If you can't deal with contrasting opinions, the problem is yours, not mine. -- Pug Mahoney.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." -- Humpty Dumpty
"The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things." -- Alice
"The question is, which is to be master -- that's all." -- Humpty Dumpty
Assumption 1: Everyone will do as I say because I say so.
Assumption 2: Truthful hyperbole is only harmless exaggeration.
Assumption 3: Alternative facts have equal importance, especially when they support what I already believe.
Assumption 4: The story that five million votes were illegally cast in the election is true.
Assumption 5: It must be true because it matches my belief.
Assumption 6: All five million were cast for my opponent.
Assumption 7: I would have won the popular vote if not for all that fraud.
Assumption 8: Anyone who disagrees with my beliefs and opinions is an ignorant liar and a totally dishonest person.
Assumption 9: I am exempt from laws, traditions and regulations because I am the president.
Assumption 10: All those things must be true because I heard it from a lot of people or I read it somewhere. Once I post it on Twitter, that makes it all even more true.
Therefore, I can do what I want and say what I want and everyone must agree or be fired.
Welcome to the White House Wonderland.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Rebellion
Government attorneys are defying a presidential order banning refugees from coming to America.
The acting U.S. Attorney General, Sally Yates, ordered the Justice Department not to defend court challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.
Within hours, came this headline: "Trump to Yates: You're fired!"
Yates was a holdover appointee from the Obama Administration, who has suddenly been replaced while Trump's nominee, Jeff Sessions, waits for approval by the Senate.
Nearly 20 state attorneys general have already called the order illegal.
And a memo is circulating among officials at the State Department criticizing the executive order, prompting White House press secretary Sean Spicer to say dissenting career officials should "either get with the program or go."
Question: How will the Trump Administration cope with a mass walkout of career professionals in key government offices? Such a departure could effectively bring government to a halt.
Spicer's comment echoes the demand from senior advisor Steve Bannon that the press should "keep its mouth shut," as well as Trump's complaint that he is "waging war" with news media.
But unlike other professionals, journalists cannot "get with the program," much less keep their mouths shut as elected officials try to defeat them and prevent them from doing their jobs.
A free press in America is not and can never be "part of the team," as corporate moguls and sports coaches would have it. Reporters ask tough questions because the questions need to be asked. And if that means being labeled "adversarial," so be it.
The reality is that journalists are neither adversaries nor advocates. Their responsibility is to the general public, not to any politician or government official.
And that includes a President.
Courtesy and respect, yes. But subservience? Never.
The acting U.S. Attorney General, Sally Yates, ordered the Justice Department not to defend court challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.
Within hours, came this headline: "Trump to Yates: You're fired!"
Yates was a holdover appointee from the Obama Administration, who has suddenly been replaced while Trump's nominee, Jeff Sessions, waits for approval by the Senate.
Nearly 20 state attorneys general have already called the order illegal.
And a memo is circulating among officials at the State Department criticizing the executive order, prompting White House press secretary Sean Spicer to say dissenting career officials should "either get with the program or go."
Question: How will the Trump Administration cope with a mass walkout of career professionals in key government offices? Such a departure could effectively bring government to a halt.
Spicer's comment echoes the demand from senior advisor Steve Bannon that the press should "keep its mouth shut," as well as Trump's complaint that he is "waging war" with news media.
But unlike other professionals, journalists cannot "get with the program," much less keep their mouths shut as elected officials try to defeat them and prevent them from doing their jobs.
A free press in America is not and can never be "part of the team," as corporate moguls and sports coaches would have it. Reporters ask tough questions because the questions need to be asked. And if that means being labeled "adversarial," so be it.
The reality is that journalists are neither adversaries nor advocates. Their responsibility is to the general public, not to any politician or government official.
And that includes a President.
Courtesy and respect, yes. But subservience? Never.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Resign Or Be Impeached
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to remove a political leader from office, a decent respect for the opinions of a nation's citizens demands that reasons be given.
The current President of the United States has repeatedly ignored, disregarded and violated the rights of various people under his jurisdiction, perpetrated untruths and insisted they be accepted and upheld despite a total lack of evidence for his claims, removed knowledgeable experts from government agencies and replaced them with incompetent cronies, as well as numerous other offenses against the civil liberties and constitutional rights of the people.
All these factors and incidents have been well documented by the free and independent press of America and the world, using information provided to them by government officials and victims of presidential misbehavior.
He has refused to provide information on his business activities that would refute suspicions about inappropriate and unconstitutional relationships with foreign powers.
He has ignored appeals to explain how his tax returns would show no inappropriate or illegal and unconstitutional income sources.
He has insisted that he cannot release his tax returns because, he says, "they are still under audit," despite repeated statements by the Internal Revenue Service that he can release them at any time. But are all his tax returns "still under audit," even those going back three, five, ten or more years? The people of America deserve to know what, if anything, their President is hiding.
He has removed the military chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Security from regular meetings of the National Security Council, saying they may attend such meetings "as needed," and replaced them with a political aide who has no relevant military or national security experience.
He has defied a court ruling overturning his immigration policy mandating a religious test for refugees, insisting that his executive order "remains in place."
For these and other reasons, he has shown a strong disrespect for the rights of America's citizens and those who seek refuge here, as well as a blatant disregard for fact and reality in his various claims relating to his behavior and experience, labeling those who disagree with his opinions and statements "liars, dishonest, unfair" and other labels.
Therefore, we the people of America solemnly declare that the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, is in violation of human rights as well as constitutional responsibilities and must either resign from his office or be impeached, convicted and forced to leave office.
The current President of the United States has repeatedly ignored, disregarded and violated the rights of various people under his jurisdiction, perpetrated untruths and insisted they be accepted and upheld despite a total lack of evidence for his claims, removed knowledgeable experts from government agencies and replaced them with incompetent cronies, as well as numerous other offenses against the civil liberties and constitutional rights of the people.
All these factors and incidents have been well documented by the free and independent press of America and the world, using information provided to them by government officials and victims of presidential misbehavior.
He has refused to provide information on his business activities that would refute suspicions about inappropriate and unconstitutional relationships with foreign powers.
He has ignored appeals to explain how his tax returns would show no inappropriate or illegal and unconstitutional income sources.
He has insisted that he cannot release his tax returns because, he says, "they are still under audit," despite repeated statements by the Internal Revenue Service that he can release them at any time. But are all his tax returns "still under audit," even those going back three, five, ten or more years? The people of America deserve to know what, if anything, their President is hiding.
He has removed the military chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Security from regular meetings of the National Security Council, saying they may attend such meetings "as needed," and replaced them with a political aide who has no relevant military or national security experience.
He has defied a court ruling overturning his immigration policy mandating a religious test for refugees, insisting that his executive order "remains in place."
For these and other reasons, he has shown a strong disrespect for the rights of America's citizens and those who seek refuge here, as well as a blatant disregard for fact and reality in his various claims relating to his behavior and experience, labeling those who disagree with his opinions and statements "liars, dishonest, unfair" and other labels.
Therefore, we the people of America solemnly declare that the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, is in violation of human rights as well as constitutional responsibilities and must either resign from his office or be impeached, convicted and forced to leave office.
People Power
Massive demonstrations at airports around the country protesting the presidential order halting entry to the U.S. by Muslims caused the White House to back away, saying it was intended to emphasize discretion by local security and immigration officials. The day proved the power of the people.
Ironically, this is the very thing that President Donald Trump has been stressing for many weeks -- returning power to the people.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Kudos to the federal judge in Brooklyn who stopped the presidential order. The judiciary is still an independent, separate and equal branch of government.
Ironically, this is the very thing that President Donald Trump has been stressing for many weeks -- returning power to the people.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Kudos to the federal judge in Brooklyn who stopped the presidential order. The judiciary is still an independent, separate and equal branch of government.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Tortuous Logic
"I'm giving him that power" to override a presidential order to use torture, otherwise known as enhanced interrogation techniques, on suspected terrorists held by the military, said President Donald Trump to his new secretary of defense, Jim Mattis.
But here's the problem: Such a power is not his to give, since torture is banned by international law, federal law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Moreover, military personnel are obligated to refuse an unlawful order. And Mattis is a retired Marine Corps general.
So why would Trump claim he was granting Mattis the "power" to disobey a presidential order? Answer: To cover his own butt, because any such order to use torture is illegal to begin with. And if lower echelon people do use such tactics, Trump would be able to evade responsibility for it and blame it on Mattis. Not that Mattis would authorize such behavior, and would likely refuse to obey any such Trumpian order.
Trump has said of torture, "Absolutely, it works." And several of his newly named cabinet officials have denied that such techniques are useful. Moreover, if U.S. interrogators use them, others would feel more justified in torturing American prisoners.
Here's another example of an illegal order issued by the new President of the United States: Muslim refugees will no longer be allowed to come to America, with Christians and others from minority religions getting first priority.
Establishing a religious test is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No religious test shall ever be required for any office or public trust" in the U.S. Citizenship is a public trust. The First Amendment reinforces that, banning any law restricting freedom of religion or the free exercise thereof, and especially prohibiting a preference for any particular religion.
But here's the problem: Such a power is not his to give, since torture is banned by international law, federal law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Moreover, military personnel are obligated to refuse an unlawful order. And Mattis is a retired Marine Corps general.
So why would Trump claim he was granting Mattis the "power" to disobey a presidential order? Answer: To cover his own butt, because any such order to use torture is illegal to begin with. And if lower echelon people do use such tactics, Trump would be able to evade responsibility for it and blame it on Mattis. Not that Mattis would authorize such behavior, and would likely refuse to obey any such Trumpian order.
Trump has said of torture, "Absolutely, it works." And several of his newly named cabinet officials have denied that such techniques are useful. Moreover, if U.S. interrogators use them, others would feel more justified in torturing American prisoners.
Here's another example of an illegal order issued by the new President of the United States: Muslim refugees will no longer be allowed to come to America, with Christians and others from minority religions getting first priority.
