Donald Trump will take the stage? Will he continue as the aggressive performer who relies on insult and abuse to attack an opponent who disagrees with him? Or will he become someone else?
It's a sure bet that Hillary Clinton will disagree with him on many points. That's what a debate is for. But whether he responds with lucid counter-arguments or launches a barrage of personal attacks will depend on which Donald Trump shows up for the performance.
Either way, it will be a standup show, with a political chameleon as the main attraction.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Jobs and Trade
The GOP candidate for President, the America Firsters, and isolationists all want to build walls, "renegotiate" trade treaties and tear up existing partnerships like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other treaties in the name of "winning."
But that means someone else must lose. Basic economics, as well as practical business principles, teach that fair trade means both sides gain.
Nevertheless, the call is out there and is repeated often that America is losing jobs, the economy is a wreck and the highly touted "free trade" agreements actually demolish American jobs.
However, here's a study from the U.S. Department of Commerce that shows a 22 percent increase in American jobs at companies involved in exporting since 2009.
Exports to current free trade partners supported more than 3 million jobs in 2015, the agency said. Mexico and Canada, the nation's two NAFTA partners, alone accounted for nearly one out of four American jobs supported by exports.
A new report by the Commerce Department detailed the 11.5 million export-related jobs in America. Since 2009, the total number of jobs involved in exporting grew by nearly 1.9 million, the agency said.
Exports of goods and services to the European Union, NAFTA partners, China and Japan supported 6.9 million jobs, or 60 percent of all export related jobs, the report said. More than half those jobs involved exports to trade partners in the Asia and Pacific region, according to the study.
American exports to the rest of the world have "a positive impact on employment here at home," the department said.
Isolating the nation from international trade will not bring an increase in employment for American workers, but more likely will mean a drop.
Separately, studies have shown that immigration has little effect on overall employment for native-born workers. There are, of course, economic cycles that drag down prosperity and employment, but the jobless rate in America remains below 5 percent, and the output of goods and services has been steadily rising.
So who ya gonna believe, impartial numbers or a ranting politician?
But that means someone else must lose. Basic economics, as well as practical business principles, teach that fair trade means both sides gain.
Nevertheless, the call is out there and is repeated often that America is losing jobs, the economy is a wreck and the highly touted "free trade" agreements actually demolish American jobs.
However, here's a study from the U.S. Department of Commerce that shows a 22 percent increase in American jobs at companies involved in exporting since 2009.
Exports to current free trade partners supported more than 3 million jobs in 2015, the agency said. Mexico and Canada, the nation's two NAFTA partners, alone accounted for nearly one out of four American jobs supported by exports.
A new report by the Commerce Department detailed the 11.5 million export-related jobs in America. Since 2009, the total number of jobs involved in exporting grew by nearly 1.9 million, the agency said.
Exports of goods and services to the European Union, NAFTA partners, China and Japan supported 6.9 million jobs, or 60 percent of all export related jobs, the report said. More than half those jobs involved exports to trade partners in the Asia and Pacific region, according to the study.
American exports to the rest of the world have "a positive impact on employment here at home," the department said.
Isolating the nation from international trade will not bring an increase in employment for American workers, but more likely will mean a drop.
Separately, studies have shown that immigration has little effect on overall employment for native-born workers. There are, of course, economic cycles that drag down prosperity and employment, but the jobless rate in America remains below 5 percent, and the output of goods and services has been steadily rising.
So who ya gonna believe, impartial numbers or a ranting politician?
Fed Rates the Odds
The Federal Reserve Board has voted to hold interest where they are, while the Central Bank of Japan may boot theirs.
It's no surprise that the U.S. central bank has stalled yet again on raising key interest rates, since the nation's economy has not been growing as rapidly as most experts would like to see. That's not to say it's in trouble; just that the gangbusters music theme has not hit the top of the economic charts.
Meanwhile, the Japanese economy remains stalled, despite a negative interest rate promoted by that nation's central bank. Finally, the bank admitted that its efforts weren't working, and announced that below-zero interest rates weren't doing the job. It's not yet clear what the new target rate will be, however.
Separately, the U.S. Fed reported the results of its recent Open Market Committee meeting, and said it would hold its target federal funds rate near zero, where it has been for months.
"The case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened," the Fed said, but the agency had decided, "for the time being, to wait for further evidence of continued progress."
Best guess: After Election Day. But which way the board goes may depend on who wins the presidency and what the nation's economic reaction is.
This is not to say the Fed is influenced by politics, much less following orders given by politicians, even though many claim it is. The Fed cherishes its independence, but it can only influence monetary policy. Fiscal policy, which primarily means government spending, is set by Congress and the President.
So while the Fed does have some influence on economic health and growth, the government also plays a major role. And depending on how consumers and businesses react to a new Administration, the Fed will consider its monetary actions from an economic viewpoint, not political.
It's no surprise that the U.S. central bank has stalled yet again on raising key interest rates, since the nation's economy has not been growing as rapidly as most experts would like to see. That's not to say it's in trouble; just that the gangbusters music theme has not hit the top of the economic charts.
Meanwhile, the Japanese economy remains stalled, despite a negative interest rate promoted by that nation's central bank. Finally, the bank admitted that its efforts weren't working, and announced that below-zero interest rates weren't doing the job. It's not yet clear what the new target rate will be, however.
Separately, the U.S. Fed reported the results of its recent Open Market Committee meeting, and said it would hold its target federal funds rate near zero, where it has been for months.
"The case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened," the Fed said, but the agency had decided, "for the time being, to wait for further evidence of continued progress."
Best guess: After Election Day. But which way the board goes may depend on who wins the presidency and what the nation's economic reaction is.
This is not to say the Fed is influenced by politics, much less following orders given by politicians, even though many claim it is. The Fed cherishes its independence, but it can only influence monetary policy. Fiscal policy, which primarily means government spending, is set by Congress and the President.