Establishing a religious test is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No religious test shall ever be required for any office or public trust" in the U.S. Citizenship is a public trust. The First Amendment reinforces that, banning any law restricting freedom of religion or the free exercise thereof, and especially prohibiting a preference for any particular religion.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately filed suit challenging that order.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Word Games
"It is no coincidence that the first right listed in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life," said Kellyanne Conway to an anti-abortion rally in Washington on Friday.
Actually, it is a coincidence.
A longer look at the document of 1776, in the section where the Founders write of self-evident truths, shows this phrase: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Emphasis added.)
There is no mention of women and children, nor of family planning, nor of the many black slaves in the country at the time. It took another hundred years until black men (and women) achieved liberty, many more decades until women won the right to vote, and even today the pursuit of happiness is denied to many of those same people, as well as to many others yearning to breathe free in America.
The Declaration of Independence also states, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And when a government tries to impose "absolute despotism," it is the right and the duty of a free people to throw off such a government.
At the time, that meant a revolution, also known as the War of Independence. Today, however, the people can throw off such a government by using the ballot box.
Demagogues, take heed.
Actually, it is a coincidence.
A longer look at the document of 1776, in the section where the Founders write of self-evident truths, shows this phrase: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Emphasis added.)
There is no mention of women and children, nor of family planning, nor of the many black slaves in the country at the time. It took another hundred years until black men (and women) achieved liberty, many more decades until women won the right to vote, and even today the pursuit of happiness is denied to many of those same people, as well as to many others yearning to breathe free in America.
The Declaration of Independence also states, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And when a government tries to impose "absolute despotism," it is the right and the duty of a free people to throw off such a government.
At the time, that meant a revolution, also known as the War of Independence. Today, however, the people can throw off such a government by using the ballot box.
Demagogues, take heed.
Growing Pains
Economic growth in America took a breather in the fourth quarter, according to government data, with total output rising by 1.9 percent, compared to 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
For the year, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at a 1.6 percent rate, the report said, down from 2.6 percent for all of 2015.
Taking out inflation guidelines, American output rose by 2.9 percent in 2016 to a total of $18.57 trillion.
The Commerce Department, which gathers the data, stressed that the report is preliminary, and a second estimate will be released at the end of February.
The Federal Reserve monitors economic data carefully to prevent runaway inflation and economic booms that can easily bust if growth is too fast. As the economy slowly recovered from the Great Recession of eight years ago, the Fed recently acted to raise interest rates slightly. But a fading economy now could mean the Fed will hold off further hikes to enable the economy to gain more strength.
Politicians often claim credit for economic good times, and blame their predecessors for any doldrums. In a larger reality, other forces beyond the control of government have greater influence on any economy.
However, fear can play as big a role as reality and easily trip up a growth cycle, just as over-exuberant investors can drive markets into unstable territory and result in a major downturn.
For the year, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at a 1.6 percent rate, the report said, down from 2.6 percent for all of 2015.
Taking out inflation guidelines, American output rose by 2.9 percent in 2016 to a total of $18.57 trillion.
The Commerce Department, which gathers the data, stressed that the report is preliminary, and a second estimate will be released at the end of February.
The Federal Reserve monitors economic data carefully to prevent runaway inflation and economic booms that can easily bust if growth is too fast. As the economy slowly recovered from the Great Recession of eight years ago, the Fed recently acted to raise interest rates slightly. But a fading economy now could mean the Fed will hold off further hikes to enable the economy to gain more strength.
Politicians often claim credit for economic good times, and blame their predecessors for any doldrums. In a larger reality, other forces beyond the control of government have greater influence on any economy.
However, fear can play as big a role as reality and easily trip up a growth cycle, just as over-exuberant investors can drive markets into unstable territory and result in a major downturn.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Free Press vs Trumpism
International trading nations should "follow our rules," said President Donald Trump.
Question: What if they don't? How will you make them?
The nation's press should "keep its mouth shut," said presidential aide Stephen Bannon in a meeting with senior editors of the New York Times. He added that the nation's press has "zero integrity and zero intelligence." Bannon insisted "the media is the opposition party."
Question: Have you forgotten the Constitution and the First Amendment?
Trump claimed that news media "demean me unfairly."
Question: What if critics do that fairly?
The President, just five days into his term, promised that other nations will accept deported criminal aliens.
Question: Suppose they refuse? What then?
The nation's chief executive demanded that so-called "sanctuary cities" cooperate with immigration officials and hand over anyone they discover to be in the country illegally or lose federal funding.
Question: What if cities still refuse, noting that they need the help of law-abiding residents -- even undocumented residents -- in tracking down and arresting the real criminals? And do you believe federal officials have higher authority over all local and state agencies?
Trump said at a Republican Party meeting in Philadelphia that "We are blessed by Divinity, and we are bound by God to give full devotion to our country."
Question: Do you have direct contact with the Divine, and do you feel entitled to that same devotion?
The President said of waterboarding, "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other forms of torture "absolutely, they work."
Question: Your own senior military officials insist torture does not work, that it endangers captured Americans, and moreover that it is illegal under national and international law. What will you do if, as commander in chief, you tell soldiers to use such techniques and they refuse to obey a clearly unlawful order?
A quick response of "You're fired!" may work on a television show, but you cannot terminate press coverage because reporters ask tough questions. And ordering military personnel to perform illegal acts risks a refusal and a rejection of your commands.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and 240 years of precedent and practice have established basic unalienable rights that people are born with. These are not rights granted by government, but guaranteed by the Constitution, and no President can take them away.
Anyone who tried would have to suspend the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
And that would be tantamount to treason, an impeachable offense.
Question: What if they don't? How will you make them?
The nation's press should "keep its mouth shut," said presidential aide Stephen Bannon in a meeting with senior editors of the New York Times. He added that the nation's press has "zero integrity and zero intelligence." Bannon insisted "the media is the opposition party."
Question: Have you forgotten the Constitution and the First Amendment?
Trump claimed that news media "demean me unfairly."
Question: What if critics do that fairly?
The President, just five days into his term, promised that other nations will accept deported criminal aliens.
Question: Suppose they refuse? What then?
The nation's chief executive demanded that so-called "sanctuary cities" cooperate with immigration officials and hand over anyone they discover to be in the country illegally or lose federal funding.
Question: What if cities still refuse, noting that they need the help of law-abiding residents -- even undocumented residents -- in tracking down and arresting the real criminals? And do you believe federal officials have higher authority over all local and state agencies?
Trump said at a Republican Party meeting in Philadelphia that "We are blessed by Divinity, and we are bound by God to give full devotion to our country."
Question: Do you have direct contact with the Divine, and do you feel entitled to that same devotion?
The President said of waterboarding, "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other forms of torture "absolutely, they work."
Question: Your own senior military officials insist torture does not work, that it endangers captured Americans, and moreover that it is illegal under national and international law. What will you do if, as commander in chief, you tell soldiers to use such techniques and they refuse to obey a clearly unlawful order?
A quick response of "You're fired!" may work on a television show, but you cannot terminate press coverage because reporters ask tough questions. And ordering military personnel to perform illegal acts risks a refusal and a rejection of your commands.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and 240 years of precedent and practice have established basic unalienable rights that people are born with. These are not rights granted by government, but guaranteed by the Constitution, and no President can take them away.
Anyone who tried would have to suspend the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
And that would be tantamount to treason, an impeachable offense.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Alternative Realities
Any shaman, druid or spiritual leader can describe in detail one or more alternate realities, and many have mastered the technique of traveling to and from a spirit world in search of advice and guidance.
However, such travelers know where they are at any stage of their voyage, and do not confuse one reality for another.
But when a person is unable or unwilling to keep separate the realities he or she works in or travels to, that person has a problem, especially when the person comes to a position of prominence in one reality but behaves as if in a preferred alternate reality.
Perhaps the three to five million illegal and fraudulent votes that the President claims led to his loss in the popular vote in last November's election were cast in that alternative reality.
A new investigation is under way to probe allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election. So far, there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this reality.
Maybe the Justice Department can hire a few shamans and witches and druids (Oh, my!) to travel to alternate realities and investigate there while we ordinary mortals wait for alternative tweets confirming alternative votes for alternative candidates, thus proving the alternative facts from an alternative president.
However, such travelers know where they are at any stage of their voyage, and do not confuse one reality for another.
But when a person is unable or unwilling to keep separate the realities he or she works in or travels to, that person has a problem, especially when the person comes to a position of prominence in one reality but behaves as if in a preferred alternate reality.
Perhaps the three to five million illegal and fraudulent votes that the President claims led to his loss in the popular vote in last November's election were cast in that alternative reality.
A new investigation is under way to probe allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election. So far, there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this reality.
Maybe the Justice Department can hire a few shamans and witches and druids (Oh, my!) to travel to alternate realities and investigate there while we ordinary mortals wait for alternative tweets confirming alternative votes for alternative candidates, thus proving the alternative facts from an alternative president.
The L Word
Respect must be earned.
It cannot be demanded.
For many years, news outlets used softer words when dealing with falsehoods uttered by politicians, government officials and celebrities.
Synonyms were common, and included such words as misspoke, fabrication, misled, fiction, inaccurate, misrepresented, fraudulent, misstatement, or hyperbole.
Rarely, if ever, did journalists use the word "lie," either in print or broadcast.
That has changed.
When a claim is so far from truth, fact or reality that it deserves the term "whopper" and is false on its face and so easily disproven as to make one wonder why it was perpetrated in the first place, then it's time to consider calling it what it really is: A lie.
Now, the President of the United States is being caught daily in perpetrating falsehoods, and his acolytes firmly repeat the claim as they attack those who question its veracity.
The result can only diminish respect for the person who occupies the most important office in America.
And the L word now appears on the front pages of daily newspapers.
Repeating a lie early and often, louder and to more people as time passes, does not and cannot make it true.
It cannot be demanded.
For many years, news outlets used softer words when dealing with falsehoods uttered by politicians, government officials and celebrities.
Synonyms were common, and included such words as misspoke, fabrication, misled, fiction, inaccurate, misrepresented, fraudulent, misstatement, or hyperbole.
Rarely, if ever, did journalists use the word "lie," either in print or broadcast.
That has changed.
When a claim is so far from truth, fact or reality that it deserves the term "whopper" and is false on its face and so easily disproven as to make one wonder why it was perpetrated in the first place, then it's time to consider calling it what it really is: A lie.
Now, the President of the United States is being caught daily in perpetrating falsehoods, and his acolytes firmly repeat the claim as they attack those who question its veracity.
The result can only diminish respect for the person who occupies the most important office in America.
And the L word now appears on the front pages of daily newspapers.
Repeating a lie early and often, louder and to more people as time passes, does not and cannot make it true.
Press Room Shills
Packing the White House Briefing Room with devoted White House staff who loudly cheer and applaud remarks by the President in an attempt to create the idea that journalists endorse and support what he says only backfires on the resident shills and their boss.
Journalists never applaud or cheer what a subject says during an interview. Nor do they jeer or boo. Their job requires that they be neutral, to report as accurately and as fairly as they can what is said, and to ask tough questions as to what a statement or claim might mean, and to probe for potential consequences, both positive and negative.
Interrupting a comment with applause to imply that reporters endorse what is said insults the intelligence of those in the general public who rely on journalists to be neutral.
Knock it off, guys. You can lie to yourselves all you want, but don't lie to the press corps or to the American public.
Journalists never applaud or cheer what a subject says during an interview. Nor do they jeer or boo. Their job requires that they be neutral, to report as accurately and as fairly as they can what is said, and to ask tough questions as to what a statement or claim might mean, and to probe for potential consequences, both positive and negative.
Interrupting a comment with applause to imply that reporters endorse what is said insults the intelligence of those in the general public who rely on journalists to be neutral.
Knock it off, guys. You can lie to yourselves all you want, but don't lie to the press corps or to the American public.
Jobs and Opportunity
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door"
-- Emma Lazarus, as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty
Build a wall and stop immigration.
-- President Donald Trump
Shut the Golden Door and build a wall is the Trump strategy to save American jobs and rescue the economy from disaster, according to the President's campaign pledges and recent announcements.
But data gathered by independent government agencies show that the economy is growing, jobs are increasing, and wages are rising.
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics said net employment rose by 307,000 in the second quarter of 2016 as increases in hiring outpaced reductions.
The BLS report said gross job gains from opening and expanding private sector establishments were 7.5 million, while losses from closing and contracting firms were 7.2 million. And the net gain resulted from changes at all businesses in the economy.
Nevertheless, the President continues to warn of a staggering economy and the dangers of immigrants entering the labor force. To stop the alleged flood of illegal immigrants, Trump today signed an executive order to start construction of a southern border wall, to be paid for initially with federal funds.
This despite a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the federal budget deficit is likely to grow by $10 trillion over the next ten years. In addition, the unemployment rate will drop to 4.4 percent, the CBO said.
Other data agencies have reported a slow but steady improvement in the nation's economy.
However, if the President succeeds in his announced plan to increase spending and reduce tax revenue at the same time, even as he imposes tighter immigration restrictions -- which would reduce the labor supply -- in the face of a smaller labor force as the Boomer Generation of American workers reaches retirement age, all would contribute to a squeezing of basic economic input factors and result in strong downward pressure on the economy.
Can you say "recession"?
Now consider Trump's obsession with a doubting news media, where journalists ask tough questions about his plans and investigate and expose patently false and easily disproven claims.
In addition, there are plans to either shut down the White House Press Briefing Room or to increase the number of credentials issued to media outlets with conservative agenda sympathetic to the President's views.
Or the Administration could resort to publishing its own newspaper to combat what it calls a "dishonest" press. Trump already relies heavily on his personal Twitter account to air his views and to attack mainstream news media. Could he also try to bend government-run broadcast outlets such as the Voice of America to send favorable reports domestically as well as internationally? The VOA has long been forbidden to broadcast its programming within the United States and has been scrupulously neutral in its coverage. Might that change under pressure from a President obsessed with his own image and reputation?
In addition, might the Administration start printing its own newspaper, which would follow the government line much as Pravda reflects what the Kremlin wants published?
And would all these strategies and tactics put the First Amendment guarantee of a free press and free expression at risk?
We live in interesting times. Stay tuned.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door"
-- Emma Lazarus, as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty
Build a wall and stop immigration.
-- President Donald Trump
Shut the Golden Door and build a wall is the Trump strategy to save American jobs and rescue the economy from disaster, according to the President's campaign pledges and recent announcements.
But data gathered by independent government agencies show that the economy is growing, jobs are increasing, and wages are rising.
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics said net employment rose by 307,000 in the second quarter of 2016 as increases in hiring outpaced reductions.
The BLS report said gross job gains from opening and expanding private sector establishments were 7.5 million, while losses from closing and contracting firms were 7.2 million. And the net gain resulted from changes at all businesses in the economy.
Nevertheless, the President continues to warn of a staggering economy and the dangers of immigrants entering the labor force. To stop the alleged flood of illegal immigrants, Trump today signed an executive order to start construction of a southern border wall, to be paid for initially with federal funds.
This despite a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the federal budget deficit is likely to grow by $10 trillion over the next ten years. In addition, the unemployment rate will drop to 4.4 percent, the CBO said.
Other data agencies have reported a slow but steady improvement in the nation's economy.
However, if the President succeeds in his announced plan to increase spending and reduce tax revenue at the same time, even as he imposes tighter immigration restrictions -- which would reduce the labor supply -- in the face of a smaller labor force as the Boomer Generation of American workers reaches retirement age, all would contribute to a squeezing of basic economic input factors and result in strong downward pressure on the economy.
Can you say "recession"?
Now consider Trump's obsession with a doubting news media, where journalists ask tough questions about his plans and investigate and expose patently false and easily disproven claims.
In addition, there are plans to either shut down the White House Press Briefing Room or to increase the number of credentials issued to media outlets with conservative agenda sympathetic to the President's views.
Or the Administration could resort to publishing its own newspaper to combat what it calls a "dishonest" press. Trump already relies heavily on his personal Twitter account to air his views and to attack mainstream news media. Could he also try to bend government-run broadcast outlets such as the Voice of America to send favorable reports domestically as well as internationally? The VOA has long been forbidden to broadcast its programming within the United States and has been scrupulously neutral in its coverage. Might that change under pressure from a President obsessed with his own image and reputation?
In addition, might the Administration start printing its own newspaper, which would follow the government line much as Pravda reflects what the Kremlin wants published?
And would all these strategies and tactics put the First Amendment guarantee of a free press and free expression at risk?
We live in interesting times. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
On the Other Hand ...
Economic growth will be slower over the next ten years than it was in the past, largely because fewer workers will be available, according to the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Keith Hall.
Meanwhile, American output will expand at a 2.1 percent rate over the next two years, a bit faster than the 1.8 percent rise last year.
"We expect that growth to boost employment, virtually eliminate the remaining slack in the economy, and drop the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent by the fourth quarter of 2018," Hall said.
Later, Gross Domestic Product (GDP, or total output of goods and services), will fade to an average annual rate of 1.9 percent, he said.
However, deficits will increase, thereby driving up federal debt, according to a new CBO study released the same day as Hall's remarks. These annual deficits, the study said, will result from growth in spending for retirement and health care programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, plus rising interest payments on government debt as well as "only moderate" growth in revenue.
Hall stressed that the CBO projections were prepared before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, and the estimates "do not include any effects of executive orders" issued in the past several days.
Trump has called for strong cuts in government spending, along with reductions in taxes, which would decrease government revenue.
All things considered, Hall emphasized that CBO projections are based on assumptions that current laws governing taxes and spending don't change.
Even so, "in would still not be possible to predict budgetary and economic outcomes" because many other factors are not known and are uncertain.
But if fewer workers are available, that will put upward pressure on wages as well as encourage more immigration by those looking for jobs.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment rates in December were lower in ten states, higher in only one, and stable in the rest. Payroll employment decreased in just five states, rose in three, and unchanged in the rest.
Also, median weekly earnings of the nation's 111.3 million full-time wage and salary workers were $849 in the fourth quarter of 2016, 2.9 percent higher than a year earlier.
Go figure. Unemployment down and wages up means a higher demand for workers, in turn making America a more attractive destination for those looking for work and a safe place to live.
And that is a basic principle of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand.
Meanwhile, American output will expand at a 2.1 percent rate over the next two years, a bit faster than the 1.8 percent rise last year.
"We expect that growth to boost employment, virtually eliminate the remaining slack in the economy, and drop the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent by the fourth quarter of 2018," Hall said.
Later, Gross Domestic Product (GDP, or total output of goods and services), will fade to an average annual rate of 1.9 percent, he said.
However, deficits will increase, thereby driving up federal debt, according to a new CBO study released the same day as Hall's remarks. These annual deficits, the study said, will result from growth in spending for retirement and health care programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, plus rising interest payments on government debt as well as "only moderate" growth in revenue.
Hall stressed that the CBO projections were prepared before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, and the estimates "do not include any effects of executive orders" issued in the past several days.
Trump has called for strong cuts in government spending, along with reductions in taxes, which would decrease government revenue.
All things considered, Hall emphasized that CBO projections are based on assumptions that current laws governing taxes and spending don't change.
Even so, "in would still not be possible to predict budgetary and economic outcomes" because many other factors are not known and are uncertain.
But if fewer workers are available, that will put upward pressure on wages as well as encourage more immigration by those looking for jobs.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment rates in December were lower in ten states, higher in only one, and stable in the rest. Payroll employment decreased in just five states, rose in three, and unchanged in the rest.
Also, median weekly earnings of the nation's 111.3 million full-time wage and salary workers were $849 in the fourth quarter of 2016, 2.9 percent higher than a year earlier.
Go figure. Unemployment down and wages up means a higher demand for workers, in turn making America a more attractive destination for those looking for work and a safe place to live.
And that is a basic principle of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand.
Government by Threat
"Peace through strength." -- President Ronald Reagan
"Or, failing that, peace through threat." -- Roman Emperor Hadrian
"America First." -- President Donald Trump
Last October, Donald Trump outlined his policy plans for the first 100 days of his presidency. (See "100 Day Action Plan," posted on this blog site 22 October 2016.) Now, as President, he is acting on those announced plans.