So while the Fed does have some influence on economic health and growth, the government also plays a major role. And depending on how consumers and businesses react to a new Administration, the Fed will consider its monetary actions from an economic viewpoint, not political.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Information Filters
In this Information Age, more people have more access to more information from more sources in more detail than ever before. Yet when it comes to politics and government, it seems less is accomplished.
Partisan groups don't talk to each other, so there is no possibility of compromise. But the importance of talking to opponents to settle on a compromise was one of the guiding principles to the founders of the American governmental system.
Recently, however, that has been abandoned, and partly enabled by the many news media outlets that serve their own partisan audiences. Gone are the days when journalists served as filters, selecting the most important items and exercising editorial discretion as to what best served the public interest.
Watching cable TV information operations that best reflect an individual's closely held opinions does not allow for exposure to opposing views, much less contribute to a compromise.
There are, indeed, news programs that strive to be neutral, objective and reasonably complete in their presentation of various sorts of information, but far too many citizens choose to watch entertainment or gossip programs rather than serious news outlets, much less do they read newspapers.
For one thing, reading requires work, an active role by individuals. Watching television is easy and requires no effort. Moreover, broadcast news programs are by nature brief and incomplete, with no time available for in-depth analysis of issues of great public concern.
A 30-minute program, for example, has perhaps 19 minutes available for news content. The rest of the half-hour is taken up by commercials and promotions, as well as introductory and closing material.
If a news presenter speaks at the rate of about 100 words per minute, that means less than 2,000 words available to pack in and disseminate all the news and information about all the important issues of the day. That's the equivalent of less than half a page of a standard size newspaper. -- without pictures.
In addition, setting up a TV story, with video and sound of the subject, is expensive, requiring a camera operator, sound recorder, producer and presenter as well as the cost of transportation and satellite equipment to transmit the video back to the TV newsroom, where other personnel are needed to edit, set up and send the story to the engineers who actually broadcast the material.
A print reporter, on the other hand, needs only a notebook and pencil to gather the material at the scene, plus access to a telephone to gather more information and call in the story to the newsroom.
Television may be more glamorous, but the skill set for reporters is the same: Ask pertinent questions, record the answers, and write the story.
Fortunately, even as newspapers reduce their newsroom staff and trim their coverage of local and regional news, the reporters and editors can find other work with broadcast and online operations in the New Information Age.
Lost in the shuffle, however, is coverage of local and regional news as national broadcast and cable TV operations dominate the journalistic scene.
All is not yet lost, however. There are still many people who prefer the tactile appeal of print news sources, especially with their more complete coverage, and there are others who do not have, nor do they want, computers.
There again, online sources are often not as complete as print sources. And more important, there is no filtering, so the reader has no way of knowing the competence and reputation of the source.
It's time for journalism to reclaim its mission of being accurate, impartial and complete in its coverage of important events.
This is especially true in this election year, when so much of what candidates and their supporters say is provably false, misleading, or even a blatant lie.
Partisan groups don't talk to each other, so there is no possibility of compromise. But the importance of talking to opponents to settle on a compromise was one of the guiding principles to the founders of the American governmental system.
Recently, however, that has been abandoned, and partly enabled by the many news media outlets that serve their own partisan audiences. Gone are the days when journalists served as filters, selecting the most important items and exercising editorial discretion as to what best served the public interest.
Watching cable TV information operations that best reflect an individual's closely held opinions does not allow for exposure to opposing views, much less contribute to a compromise.
There are, indeed, news programs that strive to be neutral, objective and reasonably complete in their presentation of various sorts of information, but far too many citizens choose to watch entertainment or gossip programs rather than serious news outlets, much less do they read newspapers.
For one thing, reading requires work, an active role by individuals. Watching television is easy and requires no effort. Moreover, broadcast news programs are by nature brief and incomplete, with no time available for in-depth analysis of issues of great public concern.
A 30-minute program, for example, has perhaps 19 minutes available for news content. The rest of the half-hour is taken up by commercials and promotions, as well as introductory and closing material.
If a news presenter speaks at the rate of about 100 words per minute, that means less than 2,000 words available to pack in and disseminate all the news and information about all the important issues of the day. That's the equivalent of less than half a page of a standard size newspaper. -- without pictures.
In addition, setting up a TV story, with video and sound of the subject, is expensive, requiring a camera operator, sound recorder, producer and presenter as well as the cost of transportation and satellite equipment to transmit the video back to the TV newsroom, where other personnel are needed to edit, set up and send the story to the engineers who actually broadcast the material.
A print reporter, on the other hand, needs only a notebook and pencil to gather the material at the scene, plus access to a telephone to gather more information and call in the story to the newsroom.
Television may be more glamorous, but the skill set for reporters is the same: Ask pertinent questions, record the answers, and write the story.
Fortunately, even as newspapers reduce their newsroom staff and trim their coverage of local and regional news, the reporters and editors can find other work with broadcast and online operations in the New Information Age.
Lost in the shuffle, however, is coverage of local and regional news as national broadcast and cable TV operations dominate the journalistic scene.
All is not yet lost, however. There are still many people who prefer the tactile appeal of print news sources, especially with their more complete coverage, and there are others who do not have, nor do they want, computers.
There again, online sources are often not as complete as print sources. And more important, there is no filtering, so the reader has no way of knowing the competence and reputation of the source.
It's time for journalism to reclaim its mission of being accurate, impartial and complete in its coverage of important events.
This is especially true in this election year, when so much of what candidates and their supporters say is provably false, misleading, or even a blatant lie.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Northern Exposure
"Build a wall!" shouts the candidate. "We need to get tough," he charges, because the country is being flooded by waves of immigrants who bleed the welfare system like leeches. We don't know who they are or where they come from, he warns, or what they're doing here, except that they are terrorists, murderers, rapists, criminals and troublemakers of all kinds intent on destroying this nation and its values.
But if he doesn't know who they are or where they come from, how come he knows all about all the bad things that these unknown and uncountable bad guys are allegedly doing?