He warned corporate executives to expand manufacturing in America or pay high tariffs. He challenged automakers to increase production, but offered easier federal regulations and tax policies. (Representatives of foreign automakers reportedly were not invited to the meeting.) Separately, he promised to reduce federal regulations by 75 percent, but he did not specify what kind and in what areas.
Corporate executives have been streaming into meetings at the White House, presumably to get on Trump's good side (assuming he has one) as the new President moves to carry out his "America First" campaign promise.
Trump's history of belligerence toward any who disagree him on any issue enters a new chapter as he enters the Oval Office. And he seems obsessed with countering and "correcting" anything that diminishes his own importance.
Examples: Today, he insisted, without citing evidence, that he would have won the popular vote count for President if not for some five million illegal immigrants who voted for Hillary Clinton. Earlier, Trump assailed "dishonest media" for reporting pictures of a larger crowd at Barack Obama's first inauguration eight years ago than for his own ceremony last Friday.
The resident cynic for this blog, Pug Mahoney, suggested that Trump stop whining. You won. You're in the Oval Office. It's time to concentrate on important issues.
"Or, failing that, peace through threat." -- Roman Emperor Hadrian
"America First." -- President Donald Trump
Last October, Donald Trump outlined his policy plans for the first 100 days of his presidency. (See "100 Day Action Plan," posted on this blog site 22 October 2016.) Now, as President, he is acting on those announced plans.
He warned corporate executives to expand manufacturing in America or pay high tariffs. He challenged automakers to increase production, but offered easier federal regulations and tax policies. (Representatives of foreign automakers reportedly were not invited to the meeting.) Separately, he promised to reduce federal regulations by 75 percent, but he did not specify what kind and in what areas.
Corporate executives have been streaming into meetings at the White House, presumably to get on Trump's good side (assuming he has one) as the new President moves to carry out his "America First" campaign promise.
Trump's history of belligerence toward any who disagree him on any issue enters a new chapter as he enters the Oval Office. And he seems obsessed with countering and "correcting" anything that diminishes his own importance.
Examples: Today, he insisted, without citing evidence, that he would have won the popular vote count for President if not for some five million illegal immigrants who voted for Hillary Clinton. Earlier, Trump assailed "dishonest media" for reporting pictures of a larger crowd at Barack Obama's first inauguration eight years ago than for his own ceremony last Friday.
The resident cynic for this blog, Pug Mahoney, suggested that Trump stop whining. You won. You're in the Oval Office. It's time to concentrate on important issues.
GOP Hypocrisy
Critics were right when they protested a tweet by a comedy writer about young Barron Trump, the 10-year-son of the new President.
Regardless of the severity of the alleged joke (the reference was to a "home schooled shooter"), the principle is that the children of the First Family are off limits.
They did not choose to be on the public stage, and therefore are not potential targets. President Trump's other offspring, however, are not children, and they are active in the family business and government activities, so that leaves them open to criticism.
But.
The rule works both ways. If Republicans object to negative comments about President Trump's young son, then they should not hurl snarky insults at the children of a Democratic President.
Example: Rush Limbaugh, the arch-conservative radio talk show guy, called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog," and labeled the daughter of President Jimmy Carter "the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country," before adding that he had temporarily "forgotten" about Margaret Truman.
News media have long held to the principle that young family members of a President should be left alone. That's partly a courtesy, and partly a bow to libel laws, since those in the public eye are open targets under the legal concept of "fair comment" while others can claim damage to their reputation.
Meanwhile, the comedy writer for the TV show "Saturday Night Live," who posted the comment about Barron Trump on her personal Twitter account, has been indefinitely suspended from her job, even though she deleted the joke and apologized.
It's appropriate that she be reprimanded, but whether the offense was sufficient to warrant being fired is another question.
Regardless of the severity of the alleged joke (the reference was to a "home schooled shooter"), the principle is that the children of the First Family are off limits.
They did not choose to be on the public stage, and therefore are not potential targets. President Trump's other offspring, however, are not children, and they are active in the family business and government activities, so that leaves them open to criticism.
But.
The rule works both ways. If Republicans object to negative comments about President Trump's young son, then they should not hurl snarky insults at the children of a Democratic President.
Example: Rush Limbaugh, the arch-conservative radio talk show guy, called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog," and labeled the daughter of President Jimmy Carter "the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country," before adding that he had temporarily "forgotten" about Margaret Truman.
News media have long held to the principle that young family members of a President should be left alone. That's partly a courtesy, and partly a bow to libel laws, since those in the public eye are open targets under the legal concept of "fair comment" while others can claim damage to their reputation.
Meanwhile, the comedy writer for the TV show "Saturday Night Live," who posted the comment about Barron Trump on her personal Twitter account, has been indefinitely suspended from her job, even though she deleted the joke and apologized.
It's appropriate that she be reprimanded, but whether the offense was sufficient to warrant being fired is another question.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Credibility
"Journalism is not stenography." -- Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist.
"Our intention is never to lie." -- Sean Spicer, White House press secretary
The king of denial escalated his self-described "war with the media" on Day One of his first term in office, even as he referred to his next "eight years" as President.
Note: A presidential term is four years, not eight. By saying eight, he assumes he will be re-elected.
Never assume. You're not there yet.
Deleting all reference to climate change from a government web site doesn't change reality. Neither does chanting a doctrine of "alternative facts."
Galileo was forced to recant his teaching that the earth revolves around the sun or be excommunicated. But as the bishops left the room, the scientist reportedly said quietly, "Nevertheless, it moves."
Climate change and global warming may conflict with your preconceived view of the world, just as the bishops believed that the earth was the center of the universe. But insisting that you're right and Nature is wrong doesn't change reality.
You may not like the pictures that show disappearing glaciers and a melting polar ice cap, just as you don't like photographs of a smaller crowd size on your special day than on your predecessor's.
Nevertheless, it's real.
The job of a press secretary is to provide true information to American citizens and to the world, usually through the medium of journalism and to reporters gathered in the White House press room. Stacking the room with employees of so-called news outlets loyal to a given President won't change reality or the work of others in journalism.
The job of the news media is to report what a press secretary says, and to compare and contrast that with what others say, as well as to a statement's relationship with fact and reality.
Thus, a press secretary's main asset -- his only important asset -- is credibility. If he keeps spouting easily debunked "alternative facts," and threatens those who question and disprove his claims, why should anyone believe what he says next time?
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump, recently insisted that journalists should "look at what's in his heart, not just what comes out of his mouth."
Reality check: Journalists are not psychics. They can only report what a person says.
On Monday, Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer tried to smooth over a rough beginning relationship with the White House press corps by saying, "Our intention is never to lie."
Unlike his appearance Sunday, in which he attacked news coverage of the Trump inauguration and walked out of the room without taking questions, Spicer remained calm and did not attack, promising to stay as long as need be to take any question.
Whether the olive branch becomes a whipping stick, however, remains to be seen.
Accuracy and credibility are crucial assets for both journalists and politicians. When caught in an error, news media accept responsibility, issue a correction and announce an apology.
Would that politicians do the same.
"Our intention is never to lie." -- Sean Spicer, White House press secretary
The king of denial escalated his self-described "war with the media" on Day One of his first term in office, even as he referred to his next "eight years" as President.
Note: A presidential term is four years, not eight. By saying eight, he assumes he will be re-elected.
Never assume. You're not there yet.
Deleting all reference to climate change from a government web site doesn't change reality. Neither does chanting a doctrine of "alternative facts."
Galileo was forced to recant his teaching that the earth revolves around the sun or be excommunicated. But as the bishops left the room, the scientist reportedly said quietly, "Nevertheless, it moves."
Climate change and global warming may conflict with your preconceived view of the world, just as the bishops believed that the earth was the center of the universe. But insisting that you're right and Nature is wrong doesn't change reality.
You may not like the pictures that show disappearing glaciers and a melting polar ice cap, just as you don't like photographs of a smaller crowd size on your special day than on your predecessor's.
Nevertheless, it's real.
The job of a press secretary is to provide true information to American citizens and to the world, usually through the medium of journalism and to reporters gathered in the White House press room. Stacking the room with employees of so-called news outlets loyal to a given President won't change reality or the work of others in journalism.
The job of the news media is to report what a press secretary says, and to compare and contrast that with what others say, as well as to a statement's relationship with fact and reality.
Thus, a press secretary's main asset -- his only important asset -- is credibility. If he keeps spouting easily debunked "alternative facts," and threatens those who question and disprove his claims, why should anyone believe what he says next time?
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump, recently insisted that journalists should "look at what's in his heart, not just what comes out of his mouth."
Reality check: Journalists are not psychics. They can only report what a person says.
On Monday, Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer tried to smooth over a rough beginning relationship with the White House press corps by saying, "Our intention is never to lie."
Unlike his appearance Sunday, in which he attacked news coverage of the Trump inauguration and walked out of the room without taking questions, Spicer remained calm and did not attack, promising to stay as long as need be to take any question.
Whether the olive branch becomes a whipping stick, however, remains to be seen.
Accuracy and credibility are crucial assets for both journalists and politicians. When caught in an error, news media accept responsibility, issue a correction and announce an apology.
Would that politicians do the same.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
"Alternative Facts"
Thus spake Kellyanne Conway when challenged about the size of the crowd witnessing the inauguration of Donald Trump as President.
Trump has called it the largest crowd ever, and criticized the media for showing "an empty field."
There are, of course, alternative sets of information that can be selectively chosen to bolster any given theory. And there are alternative realities in which differing theories may well exist.
But in this reality, there are facts and there are opinions as to which set of facts are more important.
When photographs show clearly that more people were gathered on the Mall in Washington for the inaugural of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, than were assembled for the inauguration of Donald Trump, the only debatable point is the numerical total.
One could argue, as Trump did, that a million and half people were watching, but that would be true only if one included the number of television viewers in the nation and around the world.
That's one example of "alternative facts."
Remember when Trump claimed that he was in Jersey City and he watched as thousands of people were dancing in the streets, celebrating as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York came tumbling down? He may well have been in Jersey City, and was watching on television as people celebrated, but those streets were in Gaza, not in New Jersey.