Either you know something, and you have evidence, documentation and identifiable proof of who's doing what, where, when and how, or you know nothing.
So either put up or be quiet.
Nevertheless, the candidate promises to build a wall, a ten-foot-tall physical and impenetrable barrier all along America's southern border to keep out all the baddies and make the county safe.
But what about the northern border?
So far, all the warnings have been about terrorists, criminals and rapists (Oh, my!) who are easily spotted because they look different, they talk funny and they have peculiar names.
However, our international neighbors to the north look like us, talk like us (well, most of them) and have names similar to ours.
Danger. They blend.
But if he doesn't know who they are or where they come from, how come he knows all about all the bad things that these unknown and uncountable bad guys are allegedly doing?
Either you know something, and you have evidence, documentation and identifiable proof of who's doing what, where, when and how, or you know nothing.
So either put up or be quiet.
Nevertheless, the candidate promises to build a wall, a ten-foot-tall physical and impenetrable barrier all along America's southern border to keep out all the baddies and make the county safe.
But what about the northern border?
So far, all the warnings have been about terrorists, criminals and rapists (Oh, my!) who are easily spotted because they look different, they talk funny and they have peculiar names.
However, our international neighbors to the north look like us, talk like us (well, most of them) and have names similar to ours.
Danger. They blend.
Likeable Presidents
John F. Kennedy was one of the most well liked Presidents in modern America, but many of his proposals were left to Lyndon B. Johnson to carry through.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was labeled "a traitor to his class," and was so hated by many wealthy Americans that they refused to speak his name, only referring to him as "that man in the White House." Yet FDR's policies rescued the nation from the Great Depression.
Ronald Reagan was loved by many, but scholars have cast doubt on his competence in government budgeting and in national economics.
LBJ was disliked by so many that he declined to seek a second term as President. But without his inside knowledge of how Congress functions, the important legislation of the 1960s -- including the Civil Rights Act -- might not have become law.
As for likeability, Jimmy Carter was easily overcome by Reagan, the former star of Hollywood movies. Which was the more successful President, Carter or Reagan?
So which is more important for a Presidential candidate, competence and experience or a higher likeability quotient?
Which candidate is more likely to be elected, the uber-macho salesman or the candidate who is disliked partly because of her gender?
Which set of qualities is more attractive to voters, machismo and bluster or knowledge and experience?
One candidate has a lower likeability quotient because of her perceived reserve in public, but rates higher in experience in government. The other is far more liked for his get-tough approach to all things but has no experience in government.
There are many examples, in business as well as in government and the military, where a manager, official or a general is personally disliked by colleagues and staffers but is nevertheless respected for broad knowledge, experience and skill in getting a job done. There are others who are quite likeable and friendly, even loved, but lack competence and the skill to do a job reasonably well.
Given the choice of likeability or competence, which will voters of America choose to be President? We'll have an answer come November.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was labeled "a traitor to his class," and was so hated by many wealthy Americans that they refused to speak his name, only referring to him as "that man in the White House." Yet FDR's policies rescued the nation from the Great Depression.
Ronald Reagan was loved by many, but scholars have cast doubt on his competence in government budgeting and in national economics.
LBJ was disliked by so many that he declined to seek a second term as President. But without his inside knowledge of how Congress functions, the important legislation of the 1960s -- including the Civil Rights Act -- might not have become law.
As for likeability, Jimmy Carter was easily overcome by Reagan, the former star of Hollywood movies. Which was the more successful President, Carter or Reagan?
So which is more important for a Presidential candidate, competence and experience or a higher likeability quotient?
Which candidate is more likely to be elected, the uber-macho salesman or the candidate who is disliked partly because of her gender?
Which set of qualities is more attractive to voters, machismo and bluster or knowledge and experience?
One candidate has a lower likeability quotient because of her perceived reserve in public, but rates higher in experience in government. The other is far more liked for his get-tough approach to all things but has no experience in government.
There are many examples, in business as well as in government and the military, where a manager, official or a general is personally disliked by colleagues and staffers but is nevertheless respected for broad knowledge, experience and skill in getting a job done. There are others who are quite likeable and friendly, even loved, but lack competence and the skill to do a job reasonably well.
Given the choice of likeability or competence, which will voters of America choose to be President? We'll have an answer come November.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
News and Gossip
News is what people need to know.
Gossip is what people want to know.
There's plenty of room in the information business for purveyors of each -- news and gossip -- but there's often a thin, even movable, line between the two. And to make things even more challenging, there's a lot of overlap. What's news to one is mere gossip to another.
To add to the fun, many people confuse the two, insisting that they desperately need to know who's having an extra-marital affair with whom, or whether Kim Kardashian is pregnant and if so by whom, or how much your second cousin's niece paid for her full-back tattoo.
And when it comes to political journalism, there's often a mash-up of the two types of information.
Granted, a little gossip can spice up a straight and potentially dull news item, and reporters sometimes do that, using a human angle, humor, sorrow, joy, pity or any other emotion to engage readers and viewers.
Gossip is easy to acquire and spread. Real news takes work. Or, as one editor put it, "Don't just cover the news. Uncover the news."
It's easy to cover the flash and dash, but it's much harder to find the cause of the flash and why people dash toward or away from the flashy.
Journalists are information watchdogs. They sniff out problems, dig up details, and alert the rest of us to what we as citizens and voters need to know.
At their best, they do it well, in the process filtering the news from the gossip, and presenting the more important bits of information to the public, regardless of what politicians, candidates, government or corporate officials may prefer. The core of journalism's responsibility is to separate out marketing, advertising, propaganda, insinuations, half-truths and lies, label them as such and back up the news stories with fact.
And when criticized and attacked by activists on both sides of an issue, that's proof they did a good job.
Gossip is what people want to know.
There's plenty of room in the information business for purveyors of each -- news and gossip -- but there's often a thin, even movable, line between the two. And to make things even more challenging, there's a lot of overlap. What's news to one is mere gossip to another.
To add to the fun, many people confuse the two, insisting that they desperately need to know who's having an extra-marital affair with whom, or whether Kim Kardashian is pregnant and if so by whom, or how much your second cousin's niece paid for her full-back tattoo.
And when it comes to political journalism, there's often a mash-up of the two types of information.
Granted, a little gossip can spice up a straight and potentially dull news item, and reporters sometimes do that, using a human angle, humor, sorrow, joy, pity or any other emotion to engage readers and viewers.
Gossip is easy to acquire and spread. Real news takes work. Or, as one editor put it, "Don't just cover the news. Uncover the news."
It's easy to cover the flash and dash, but it's much harder to find the cause of the flash and why people dash toward or away from the flashy.
Journalists are information watchdogs. They sniff out problems, dig up details, and alert the rest of us to what we as citizens and voters need to know.
At their best, they do it well, in the process filtering the news from the gossip, and presenting the more important bits of information to the public, regardless of what politicians, candidates, government or corporate officials may prefer. The core of journalism's responsibility is to separate out marketing, advertising, propaganda, insinuations, half-truths and lies, label them as such and back up the news stories with fact.
And when criticized and attacked by activists on both sides of an issue, that's proof they did a good job.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Out, Liars
"That's a lie." -- Sean Thornton
"That's a word I take from no man. Put up your fists." -- Will Danaher.
Time was, "liar" was one of the worst insults launched at a person. Nowadays, however, prevarication, misleading hints, falsehoods and even "truthful hyperbole" have become endemic in American politics.
So why don't TV news anchors and interviewers call out those who perpetrate blatant nonsense and identify them for what they are: Liars.
For decades, reporters and opinion writers avoided using the terms "liar" because of the power inherent in the word. But many, especially politicians, have stretched the truth so far and so flagrantly that only the L word properly describes what they do.
Moreover, the word has been bandied about so loosely that it is now necessary for news media to use it to accurately describe the perpetrators. Even in the halls of Congress, the word "Liar!" was hurled at the President during his State of the Union address.
Courtesy and respect have disappeared.
During the current political campaign, proven falsehoods, unproven rumors and misleading insinuations as well as flat-out lies are spread every day as swiftly as rancid margarine masquerading as butter.
Too often, the unfounded allegations -- lies -- go unchallenged by journalists. And this raises the question of whether the candidate should get away with expounding ludicrous nonsense. A reporter's duty, of course, is to record and forward to the general public what a candidate for government office, or any other public figure, says. In addition, journalists seek out a response from opponents.
Young reporter: "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
Senior editor: "Sure. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to decide which side is lying. Maybe they both are. Our job is to report both sides and let the reader decide."
Those days may be gone.
During the current electoral season, the lies have become so blatant and defiantly flagrant, and repeated so often, in the face of history, previously recorded speeches and volumes of documented evidence that the problem has become a serious challenge as journalists try to serve a free society.
So what's a reporter to do?
Remaining neutral and impartial is no barrier to journalism's duty to report truth. It's important to describe accurately and fairly what a candidate says and does, but that doesn't prevent a reporter from identifying and labeling as false whatever nonsensical claim is perpetrated that is contrary to fact and reality and even contradicts previous comments made repeatedly by the same speaker.
It may be unseemly and unprofessional for a TV news anchor to say "Liar" to a politician. Leave that to the commentators, pundits and opinionators.
But there are ways.
And the best way for a journalist to expose blatant, flagrant untruths is to say or write, "That's false, and here's why," then producing the evidence to prove why the politician is a liar.
"That's a word I take from no man. Put up your fists." -- Will Danaher.
Time was, "liar" was one of the worst insults launched at a person. Nowadays, however, prevarication, misleading hints, falsehoods and even "truthful hyperbole" have become endemic in American politics.
So why don't TV news anchors and interviewers call out those who perpetrate blatant nonsense and identify them for what they are: Liars.
For decades, reporters and opinion writers avoided using the terms "liar" because of the power inherent in the word. But many, especially politicians, have stretched the truth so far and so flagrantly that only the L word properly describes what they do.
Moreover, the word has been bandied about so loosely that it is now necessary for news media to use it to accurately describe the perpetrators. Even in the halls of Congress, the word "Liar!" was hurled at the President during his State of the Union address.
Courtesy and respect have disappeared.
During the current political campaign, proven falsehoods, unproven rumors and misleading insinuations as well as flat-out lies are spread every day as swiftly as rancid margarine masquerading as butter.
Too often, the unfounded allegations -- lies -- go unchallenged by journalists. And this raises the question of whether the candidate should get away with expounding ludicrous nonsense. A reporter's duty, of course, is to record and forward to the general public what a candidate for government office, or any other public figure, says. In addition, journalists seek out a response from opponents.
Young reporter: "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
Senior editor: "Sure. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to decide which side is lying. Maybe they both are. Our job is to report both sides and let the reader decide."
Those days may be gone.
During the current electoral season, the lies have become so blatant and defiantly flagrant, and repeated so often, in the face of history, previously recorded speeches and volumes of documented evidence that the problem has become a serious challenge as journalists try to serve a free society.
So what's a reporter to do?
Remaining neutral and impartial is no barrier to journalism's duty to report truth. It's important to describe accurately and fairly what a candidate says and does, but that doesn't prevent a reporter from identifying and labeling as false whatever nonsensical claim is perpetrated that is contrary to fact and reality and even contradicts previous comments made repeatedly by the same speaker.
It may be unseemly and unprofessional for a TV news anchor to say "Liar" to a politician. Leave that to the commentators, pundits and opinionators.
But there are ways.
And the best way for a journalist to expose blatant, flagrant untruths is to say or write, "That's false, and here's why," then producing the evidence to prove why the politician is a liar.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Conspiracy Theorists
Give it up, guys, it's a non-starter.
Fact and reality never interfere with the convictions of True Believers, and cable TV news shows are becoming like supermarket tabloid gossip sheets.