One can choose to believe what a person says, whether or not it conforms to fact, or one can choose reality.
As Chico Marx put it, "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Meanwhile, the contrast between Trumpian "fact" and journalistic reality has sharpened, and the feud between the Trumpians and reporters has escalated.
The opening salvo in this continuing war of words came on Saturday, the first full day of Trump's presidential term, when press secretary Sean Spicer assailed reporters in his very first appearance in the White House Briefing Room, shown live on television.
He read a statement in which he called reports of crowd sizes "dishonest" and "shameful," perpetrated by journalists he labeled as the most dishonest people on earth.
And he invited the public to look at side by side pictures of the Mall on the two inauguration days, published in the New York Times, which he claimed would prove there were more people there for the Trump ceremony than for the Obama inauguration eight years ago.
To be charitable, one might say he mislabeled the photos. Alternatively, one could say he was incompetent.
Traditionally, the relationship between a presidential press secretary and journalists assigned to the White House has been informational, not confrontational.
The press secretary would provide truthful information to reporters and answer questions to expand on or clarify any issue.
But Spicer started his new job with sharp criticism of and an attack on those he's expected to work with on the job of conveying a President's message to the public.
That's not a good way to start a new job.
Spicer is not the boss, and he doesn't get to fire anyone in the press.
Spicer warned reporters that the Trump administration "will hold you accountable" for what they do.
And as he rightly pointed out, "That works both ways."
It would be far better that both sides work together to provide truthful information to the public, rather than fight over "fact" and "alternative fact."
The President and his staff have more important things to do than fight over minor details that pose no danger to American democracy.
Trump has a long history of embellishing information so it reflects more favorably on his own views, regardless of whether that information is true. And he strikes back hard when anyone questions the veracity of what he says.
But it's journalism's responsibility not only to report what is said, but also to to report opposing views and whether either conforms to fact or reality.
Trump has called it the largest crowd ever, and criticized the media for showing "an empty field."
There are, of course, alternative sets of information that can be selectively chosen to bolster any given theory. And there are alternative realities in which differing theories may well exist.
But in this reality, there are facts and there are opinions as to which set of facts are more important.
When photographs show clearly that more people were gathered on the Mall in Washington for the inaugural of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, than were assembled for the inauguration of Donald Trump, the only debatable point is the numerical total.
One could argue, as Trump did, that a million and half people were watching, but that would be true only if one included the number of television viewers in the nation and around the world.
That's one example of "alternative facts."
Remember when Trump claimed that he was in Jersey City and he watched as thousands of people were dancing in the streets, celebrating as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York came tumbling down? He may well have been in Jersey City, and was watching on television as people celebrated, but those streets were in Gaza, not in New Jersey.
One can choose to believe what a person says, whether or not it conforms to fact, or one can choose reality.
As Chico Marx put it, "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Meanwhile, the contrast between Trumpian "fact" and journalistic reality has sharpened, and the feud between the Trumpians and reporters has escalated.
The opening salvo in this continuing war of words came on Saturday, the first full day of Trump's presidential term, when press secretary Sean Spicer assailed reporters in his very first appearance in the White House Briefing Room, shown live on television.
He read a statement in which he called reports of crowd sizes "dishonest" and "shameful," perpetrated by journalists he labeled as the most dishonest people on earth.
And he invited the public to look at side by side pictures of the Mall on the two inauguration days, published in the New York Times, which he claimed would prove there were more people there for the Trump ceremony than for the Obama inauguration eight years ago.
To be charitable, one might say he mislabeled the photos. Alternatively, one could say he was incompetent.
Traditionally, the relationship between a presidential press secretary and journalists assigned to the White House has been informational, not confrontational.
The press secretary would provide truthful information to reporters and answer questions to expand on or clarify any issue.
But Spicer started his new job with sharp criticism of and an attack on those he's expected to work with on the job of conveying a President's message to the public.
That's not a good way to start a new job.
Spicer is not the boss, and he doesn't get to fire anyone in the press.
Spicer warned reporters that the Trump administration "will hold you accountable" for what they do.
And as he rightly pointed out, "That works both ways."
It would be far better that both sides work together to provide truthful information to the public, rather than fight over "fact" and "alternative fact."
The President and his staff have more important things to do than fight over minor details that pose no danger to American democracy.
Trump has a long history of embellishing information so it reflects more favorably on his own views, regardless of whether that information is true. And he strikes back hard when anyone questions the veracity of what he says.
But it's journalism's responsibility not only to report what is said, but also to to report opposing views and whether either conforms to fact or reality.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Worldwide Woodstock
"Something's happening here.
What it is, ain't exactly clear." -- Buffalo Springfield
Just as promoters of the Woodstock Folk Festival in 1969 were surprised by the massive (and peaceful) turnout, so the women's rights rally planned for Washington took on a life of its own and spread worldwide.
An estimated half million people showed up in the nation's capital, plus many thousands more in dozens of cities across the country and around the world to advocate for women's rights, and it quickly became a protest movement over plans to cut back on health care programs and women's rights issues.
Already, President Donald Trump has told federal agencies to trim health care expenditures where possible. Within hours of his inauguration on Friday, he signed executive orders to start eliminating many portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Trump's signings also included reductions in aid to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps subsidize educational programs like Sesame Street.
Trump himself, however, blamed "dishonest media" for overplaying Saturday's rally, and claimed that "a million and a half people" showed up for his inauguration. But TV networks, however, "showed an empty field" instead of accurately describing the turnout. Various estimates put the crowd at 250,000.
Later, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer assailed what he called "false reporting" by news outlets of the size of inauguration crowds, and labeled it "shameful."
In a statement in the White House briefing room late Saturday, in which he barely mentioned the women's issues rallies in Washington and other American cities as well as cities around the world, Spicer read his comments and immediately left the room, without taking any questions from reporters.
Spicer's attitude struck some listeners as petty and childish, an attempt to demand that reporters do what they're told, to handle all stories in ways that favor the President, and not ask questions.
But it's a journalist's job to ask questions, and ignoring reporters doesn't make the questions go away.
Note to Spicer: Reporters have long memories and thick skins, as well as sharp pencils.
What it is, ain't exactly clear." -- Buffalo Springfield
Just as promoters of the Woodstock Folk Festival in 1969 were surprised by the massive (and peaceful) turnout, so the women's rights rally planned for Washington took on a life of its own and spread worldwide.
An estimated half million people showed up in the nation's capital, plus many thousands more in dozens of cities across the country and around the world to advocate for women's rights, and it quickly became a protest movement over plans to cut back on health care programs and women's rights issues.
Already, President Donald Trump has told federal agencies to trim health care expenditures where possible. Within hours of his inauguration on Friday, he signed executive orders to start eliminating many portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Trump's signings also included reductions in aid to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps subsidize educational programs like Sesame Street.
Trump himself, however, blamed "dishonest media" for overplaying Saturday's rally, and claimed that "a million and a half people" showed up for his inauguration. But TV networks, however, "showed an empty field" instead of accurately describing the turnout. Various estimates put the crowd at 250,000.
Later, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer assailed what he called "false reporting" by news outlets of the size of inauguration crowds, and labeled it "shameful."
In a statement in the White House briefing room late Saturday, in which he barely mentioned the women's issues rallies in Washington and other American cities as well as cities around the world, Spicer read his comments and immediately left the room, without taking any questions from reporters.
Spicer's attitude struck some listeners as petty and childish, an attempt to demand that reporters do what they're told, to handle all stories in ways that favor the President, and not ask questions.
But it's a journalist's job to ask questions, and ignoring reporters doesn't make the questions go away.
Note to Spicer: Reporters have long memories and thick skins, as well as sharp pencils.
Friday, January 20, 2017
President Trump
Effective today, Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States. But he is not the 45th person to hold that job, as an MSNBC anchor said today. He is the 44th. Grover Cleveland served two terms as President, but they were not consecutive, so he is ranked the 22nd President and the 24th President. In between, Cleveland was defeated by Benjamin Harrison, who served as the 23rd President.
Another news anchor referred to Melania Trump, a native of Slovenia, as only the second First Lady to be born overseas. True, but who was the first? It was Louisa Adams, the wife of John Quincy Adams. She was born in London, and moved to America with her father, who was a citizen of Maryland.
Perhaps the most important phrase in President Trump's inaugural address was when he spoke of "radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth."
Couple that with the fact that of the six religious leaders to offer opening prayers and benedictions at the inauguration ceremony, there were five Christians and one Jewish rabbi.
If a President's goal is to bring unity to a divided country, ignoring the nearly six million Muslim Americans by not having them represented at the inauguration, while implicitly threatening war against others who also follow that faith, then one can only wonder what the consequences will be.
The big question, however, remains this: What kind of President will Trump be? We know what his campaign rhetoric was, as well as his attack tweets sent out to millions around the world.
Whether he modifies his sword-rattling talk and seeks peace and prosperity for all remains to be seen. His inauguration speech emphasized the slogan, "America first," and suggested that all other nations should do what this President says. This attitude also implies that Congress will fall in line and follow all White House orders and directives.
Don't count on that one, either.
The whole world is watching.
Another news anchor referred to Melania Trump, a native of Slovenia, as only the second First Lady to be born overseas. True, but who was the first? It was Louisa Adams, the wife of John Quincy Adams. She was born in London, and moved to America with her father, who was a citizen of Maryland.
Perhaps the most important phrase in President Trump's inaugural address was when he spoke of "radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth."
Couple that with the fact that of the six religious leaders to offer opening prayers and benedictions at the inauguration ceremony, there were five Christians and one Jewish rabbi.
If a President's goal is to bring unity to a divided country, ignoring the nearly six million Muslim Americans by not having them represented at the inauguration, while implicitly threatening war against others who also follow that faith, then one can only wonder what the consequences will be.
The big question, however, remains this: What kind of President will Trump be? We know what his campaign rhetoric was, as well as his attack tweets sent out to millions around the world.
Whether he modifies his sword-rattling talk and seeks peace and prosperity for all remains to be seen. His inauguration speech emphasized the slogan, "America first," and suggested that all other nations should do what this President says. This attitude also implies that Congress will fall in line and follow all White House orders and directives.
Don't count on that one, either.
The whole world is watching.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
The Future of Journalism
Shutting out reporters won't shut down the press.
Watchdog journalism may be more important than ever as the nation starts a new era with a new President, who has repeatedly excoriated the media when they report anything negative.
Moreover, backers who demand support for a President because he is the President, and for no other reason, fail to understand the mission of journalism.
Certainly the profession is changing, as social media, broadcasting and internet activity all put pressure on print journalism, and newspapers are reacting by reducing staff where they can and adapting their coverage to the new technology.
But at its base, print journalism will still have a major role to play in the information culture.
For one thing, newspapers have the space and the resources to publish more in-depth reports, commentary and analysis of news events. Television, both cable and broadcast, can't be matched for immediacy and impact. But it cannot cover as many stories from as many regions and in as much depth as print.
An advantage of television is that viewers can see every moment of every event anywhere in the world. There is no editing, and commentators must wing it as the story unfolds. Later, broadcasters can edit the video and provide a summary, but the constraints of time limit the length of a story.
A daily newspaper, on the other hand, offers more detail about more stories, along with analysis and commentary, which readers can peruse at whatever pace they choose. Moreover, the print version becomes a permanent historical record.
But because the public's awareness of what politicians and elected officials say and do is critical to upholding a democratic society, news outlets are expanding their staff coverage, especially in Washington. And this means staffers must become more adept at reporting, writing better stories faster and more completely than ever, offering their material both to traditional print and to the new electronic media.
Gone are the days when a beat reporter called in information to the rewrite staff, who then prepared the story for editors to polish before it was sent to typesetters, compositors and proofreaders, then finally to the presses.
Today, many of the steps have been taken over by technology, so newsroom staff produce more material faster, and the stories move to public view via computers within minutes.
Yes, some manufacturing jobs have been lost to technology, but that same technology has enabled more jobs in total to those who are more skilled and earn higher pay doing so, whether they work in print, broadcast or electronic media.
The net result is that the public is more informed about more events than ever. And an informed public is the core of a free society.
Watchdog journalism may be more important than ever as the nation starts a new era with a new President, who has repeatedly excoriated the media when they report anything negative.
Moreover, backers who demand support for a President because he is the President, and for no other reason, fail to understand the mission of journalism.
Certainly the profession is changing, as social media, broadcasting and internet activity all put pressure on print journalism, and newspapers are reacting by reducing staff where they can and adapting their coverage to the new technology.
But at its base, print journalism will still have a major role to play in the information culture.
For one thing, newspapers have the space and the resources to publish more in-depth reports, commentary and analysis of news events. Television, both cable and broadcast, can't be matched for immediacy and impact. But it cannot cover as many stories from as many regions and in as much depth as print.
An advantage of television is that viewers can see every moment of every event anywhere in the world. There is no editing, and commentators must wing it as the story unfolds. Later, broadcasters can edit the video and provide a summary, but the constraints of time limit the length of a story.
A daily newspaper, on the other hand, offers more detail about more stories, along with analysis and commentary, which readers can peruse at whatever pace they choose. Moreover, the print version becomes a permanent historical record.
But because the public's awareness of what politicians and elected officials say and do is critical to upholding a democratic society, news outlets are expanding their staff coverage, especially in Washington. And this means staffers must become more adept at reporting, writing better stories faster and more completely than ever, offering their material both to traditional print and to the new electronic media.
Gone are the days when a beat reporter called in information to the rewrite staff, who then prepared the story for editors to polish before it was sent to typesetters, compositors and proofreaders, then finally to the presses.
Today, many of the steps have been taken over by technology, so newsroom staff produce more material faster, and the stories move to public view via computers within minutes.
Yes, some manufacturing jobs have been lost to technology, but that same technology has enabled more jobs in total to those who are more skilled and earn higher pay doing so, whether they work in print, broadcast or electronic media.
The net result is that the public is more informed about more events than ever. And an informed public is the core of a free society.
Think,Then Talk
Remember Ogden Nash:
Consider the auk
Who became extinct
Because he forgot
how to fly and could only walk
Consider man
Who may well become extinct
Because he learned how to fly
And forgot how to walk before he
thinked
It would be a good idea for the incoming President to learn
how to think before he talked.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Media's Mission
"You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're supposed to be skeptics, and ask tough questions." -- President Barack Obama, speaking to reporters at his final press conference.
President-elect Donald Trump doesn't trust the news media to cover the news the way he prefers.
Unfair, dishonest, and failing are some of Trump's favorite terms when he inveighs against journalists, and he says he will continue using his Twitter account as his way of communicating directly with the public. This way, he does not take questions from reporters, and his answers will appear in brief, 140-character postings.
Moreover, Trump demands deference from everyone, and attacks anyone who disagrees with or questions anything he says.
News flash for the President-elect: Reporters can be and usually are courteous, but expecting them to be sycophants who bend all stories to the Trump slant is a failure to grasp the function of a free and independent press.
To demand otherwise is tantamount to abolishing the First Amendment.
At his final press conference, Obama admitted that he did not always like the questions put to him by journalists, but he acknowledged that this is the way the system works.
Trump now must accept that this is the way the system works, whether he likes it or not.
Reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they ask them on behalf of the public. Good reporters operate on the premise that their opinions are not relevant to what they do, and they don't let their opinions influence their questions.
In the real world, however, sometimes the questions asked on behalf of the public do indeed match a reporter's view, and that view may well contrast with that of a President.
Many citizens also disagree with what a President says, does and proposes. All the more reason, then, that questions disagreeable to a President be put to him.
To demand that reporters "get with the program and be part of the team" is to misunderstand the role of journalists. They are not and should not be part of a political team. They are, however, part of the American team, and it is their job to be skeptical and question everything a politician -- including a President -- says and does.
President-elect Donald Trump doesn't trust the news media to cover the news the way he prefers.
Unfair, dishonest, and failing are some of Trump's favorite terms when he inveighs against journalists, and he says he will continue using his Twitter account as his way of communicating directly with the public. This way, he does not take questions from reporters, and his answers will appear in brief, 140-character postings.
Moreover, Trump demands deference from everyone, and attacks anyone who disagrees with or questions anything he says.
News flash for the President-elect: Reporters can be and usually are courteous, but expecting them to be sycophants who bend all stories to the Trump slant is a failure to grasp the function of a free and independent press.
To demand otherwise is tantamount to abolishing the First Amendment.
At his final press conference, Obama admitted that he did not always like the questions put to him by journalists, but he acknowledged that this is the way the system works.
Trump now must accept that this is the way the system works, whether he likes it or not.
Reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they ask them on behalf of the public. Good reporters operate on the premise that their opinions are not relevant to what they do, and they don't let their opinions influence their questions.
In the real world, however, sometimes the questions asked on behalf of the public do indeed match a reporter's view, and that view may well contrast with that of a President.
Many citizens also disagree with what a President says, does and proposes. All the more reason, then, that questions disagreeable to a President be put to him.
To demand that reporters "get with the program and be part of the team" is to misunderstand the role of journalists. They are not and should not be part of a political team. They are, however, part of the American team, and it is their job to be skeptical and question everything a politician -- including a President -- says and does.
Fed Reserved
With just two days before the inauguration of a new President, the Federal Reserve Board released an unusually quiet report on the state of the national economy.
The report, known as the Beige Book, said the economy "continued to expand at a modest pace" as the year ended. Surveys from the twelve Fed districts showed mixed results in most industries, as well as "varying degrees of growth" in employment, with a majority describing their labor markets as "tight." Wage pressures are likely to rise, the report said, as well as prices.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent in December, but most of that gain was wiped out by a rise in the Consumer Price Index of 0.3 percent. That left a net gain in pay of 0.1 percent.
The report, known as the Beige Book, said the economy "continued to expand at a modest pace" as the year ended. Surveys from the twelve Fed districts showed mixed results in most industries, as well as "varying degrees of growth" in employment, with a majority describing their labor markets as "tight." Wage pressures are likely to rise, the report said, as well as prices.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent in December, but most of that gain was wiped out by a rise in the Consumer Price Index of 0.3 percent. That left a net gain in pay of 0.1 percent.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Pout Counter-Pout
Republicans dismiss comments by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) as "pouting" because Democrats lost the election.
But what does one call the many attack tweets by Donald Trump when things don't go his way?
Surveys show slim support for Trump as incoming President. "The polls are rigged just like before," is the reply from the Twitter in Chief.
If the Affordable Care Act is so bad, how come the insurance industry has been so quiet?
The law requires everyone to sign up for health care insurance -- with a government subsidy if needed -- which means millions of new customers for the companies.
No objection there.
In fact, insurers are raising rates for everyone on the premise that sick people cause more of a drain on company resources. Read: Profits.
Why would they complain about a federal law that sends them more business, especially when government helps pay for it, and they can use the expanded customer base that includes sick people as a reason to raise rates?
The loudest complaints, in fact, have come from Republicans who can't claim credit for setting up a program that benefits so many people.
And that's ironic, because the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is based on a Massachusetts plan set up by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.
Another irony: Many people object to any move to cancel the ACA, since it provides them with health insurance, but rail against Obamacare, the identical program identified with the Democratic President.
But what does one call the many attack tweets by Donald Trump when things don't go his way?
Surveys show slim support for Trump as incoming President. "The polls are rigged just like before," is the reply from the Twitter in Chief.
If the Affordable Care Act is so bad, how come the insurance industry has been so quiet?
The law requires everyone to sign up for health care insurance -- with a government subsidy if needed -- which means millions of new customers for the companies.
No objection there.
In fact, insurers are raising rates for everyone on the premise that sick people cause more of a drain on company resources. Read: Profits.
Why would they complain about a federal law that sends them more business, especially when government helps pay for it, and they can use the expanded customer base that includes sick people as a reason to raise rates?
The loudest complaints, in fact, have come from Republicans who can't claim credit for setting up a program that benefits so many people.