When confronted with detailed information that contradicts their views and theories, the True Believers dismiss these facts as lies, invented and spread by nefarious others, and sown only as character assassination.
When challenged by neutral journalists, they insist that the questioner is part of a conspiracy against them and their True Beliefs, brought by political opponents in league with the bigoted, biased, unfair and incompetent news media.
It's time for responsible journalists to stop letting themselves be manipulated by the True Believers and conspiracy kooks who use, misuse and abuse media platforms to spout their nonsense.
Granted, such colorful diatribes make "good copy," but they contribute little to rational discussion of important issues.
The odd thing is, participants in these journalistic charades believe they are indeed "rational" discussions.
They're not.
There's no rational basis for the birtherism campaign, and there never was. The punditocracy, however, continues to refer to the idea that a presidential candidate must be born in the U.S., thus endorsing the birtherism allegation that this is a Constitutional requirement.
It's not.
The Constitution stipulates that a candidate must be a "natural born" citizen. This includes children born elsewhere to American citizens. By this standard, Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, is a "natural born" citizen through his American mother.
Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and also a Presidential candidate, was born in Mexico to American Mormon missionaries.
And Sen. John McCain was born in Panama to military parents stationed in the Canal Zone.
All three qualify as "natural born" citizens. Coincidentally, all three are Republicans, yet the birtherism issue was never brought against them.
But despite documented proof that Barack Obama, a Democrat, was born in Hawaii to an American mother, and therefore is not only a natural born citizen but primarily a native born citizen, the conspiracy theorists continue to spread the notion that he was not a citizen at all, and so not qualified to be President.
The reaction by the conspiracy kooks is that the birth certificate is a forgery, the newspaper birth announcements were planted, and that "something's going on."
Memo to talk show hosts: Give it up, guys. It may be juicy, but it's a non-story. Unless you call out the kooks on the air as liars and fools, don't give them air time. Your job in the news business is to investigate for truth and expose nonsensical lies.
Do your job.
Fact and reality never interfere with the convictions of True Believers, and cable TV news shows are becoming like supermarket tabloid gossip sheets.
When confronted with detailed information that contradicts their views and theories, the True Believers dismiss these facts as lies, invented and spread by nefarious others, and sown only as character assassination.
When challenged by neutral journalists, they insist that the questioner is part of a conspiracy against them and their True Beliefs, brought by political opponents in league with the bigoted, biased, unfair and incompetent news media.
It's time for responsible journalists to stop letting themselves be manipulated by the True Believers and conspiracy kooks who use, misuse and abuse media platforms to spout their nonsense.
Granted, such colorful diatribes make "good copy," but they contribute little to rational discussion of important issues.
The odd thing is, participants in these journalistic charades believe they are indeed "rational" discussions.
They're not.
There's no rational basis for the birtherism campaign, and there never was. The punditocracy, however, continues to refer to the idea that a presidential candidate must be born in the U.S., thus endorsing the birtherism allegation that this is a Constitutional requirement.
It's not.
The Constitution stipulates that a candidate must be a "natural born" citizen. This includes children born elsewhere to American citizens. By this standard, Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, is a "natural born" citizen through his American mother.
Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and also a Presidential candidate, was born in Mexico to American Mormon missionaries.
And Sen. John McCain was born in Panama to military parents stationed in the Canal Zone.
All three qualify as "natural born" citizens. Coincidentally, all three are Republicans, yet the birtherism issue was never brought against them.
But despite documented proof that Barack Obama, a Democrat, was born in Hawaii to an American mother, and therefore is not only a natural born citizen but primarily a native born citizen, the conspiracy theorists continue to spread the notion that he was not a citizen at all, and so not qualified to be President.
The reaction by the conspiracy kooks is that the birth certificate is a forgery, the newspaper birth announcements were planted, and that "something's going on."
Memo to talk show hosts: Give it up, guys. It may be juicy, but it's a non-story. Unless you call out the kooks on the air as liars and fools, don't give them air time. Your job in the news business is to investigate for truth and expose nonsensical lies.
Do your job.
Prices Up, Wages Down
The good news this week was that household income rose 5.2 percent.
The bad news is, that was last year. This year, wages are down while prices are rising.
That's an oversimplification, of course. Last year's numbers reflected a nationwide trend, led by strong growth in major metro areas. In the rest of the country, things declined.
Now, monthly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show a drop of 0.1 percent in "real average hourly earnings for all employees" from July to August. There was actually a rise in earnings of 0.1 percent, but that was offset by a jump in prices of 0.2 percent.
Net result, costs are up and income is down. Not by much, but that's no consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Average American, who are essentially no better than they were two years ago.
Data drones and political pollyannas will rattle on at great length about how good things are compared to what was, and that's easy to do when you select the data points that are most helpful to support what you want to say.
That works two ways, however, for those out of political office as well as those in, who will claim credit for good times and blame bad news on their predecessors.
Mark Twain famously said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Then there are those who ignore the figures entirely and enhance their sales pitch with even more outlandish claims.
But if you really want to put yourself in danger of brain freeze from a cascade of numbers, go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web page, bls.gov, for more data than you can possibly imagine, plus variations on each data set. There you can pick and choose the stuff you need to amaze and astonish your friends.
Then they will either praise your expertise of they will shun you.
Finally, whether you believe the economy is doing well or not depends partially on whether you have a job. Check an earlier posting on this site titled "Maybe Moving Up." Then again, maybe not.
The bad news is, that was last year. This year, wages are down while prices are rising.
That's an oversimplification, of course. Last year's numbers reflected a nationwide trend, led by strong growth in major metro areas. In the rest of the country, things declined.
Now, monthly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show a drop of 0.1 percent in "real average hourly earnings for all employees" from July to August. There was actually a rise in earnings of 0.1 percent, but that was offset by a jump in prices of 0.2 percent.
Net result, costs are up and income is down. Not by much, but that's no consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Average American, who are essentially no better than they were two years ago.