And that's ironic, because the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is based on a Massachusetts plan set up by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.
Another irony: Many people object to any move to cancel the ACA, since it provides them with health insurance, but rail against Obamacare, the identical program identified with the Democratic President.
Freedom to be Sick
Health care insurance premiums would jump by 50 percent in the first year and double in ten years if key portions of the Affordable Care Act are repealed, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the number of people without health insurance would rise by 18 million in the first year after repeal, the CBO said.
Similar efforts at the state level, where there was no mandate to buy and no subsidy to help, destabilized the insurance market, the CBO noted.
The so-called Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act would end the requirement that people get a health insurance policy, as well as eliminate subsidies for those who need help in paying health care premiums, plus stop expanding Medicaid eligibility.
All these factors, the CBO said, would put "upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment." That means insurance companies will drop out and fewer people will try to enroll.
In one year after the planned reform takes effect, about half the nation's population will live in areas without access to health insurance as companies leave the market, the CBO estimated. And in ten years, that share will jump to 75 percent of the nation's population.
That contraction of the market would especially harm those without employer-based health insurance or public health insurance.
In addition, the number of people without health insurance would rise by 18 million in the first year after repeal, the CBO said.
Similar efforts at the state level, where there was no mandate to buy and no subsidy to help, destabilized the insurance market, the CBO noted.
The so-called Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act would end the requirement that people get a health insurance policy, as well as eliminate subsidies for those who need help in paying health care premiums, plus stop expanding Medicaid eligibility.
All these factors, the CBO said, would put "upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment." That means insurance companies will drop out and fewer people will try to enroll.
In one year after the planned reform takes effect, about half the nation's population will live in areas without access to health insurance as companies leave the market, the CBO estimated. And in ten years, that share will jump to 75 percent of the nation's population.
That contraction of the market would especially harm those without employer-based health insurance or public health insurance.
Monday, January 16, 2017
As the Economic World Turns
Things are picking up for economies around the world, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but uncertainty about the incoming U.S. administration spins "a wide dispersion of possible outcomes."
Globally, economic growth will be about 3 percent, the IMF estimated, similar to the rate predicted last October, growth in the U.S. at some 2 percent, also similar to previous estimates.
However, "this forecast is particularly uncertain" because of changes in policy under the new administration. Moreover, the forecast "assumes a fiscal stimulus" as the incoming government increases government spending.
Whether that actually happens, however, is another question, since many of the people named by President-elect Donald Trump have urged reductions in government spending.
Trump himself, during the election campaign, predicted economic growth of as much as 7 percent. Moreover, he also promised increased government spending coupled with lower tax rates.
Whether this revival of trickle-down economics, which assumes savings at the top will generate improvements in lower segments of society and the economy, will actually work has yet to be shown.
And a sudden burst in the growth rate from 2 percent to 7 percent is more likely to inflate a national bubble that can only burst from its sudden spurt.
Globally, economic growth will be about 3 percent, the IMF estimated, similar to the rate predicted last October, growth in the U.S. at some 2 percent, also similar to previous estimates.
However, "this forecast is particularly uncertain" because of changes in policy under the new administration. Moreover, the forecast "assumes a fiscal stimulus" as the incoming government increases government spending.
Whether that actually happens, however, is another question, since many of the people named by President-elect Donald Trump have urged reductions in government spending.
Trump himself, during the election campaign, predicted economic growth of as much as 7 percent. Moreover, he also promised increased government spending coupled with lower tax rates.
Whether this revival of trickle-down economics, which assumes savings at the top will generate improvements in lower segments of society and the economy, will actually work has yet to be shown.
And a sudden burst in the growth rate from 2 percent to 7 percent is more likely to inflate a national bubble that can only burst from its sudden spurt.
Passivity is Boring
Textbooks emphasize the benefit of using active verbs when writing, yet many government and academic research reports fall into the trap of using the passive voice.
Those perpetrating such verbosities may think it absolves them of responsibility for what they write -- it implies that "someone else" said it -- but such a technique is boring.
Oops, there it is again. Rewrite that to "such a technique bores the reader." More important, the reader must work harder to understand the message.
So if you want to obscure the message and deny responsibility for any conclusion drawn from the information contained in the text, use a passive construction.
But if you're confident in the veracity (truth) of what you say, then say it and accept responsibility for saying it.
Otherwise, it's a cop-out.
Sorry, I just did it again.
Don't cop out, and don't bore the reader. When you do that, you fail in your mission to communicate.
Those perpetrating such verbosities may think it absolves them of responsibility for what they write -- it implies that "someone else" said it -- but such a technique is boring.
Oops, there it is again. Rewrite that to "such a technique bores the reader." More important, the reader must work harder to understand the message.
So if you want to obscure the message and deny responsibility for any conclusion drawn from the information contained in the text, use a passive construction.
But if you're confident in the veracity (truth) of what you say, then say it and accept responsibility for saying it.
Otherwise, it's a cop-out.
Sorry, I just did it again.
Don't cop out, and don't bore the reader. When you do that, you fail in your mission to communicate.
Disciples of Dismantling
"That government is best that governs least." -- Henry David Thoreau
By that measure, the next step would be a government that governs not at all. -- Pug Mahoney
Can you see a pattern here?
Nearly all the choices for Cabinet and leadership posts in the new administration have a history of opposing government regulation or intervention of any kind. Unless it benefits their businesses. The most recent selection, that of Andrew Puzder to head the Labor Department, fought state rules in California about minimum wages, mandatory rest breaks, and other standards.
Scott Pruitt, the nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sued that very agency 14 times as attorney general in Oklahoma.
Betsy DeVos, the choice for education secretary, much prefers privatizing the school system, potentially eliminating locally run public schools.
Tom Price, who would take charge of the Health and Human Services Department, is a leading opponent of the Affordable Care Act.
Wilbur Ross, in the job of Commerce secretary, wants to break up trade agreements and impose steep tariffs on imports.
Rick Perry, the former Texas governor and current nominee to lead the Energy Department, has proposed eliminating that very department.
Steven Mnuchin, formerly of Goldman Sachs, would lead the Treasury Department as it rewrites the tax code and borrows money in financial markets.
Mick Mulvaney, conservative congressman from South Carolina, would direct the Office of Management and Budget as the government cuts back on spending and overhauls taxation rules.
And, of course, Linda McMahon, former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, would be in charge of the Small Business Administration as it helps them get government contracts and guarantees loans for their deals.
In short, the government of soon-to-be President Donald Trump follows the free-market, free-enterprise economic theory that says leave capitalist companies alone and all will be well.
In the long run.
But as John Maynard Keynes noted, "In the long run we are all dead."
By that measure, the next step would be a government that governs not at all. -- Pug Mahoney
Can you see a pattern here?
Nearly all the choices for Cabinet and leadership posts in the new administration have a history of opposing government regulation or intervention of any kind. Unless it benefits their businesses. The most recent selection, that of Andrew Puzder to head the Labor Department, fought state rules in California about minimum wages, mandatory rest breaks, and other standards.
Scott Pruitt, the nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sued that very agency 14 times as attorney general in Oklahoma.
Betsy DeVos, the choice for education secretary, much prefers privatizing the school system, potentially eliminating locally run public schools.
Tom Price, who would take charge of the Health and Human Services Department, is a leading opponent of the Affordable Care Act.
Wilbur Ross, in the job of Commerce secretary, wants to break up trade agreements and impose steep tariffs on imports.
Rick Perry, the former Texas governor and current nominee to lead the Energy Department, has proposed eliminating that very department.
Steven Mnuchin, formerly of Goldman Sachs, would lead the Treasury Department as it rewrites the tax code and borrows money in financial markets.
Mick Mulvaney, conservative congressman from South Carolina, would direct the Office of Management and Budget as the government cuts back on spending and overhauls taxation rules.
And, of course, Linda McMahon, former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, would be in charge of the Small Business Administration as it helps them get government contracts and guarantees loans for their deals.
In short, the government of soon-to-be President Donald Trump follows the free-market, free-enterprise economic theory that says leave capitalist companies alone and all will be well.
In the long run.
But as John Maynard Keynes noted, "In the long run we are all dead."
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Muzzle Toff
Watchdogs locked in a kennel are of no value when danger approaches.
The White House press room may be shut down and reporters sent across the street to new quarters in a separate building.
Reince Priebus, spokesman for the incoming President, defended the plan as a way to provide more access to more journalists in larger facilities.
Assuming, of course, that government officials also go across the street and are accessible to the press corps. Otherwise, there will be no reporters in the White House. This not only gives tighter control over reporters to the Trump team, but also tightens control over the President's own staff.
If there is no contact, there can be no leaks.
So who's going to be in charge of the assembled press as they are banished to another room in a separate building? Any attempt to put a single individual as the source of all information to all journalists cannot succeed.
The strategy of media control is not new for Donald Trump and crew. During the campaign, the Trump team routinely corralled reporters in a separate area so they would have minimal contact with supporters or potential dissidents in the crowd. Moreover, it gave the candidate a larger target at which to throw his diatribes.
Presidents have regularly tried to muzzle the journalistic watchdogs so they could not raise a howl when government staff crossed the boundaries of propriety. But so far, reporters have not been banished from the hallways of the White House and traditional sources of information.
Not yet.
Closing the White House press room and shunting reporters across the street is the first step toward greater control of the media.
However, as every journalist knows, there are ways. Reliable sources are a reporter's most important asset, to be protected even at the cost of going to prison rather than reveal a source.
And while many states have laws protecting journalists who refuse to reveal a confidential source, there is no similar federal statute. Expect the Trump administration to appoint someone to take charge of muzzling the press.
The White House press room may be shut down and reporters sent across the street to new quarters in a separate building.
Reince Priebus, spokesman for the incoming President, defended the plan as a way to provide more access to more journalists in larger facilities.
Assuming, of course, that government officials also go across the street and are accessible to the press corps. Otherwise, there will be no reporters in the White House. This not only gives tighter control over reporters to the Trump team, but also tightens control over the President's own staff.
If there is no contact, there can be no leaks.
So who's going to be in charge of the assembled press as they are banished to another room in a separate building? Any attempt to put a single individual as the source of all information to all journalists cannot succeed.