Data drones and political pollyannas will rattle on at great length about how good things are compared to what was, and that's easy to do when you select the data points that are most helpful to support what you want to say.
That works two ways, however, for those out of political office as well as those in, who will claim credit for good times and blame bad news on their predecessors.
Mark Twain famously said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Then there are those who ignore the figures entirely and enhance their sales pitch with even more outlandish claims.
But if you really want to put yourself in danger of brain freeze from a cascade of numbers, go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web page, bls.gov, for more data than you can possibly imagine, plus variations on each data set. There you can pick and choose the stuff you need to amaze and astonish your friends.
Then they will either praise your expertise of they will shun you.
Finally, whether you believe the economy is doing well or not depends partially on whether you have a job. Check an earlier posting on this site titled "Maybe Moving Up." Then again, maybe not.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Badger of Honor
"I don't see it as journalism, I see it as badgering," So said Kellyanne Conway, the most recent campaign manager for Republican nominee Donald Trump, on the persistent questions about the candidate's claims of charity donations and his refusal to release his tax returns.
Yes, Ms Conway, you may well call the persistent questioning "badgering," but that's part of journalism's job, to pursue truth and documentation of questionable claims made by those seeking public office.
To criticize journalists for doing their jobs will be taken as proof that they are good at their jobs.
So it will be no surprise if reporters start wearing badger-shaped lapel pins, and competing with each other to become known as "badger in chief."
The same accusation of "badgering" could be made about questioning of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's emails, despite Bernie Sanders' comment that "Nobody cares about your damn emails."
But the reality is that journalists are reporting questions brought up by political opponents, in addition to the basic issue of whether a private computer server was appropriate. As it turns out, many members of Congress also had private email servers through which they received and sent material that may have been marked "Confidential."
Perhaps these private systems were set up for a good reason, considering the questionable security of government systems.
Nevertheless, the questions about Trump's tax returns and so-called charity donations, which were in fact donations from others, dealt with money allegedly funneled through the Trump Foundation. Donations for which Trump claimed credit. The issue can be settled quite easily if he released his tax returns that documented the amounts and the recipients of donations.
But that would mean possible proof that Trump has paid little or no federal income tax for several years, even as he talks up the benefits of even more tax deductions. Could it be he's looking for ways to have the IRS pay him?
As for Trump's claims that he cannot release the tax returns because they are still under audit, consider this: We only have his word that they are under audit. The IRS will neither confirm nor deny this, but will only say that the candidate can divulge his data anytime he wishes.
How about proof that the returns are, in fact, under audit? That can be shown simply by exhibiting the letter from the IRS that his returns are being audited.
At bottom, however, is his claim that he is audited every year. Really? Every year? For at least the past ten years? Does it take that long to audit even his extremely complicated tax return?
An even better question is this: What's he hiding, and why?
Yes, Ms Conway, you may well call the persistent questioning "badgering," but that's part of journalism's job, to pursue truth and documentation of questionable claims made by those seeking public office.
To criticize journalists for doing their jobs will be taken as proof that they are good at their jobs.
So it will be no surprise if reporters start wearing badger-shaped lapel pins, and competing with each other to become known as "badger in chief."
The same accusation of "badgering" could be made about questioning of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's emails, despite Bernie Sanders' comment that "Nobody cares about your damn emails."
But the reality is that journalists are reporting questions brought up by political opponents, in addition to the basic issue of whether a private computer server was appropriate. As it turns out, many members of Congress also had private email servers through which they received and sent material that may have been marked "Confidential."
Perhaps these private systems were set up for a good reason, considering the questionable security of government systems.
Nevertheless, the questions about Trump's tax returns and so-called charity donations, which were in fact donations from others, dealt with money allegedly funneled through the Trump Foundation. Donations for which Trump claimed credit. The issue can be settled quite easily if he released his tax returns that documented the amounts and the recipients of donations.
But that would mean possible proof that Trump has paid little or no federal income tax for several years, even as he talks up the benefits of even more tax deductions. Could it be he's looking for ways to have the IRS pay him?
As for Trump's claims that he cannot release the tax returns because they are still under audit, consider this: We only have his word that they are under audit. The IRS will neither confirm nor deny this, but will only say that the candidate can divulge his data anytime he wishes.
How about proof that the returns are, in fact, under audit? That can be shown simply by exhibiting the letter from the IRS that his returns are being audited.
At bottom, however, is his claim that he is audited every year. Really? Every year? For at least the past ten years? Does it take that long to audit even his extremely complicated tax return?
An even better question is this: What's he hiding, and why?
Fair, Not Balanced
For all the talk about "fair and balanced" reporting in the news media, with the arbitrary goal of giving all sides of an issue equal space and time, this leaves no room for editorial judgement as to an opinion's news value or its relative importance.
The argument is this: Report all positions equally and let the reader decide. But what if one side's views are so preposterous that they don't deserve mention at all, much less being given the same amount of space and time as another position with volumes of evidence to support it?
In its zeal to be perceived as "fair and balanced," in response to loud complaints by radical fringe groups, journalism for decades has been giving every side equal mention in news stories.
That's like quoting the Flat Earth Society in every aerospace story. Or citing an atheist during coverage of a major religious holiday.
Or interviewing deniers in every story about climate change. This includes those who see snow in January as "proof" that the Earth is not warmer than it used to be.
Set aside the volumes of specific data collected by meteorologists over the past 100 years or more. There are many residents of the U.S. Northeast who can remember ice skating on local ponds every winter. Can't do that any more.
These same people now see mockingbirds in Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey year 'round, remembering a time in their youth when these birds were never seen north of Virginia. They also see other birds that no longer migrate, choosing to stay in North Jersey or Pennsylvania, for example, rather than fly south for the winter.
Yet the deniers insist the climate is not changing. Perhaps the birds know better.
In the name of "balanced coverage," many in the media have abandoned their role as news filters who decide the relative importance of various events and opinions, and have yielded to pressure from extremists who demand equal time.