The strategy of media control is not new for Donald Trump and crew. During the campaign, the Trump team routinely corralled reporters in a separate area so they would have minimal contact with supporters or potential dissidents in the crowd. Moreover, it gave the candidate a larger target at which to throw his diatribes.
Presidents have regularly tried to muzzle the journalistic watchdogs so they could not raise a howl when government staff crossed the boundaries of propriety. But so far, reporters have not been banished from the hallways of the White House and traditional sources of information.
Not yet.
Closing the White House press room and shunting reporters across the street is the first step toward greater control of the media.
However, as every journalist knows, there are ways. Reliable sources are a reporter's most important asset, to be protected even at the cost of going to prison rather than reveal a source.
And while many states have laws protecting journalists who refuse to reveal a confidential source, there is no similar federal statute. Expect the Trump administration to appoint someone to take charge of muzzling the press.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
The Big Mistake
"You can't insult your way to the Presidency." -- Jeb Bush
There are serious consequences if you do and succeed. -- Pug Mahoney
It's one thing to dump on news reporters. They have thick skins and are accustomed to rejection and criticism from both sides of an issue. In fact, when attacked by both sides, that's a sure sign to journalists of a job well done.
But to dump on your own information network is an error in judgement and a serious mistake by any politician. Experienced professionals will look for new jobs, and you will be left with those who will tell you only what you want to hear.
A dedicated, responsible information specialist in the intelligence community will gather and compile all relevant information. Others in the various agencies will compare, contrast and analyze the data and provide summaries of what they are, what they may (or may not) mean, and perhaps offer recommendations on what to do, as well as suggest the potential consequences of any action or inaction.
When a government leader ignores all that and relies solely on instinct -- which for many is intensely combative -- the result can be hazardous to the world's political health.
A shrewd President learns to appreciate the dedication and efforts of the nation's intelligence community and relies on them for support in his search for information on which to base critical decisions.
To dismiss these agencies as incompetent failures and to rely on your own instincts is to say "You're fired" to dedicated professionals loyal to the country and to hire only those willing to feed and support your own biases and preconceived notions of diplomatic strategy.
The hazards are clear. Insulting journalists has little effect. They will continue to do their jobs. In fact, they will redouble their efforts to gather and report information important to voters.
But insulting information specialists in the CIA, the FBI and the many other intelligence agencies may well antagonize them enough so they look for other work where their skills are appreciated.
Either way, the Insulter in Chief loses needed support.
There are serious consequences if you do and succeed. -- Pug Mahoney
It's one thing to dump on news reporters. They have thick skins and are accustomed to rejection and criticism from both sides of an issue. In fact, when attacked by both sides, that's a sure sign to journalists of a job well done.
But to dump on your own information network is an error in judgement and a serious mistake by any politician. Experienced professionals will look for new jobs, and you will be left with those who will tell you only what you want to hear.
A dedicated, responsible information specialist in the intelligence community will gather and compile all relevant information. Others in the various agencies will compare, contrast and analyze the data and provide summaries of what they are, what they may (or may not) mean, and perhaps offer recommendations on what to do, as well as suggest the potential consequences of any action or inaction.
When a government leader ignores all that and relies solely on instinct -- which for many is intensely combative -- the result can be hazardous to the world's political health.
A shrewd President learns to appreciate the dedication and efforts of the nation's intelligence community and relies on them for support in his search for information on which to base critical decisions.
To dismiss these agencies as incompetent failures and to rely on your own instincts is to say "You're fired" to dedicated professionals loyal to the country and to hire only those willing to feed and support your own biases and preconceived notions of diplomatic strategy.
The hazards are clear. Insulting journalists has little effect. They will continue to do their jobs. In fact, they will redouble their efforts to gather and report information important to voters.
But insulting information specialists in the CIA, the FBI and the many other intelligence agencies may well antagonize them enough so they look for other work where their skills are appreciated.
Either way, the Insulter in Chief loses needed support.
Friday, January 13, 2017
All in the Family
"Those were the days." -- Archie Bunker
"We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again," Archie Bunker sang during the opening song of the TV series.
Which might well be true, except for the fact that the stock market crashed less than a year after Hoover's inauguration as President in 1929 and the nation dropped into the Great Depression.
Hoover himself was a reasonably good Chief Executive, historians have said, and his attempts to set up relief programs for those affected by the economic downfall were blocked by Congress.
Nevertheless, Hoover was President when the nation's economy stumbled, and much of the blame is put on him.
It's a good guess that Archie Bunker would have been an avid fan of Donald Trump, and would praise his election to the Presidency and dismiss critics as narrow minded and ignorant.
Those looking for parallels between Herbert Hoover and Donald Trump will find that both were successful in business. Beyond that, there are few. Hoover was widely respected for his efforts helping others following World War I, and was recruited again by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to organize relief efforts during the Great Depression.
Can the same be said about Donald Trump? Has he built a reputation for helping others in times of economic stress? Answer to both questions is No.
So if any comparison is to be made, it could be of Donald Trump and Archie Bunker, who was widely portrayed as an arrogant, ignorant bigot.
Readers can choose whether the comparison is valid.
Meanwhile, watch for economic developments over the next few months, and whether America continues its recovery from the Great Recession of eight years ago or stumbles into another economic pit under President Bunker.
Er, Trump.
"We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again," Archie Bunker sang during the opening song of the TV series.
Which might well be true, except for the fact that the stock market crashed less than a year after Hoover's inauguration as President in 1929 and the nation dropped into the Great Depression.
Hoover himself was a reasonably good Chief Executive, historians have said, and his attempts to set up relief programs for those affected by the economic downfall were blocked by Congress.
Nevertheless, Hoover was President when the nation's economy stumbled, and much of the blame is put on him.
It's a good guess that Archie Bunker would have been an avid fan of Donald Trump, and would praise his election to the Presidency and dismiss critics as narrow minded and ignorant.
Those looking for parallels between Herbert Hoover and Donald Trump will find that both were successful in business. Beyond that, there are few. Hoover was widely respected for his efforts helping others following World War I, and was recruited again by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to organize relief efforts during the Great Depression.
Can the same be said about Donald Trump? Has he built a reputation for helping others in times of economic stress? Answer to both questions is No.
So if any comparison is to be made, it could be of Donald Trump and Archie Bunker, who was widely portrayed as an arrogant, ignorant bigot.
Readers can choose whether the comparison is valid.
Meanwhile, watch for economic developments over the next few months, and whether America continues its recovery from the Great Recession of eight years ago or stumbles into another economic pit under President Bunker.
Er, Trump.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Wolfpack Journalism and Twitter Tidbits
A lone wolf howls in the wilderness.
Clever politicians know that media mutts can be easily distracted by throwing a bone and watching them scramble to gnaw at what little meat there may be.
Clever reporters are more like lone wolves. They prowl the edges, lurking while the pack worries the easy target, then pouncing when the larger, more important prey wanders from the herd.
So it is with journalism. Scoops are not doled out in carefully staged "news events," as PR agents like to call them. Rather, the good stories are dug out and captured by reporters watching the edges.
As veteran reporter Scoop Callahan might put it, watch the little things. One event may not be significant in itself, but two or three other "little things" can reveal a pattern, and thus a news story.
One is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three makes a pattern.
We have seen examples of wolfpack journalism often during this election cycle, as the major candidate tossed out tidbits via Twitter, knowing that the hungry wolves in the journalism pack would pounce and squabble over these while the candidate went about other political business.
To the chagrin of news observers, the strategy worked, and Donald Trump won the election.
Now he is continuing the same strategy, enticing the journalistic wolfpack with Twitter tidbits, juicy enough to make many news hounds salivate with anticipation for some bigger morsel of news that never comes.
Wise up, reporters. You're being used.
The good news, however, is that some media outlets are aware of this distraction strategy and are moving to outfox the clever candidate.
The strategy may have been clever enough to win the election, but now the future of American democracy may well be at stake.
Therefore, the nation needs a vigilant press corps more than ever. What may have been wonderfully entertaining for the past year is no longer funny.
Show biz and responsible government are not equal. Uttering pronouncements and expecting the world to follow such arbitrary instructions or face the dictum, "You're fired," is no way to run a government.
Or as the Monty Python character said to King Arthur, "just because some moistened bint launched a scimitar in your general direction is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Trump may have won the election, but he's not a king, and acting like one will not change that.
Clever politicians know that media mutts can be easily distracted by throwing a bone and watching them scramble to gnaw at what little meat there may be.
Clever reporters are more like lone wolves. They prowl the edges, lurking while the pack worries the easy target, then pouncing when the larger, more important prey wanders from the herd.
So it is with journalism. Scoops are not doled out in carefully staged "news events," as PR agents like to call them. Rather, the good stories are dug out and captured by reporters watching the edges.
As veteran reporter Scoop Callahan might put it, watch the little things. One event may not be significant in itself, but two or three other "little things" can reveal a pattern, and thus a news story.
One is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three makes a pattern.
We have seen examples of wolfpack journalism often during this election cycle, as the major candidate tossed out tidbits via Twitter, knowing that the hungry wolves in the journalism pack would pounce and squabble over these while the candidate went about other political business.
To the chagrin of news observers, the strategy worked, and Donald Trump won the election.
Now he is continuing the same strategy, enticing the journalistic wolfpack with Twitter tidbits, juicy enough to make many news hounds salivate with anticipation for some bigger morsel of news that never comes.
Wise up, reporters. You're being used.
The good news, however, is that some media outlets are aware of this distraction strategy and are moving to outfox the clever candidate.
The strategy may have been clever enough to win the election, but now the future of American democracy may well be at stake.
Therefore, the nation needs a vigilant press corps more than ever. What may have been wonderfully entertaining for the past year is no longer funny.
Show biz and responsible government are not equal. Uttering pronouncements and expecting the world to follow such arbitrary instructions or face the dictum, "You're fired," is no way to run a government.
Or as the Monty Python character said to King Arthur, "just because some moistened bint launched a scimitar in your general direction is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Trump may have won the election, but he's not a king, and acting like one will not change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)