Maybe they don't deserve equal time. Report their views, certainly, no matter how irrational or even ludicrous they are, but there's no credible reason to compare them as equal to new evidence supporting a longstanding scientific theory or fact.
For example, there are still some who insist the sun revolves around the earth, citing as "proof" their personal observation that the Sun moves from east to west, and therefore the Earth stands still, with no mention of why people don't fall away into outer space.
So much for Isaac Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.
In the world of politics today, many journalists and commentators, especially TV talk show hosts, continue to provide the radical fringe with a platform to air their opinions in the name of "balanced" views.
For years, editors have protested this as "false equivalence." Not every view or opinion is equal, either in news value or, more importantly, in fact.
Yet because the heroes of the radical fringe are so beloved by their devotees that they can continue to spout things that are clearly false or misleading, knowing that the news media can be easily manipulated into broadcasting their views without challenge.
There are, of course, fact checkers monitoring speeches and interviews for mis-statements made in ignorance or flat-out lies that pay no mind to fact or reality, but these challenges too often come after the falsehood is uttered on a TV interview show. A newspaper or magazine can print the contrary evidence the next day, of course, and Internet sites can run the challenges within minutes, but many of the True Believers delve only into Web sites that mirror their pre-set views, and either do not read newspapers or refuse to accept contrary evidence, dismissing the print media as biased, unfair, untruthful and not to be believed.
Yet they instantly accept what their Beloved Leader says, regardless of the many times his comments have been proven false or merely ignorant.
The argument is this: Report all positions equally and let the reader decide. But what if one side's views are so preposterous that they don't deserve mention at all, much less being given the same amount of space and time as another position with volumes of evidence to support it?
In its zeal to be perceived as "fair and balanced," in response to loud complaints by radical fringe groups, journalism for decades has been giving every side equal mention in news stories.
That's like quoting the Flat Earth Society in every aerospace story. Or citing an atheist during coverage of a major religious holiday.
Or interviewing deniers in every story about climate change. This includes those who see snow in January as "proof" that the Earth is not warmer than it used to be.
Set aside the volumes of specific data collected by meteorologists over the past 100 years or more. There are many residents of the U.S. Northeast who can remember ice skating on local ponds every winter. Can't do that any more.
These same people now see mockingbirds in Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey year 'round, remembering a time in their youth when these birds were never seen north of Virginia. They also see other birds that no longer migrate, choosing to stay in North Jersey or Pennsylvania, for example, rather than fly south for the winter.
Yet the deniers insist the climate is not changing. Perhaps the birds know better.
In the name of "balanced coverage," many in the media have abandoned their role as news filters who decide the relative importance of various events and opinions, and have yielded to pressure from extremists who demand equal time.
Maybe they don't deserve equal time. Report their views, certainly, no matter how irrational or even ludicrous they are, but there's no credible reason to compare them as equal to new evidence supporting a longstanding scientific theory or fact.
For example, there are still some who insist the sun revolves around the earth, citing as "proof" their personal observation that the Sun moves from east to west, and therefore the Earth stands still, with no mention of why people don't fall away into outer space.
So much for Isaac Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.
In the world of politics today, many journalists and commentators, especially TV talk show hosts, continue to provide the radical fringe with a platform to air their opinions in the name of "balanced" views.
For years, editors have protested this as "false equivalence." Not every view or opinion is equal, either in news value or, more importantly, in fact.
Yet because the heroes of the radical fringe are so beloved by their devotees that they can continue to spout things that are clearly false or misleading, knowing that the news media can be easily manipulated into broadcasting their views without challenge.
There are, of course, fact checkers monitoring speeches and interviews for mis-statements made in ignorance or flat-out lies that pay no mind to fact or reality, but these challenges too often come after the falsehood is uttered on a TV interview show. A newspaper or magazine can print the contrary evidence the next day, of course, and Internet sites can run the challenges within minutes, but many of the True Believers delve only into Web sites that mirror their pre-set views, and either do not read newspapers or refuse to accept contrary evidence, dismissing the print media as biased, unfair, untruthful and not to be believed.
Yet they instantly accept what their Beloved Leader says, regardless of the many times his comments have been proven false or merely ignorant.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Unintended Consequences
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
As with so many things in life, stuff happens when you least expect it and in ways that you didn't foresee. Economists call this "unintended consequences."
A few months ago, the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union, for whatever reasons seemed like a good idea at the time. But if England leaves the EU, they will lose some of the benefits of EU membership, including the ability to live and work in any of the other member countries.
Already, some 600 lawyers from England and Wales have asked to register in Ireland so they can continue to practice their profession in the rest of the EU. Normally, fewer than 100 lawyers a year ask to be certified in Ireland.
Why Ireland? It seems the two legal systems are quite similar, so the Irish Law Society usually does not require a test of applicants certified to practice in England and Wales.
But if the United Kingdom of Great Britain drops out of the EU, its lawyers won't be able to practice their trade in other member countries. It seems EU courts require lawyers who appear in their jurisdictions be registered in member states. Brexit would make the UK no longer a member state, so its lawyers would be out of work. But if they register in Ireland, they can continue.
However, that won't mean an exodus of English and Welsh lawyers relocating to Ireland; only that they would have Irish registration. No word yet on what lawyers in Scotland want to do, since the Scots voted to remain in the EU, and are also considering leaving the UK as well.
Here's another example of an unintended consequence. The Irish government is reviewing its rules for people who want to retire to Ireland from other nations. Retirees from countries in what's called the European Economic Area (EEA), which comprises not only the EU but also Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, will still be able to retire to Ireland. But folks from other countries -- which would include the UK -- would have to prove a close relationship to Ireland.
That would be easy enough for families with relatives in Ireland. About 100 people a year from outside the EEA retire to Ireland, most of them from America.
But others, such as folks in Britain, would have a harder time if Britain drops out of the EU. Would Britain then join the EEA to avoid this problem? Not likely, since that would mean accepting free movement to Britain from EEA countries and also helping to support the EU, as EEA countries also do. Both of these reasons were behind the Brexit move in the first place.
Now, the consequence of leaving Brexit could mean a revival of the old chant among Irish rebels: "England, stay out of Ireland."
As with so many things in life, stuff happens when you least expect it and in ways that you didn't foresee. Economists call this "unintended consequences."
A few months ago, the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union, for whatever reasons seemed like a good idea at the time. But if England leaves the EU, they will lose some of the benefits of EU membership, including the ability to live and work in any of the other member countries.
Already, some 600 lawyers from England and Wales have asked to register in Ireland so they can continue to practice their profession in the rest of the EU. Normally, fewer than 100 lawyers a year ask to be certified in Ireland.
Why Ireland? It seems the two legal systems are quite similar, so the Irish Law Society usually does not require a test of applicants certified to practice in England and Wales.
But if the United Kingdom of Great Britain drops out of the EU, its lawyers won't be able to practice their trade in other member countries. It seems EU courts require lawyers who appear in their jurisdictions be registered in member states. Brexit would make the UK no longer a member state, so its lawyers would be out of work. But if they register in Ireland, they can continue.
However, that won't mean an exodus of English and Welsh lawyers relocating to Ireland; only that they would have Irish registration. No word yet on what lawyers in Scotland want to do, since the Scots voted to remain in the EU, and are also considering leaving the UK as well.
Here's another example of an unintended consequence. The Irish government is reviewing its rules for people who want to retire to Ireland from other nations. Retirees from countries in what's called the European Economic Area (EEA), which comprises not only the EU but also Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, will still be able to retire to Ireland. But folks from other countries -- which would include the UK -- would have to prove a close relationship to Ireland.
That would be easy enough for families with relatives in Ireland. About 100 people a year from outside the EEA retire to Ireland, most of them from America.
But others, such as folks in Britain, would have a harder time if Britain drops out of the EU. Would Britain then join the EEA to avoid this problem? Not likely, since that would mean accepting free movement to Britain from EEA countries and also helping to support the EU, as EEA countries also do. Both of these reasons were behind the Brexit move in the first place.
Now, the consequence of leaving Brexit could mean a revival of the old chant among Irish rebels: "England, stay out of Ireland."
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Clear and Present Danger
Politics and economics are so closely intertwined that it's hard for experts in one field to avoid commenting on the other.
When political candidates promise to close borders, increase protectionism, impose punitive tariffs and otherwise punish international trade nations, it's time for economists to speak up and warn of the dangers in such tactics, which lead to one country being stranded on an economic island of its own making.
That happened today, as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) spoke out against the "growing risk" of politicians seeking office and promising "get tough" policies on international trade.
"History tells us that closing borders or increasing protectionism is not the way to go," said Christine Lagarde during a speech in Toronto.
She mentioned no names in her criticism of those who would enact such measures as a way to domestic prosperity. Instead, she emphasized that "global economic integration" has long been recognized as the key to prosperity for all sides.
There's nothing new here. As long ago as 1776, when Adam Smith published his founding volume, "The Wealth of Nations," mutual trade has been endorsed by economists, philosophers and human rights activists.
Lagarde cited the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan's comment that technology had brought the world to be a "global village." Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate in economics, noted that global economic integration "has enriched the world scientifically and culturally, and benefited many people economically as well," Lagarde said. And she quoted Martin Luther King as saying that "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
Success will not be easy, however, and solutions will be hard to put in place, given differences in ethnic and cultural factors, Lagarde said.
Even so, there are some policy tools that can help. Lagarde urged more education and training for lower-skilled workers; stronger social safety nets including a higher minimum wage, health benefits, and unemployment insurance; more economic fairness to reduce tax evasion and the artificial shifting of business to low-tax locations; as well as more global cooperation among trading nations to boost welfare for all.
Will it happen soon? No, but "the ability of countries to rise above narrow self-interest has brought unprecedented economic progress" in the 70 years since the IMF was formed.
The isolationist policies of the 1930s that contributed to and worsened the Great Depression are currently being resurrected by some political candidates, in Europe as well as in the U.S.
The danger is clear.
When political candidates promise to close borders, increase protectionism, impose punitive tariffs and otherwise punish international trade nations, it's time for economists to speak up and warn of the dangers in such tactics, which lead to one country being stranded on an economic island of its own making.
That happened today, as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) spoke out against the "growing risk" of politicians seeking office and promising "get tough" policies on international trade.
"History tells us that closing borders or increasing protectionism is not the way to go," said Christine Lagarde during a speech in Toronto.
She mentioned no names in her criticism of those who would enact such measures as a way to domestic prosperity. Instead, she emphasized that "global economic integration" has long been recognized as the key to prosperity for all sides.
There's nothing new here. As long ago as 1776, when Adam Smith published his founding volume, "The Wealth of Nations," mutual trade has been endorsed by economists, philosophers and human rights activists.
Lagarde cited the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan's comment that technology had brought the world to be a "global village." Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate in economics, noted that global economic integration "has enriched the world scientifically and culturally, and benefited many people economically as well," Lagarde said. And she quoted Martin Luther King as saying that "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
Success will not be easy, however, and solutions will be hard to put in place, given differences in ethnic and cultural factors, Lagarde said.
Even so, there are some policy tools that can help. Lagarde urged more education and training for lower-skilled workers; stronger social safety nets including a higher minimum wage, health benefits, and unemployment insurance; more economic fairness to reduce tax evasion and the artificial shifting of business to low-tax locations; as well as more global cooperation among trading nations to boost welfare for all.
Will it happen soon? No, but "the ability of countries to rise above narrow self-interest has brought unprecedented economic progress" in the 70 years since the IMF was formed.
The isolationist policies of the 1930s that contributed to and worsened the Great Depression are currently being resurrected by some political candidates, in Europe as well as in the U.S.
The danger is clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)