January 2025

Tiffany Network At Risk of Losing Its Luster

It is being reported that CBS News is entering negotiations with the F.C.C. because a settlement with the Trump administration is politically expedient.

Expedient for the parent organization, Paramount? Apparently.

As reported in the NY Times, “But in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, has begun settlement discussions with representatives of Mr. Trump, according to several people with knowledge of the talks. Many executives at Paramount believe that settling the suit could help pave the way for the F.C.C. to approve Paramount’s planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company.”

Expedient also to avoiding any negative relations or a loss of access with the Trump White House? Perhaps true, but most likely a calculated decision based on fear of retribution from the press office.

The proposed settlement stems from a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump over allegations of misleading editing in a CBS News 60 Minutes story from October 7, 2024.

Business settlements and political decisions based on real or imagined ramifications are one thing. But it is quite another for a major broadcaster to cave so willingly and early in the legal process. More alarming to veteran news people is the apparent surrender and kow tow to a personality.

If a story has been properly produced, vetted by experienced and senior editors, and scrubbed for accuracy, then the network should stand by the work. Stand by your reporters and editorial team. One presumes the experienced team at CBS 60 Minutes, the premier news magazine show on CBS, did their jobs properly and professionally. It would be a sad thing for risk-averse managers at the television network to scuttle the work and settle for the expedience of a new business deal.

Is Success for An Audience of One Enough?

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt most likely impressed her most important audience, President Donald Trump, with her maiden appearance at the White House podium yesterday.

She was feisty, combative, unflappable, and stayed on point to the party line.
She bridged reporter’s questions to her talking points, regardless of whether those answers were either responses to the questions asked or satisfactory to the reporters at all. She pivoted when she deemed it necessary. She structured her responses using the boasts and bravado of her boss.

But was she as effective beyond the West Wing?

Her tonality was sharp. Her posture & body language are tight; some might say combative. Like it or not, those physical characteristics can set a negative tone for the relationship between the President and the press corps.

My question: is that the best way to begin? Is setting a tough tone even necessary? Certainly, the job of press secretary is akin to being a circus ringmaster where the lions, and tigers and bears have been let loose simultaneously. But are a whip and a chair the best tools to wield from arguably the most potent soap box in the world?

For Trump fans who dislike and distrust the ‘fake media,’ she undoubtedly scored high grades for putting and keeping the media hoard in its place. For Trump critics, she prompted recollections of other spokesperson failures, including Sean Spicer.

The press sectary’s job has never been ‘easy’ with a sophisticated press corps that has age, maturity, and usually decades-long experience in covering the nuances of DC politics. Ms. Leavitt is young and a relative newcomer, so it would be natural to expect a learning curve requiring a period of time. I’d suggest that the honeymoon window is open only a sliver and closing quickly.

While she has experience from the campaign, the open question will be how does that translate to prime time and for an audience beyond the President? Or, is she simply cannon fodder for Mr. Trump to carry his water until she has been rung out by a critical, disbelieving, and maybe even hostile audience?

Your thoughts?

Out with the Damn French! When We Take Over Canada, the First Thing to Do is Trade Québec for Greenland

Absorbing Canada as the 51st State Poses Problems

Should the USA prevail in carving out Canada as our 51st state, an as-yet- unasked-and-unanswered question remains: what do we do with Québec?

What can we do with the 9.1 million Francopholic Francophiles whose allegiance to l’État Québécois is unshakable? Whose affection for the Tricolor (drapeau national de la France) and the Fleurdelisé (drapeau du Québec) surely exceeds their devotion to the Maple Leaf? Not to even mention the Stars and Stripes.

Remember too their overwhelming preference for Canadian maple syrup far trumps their liking of what’s considered sub-par versions from New England.

What do we do with a second front of migrants from Canada, just as we’re trying to stem the tide of Spanish-speaking invaders from the south?

The answer is embarrassingly simple, and although I have yet to hear this solution proffered by authorities in Washington, DC, it seems that we trade… we’re big on trade anyway… we trade Québec for Greenland.

The Danes get 9 million former Canadians to fit into 836,330 square miles easily. No overcrowding! Plenty of room to grow.

In turn, the 56,583 Greenlanders will fit far more comfortably into the old Québec confines of 595,391 square miles. Again, good for all parties… room to spread out and prosper.

The French emigres will be closer to Le Belle France transported to the edge of Europe, far closer to le mère France than than when they were abandoned to au milieu de null part au Canada (the middle of nowhere).

At first, it might not be easy. On the streets of Nuuk, one might hear the transplants saying, Je ne parle que français only to be responded to with Parlez danous si’l vous plaît… with the former Canadians responding Jeg taler ikke dansk.
But with a few weeks of Google translate, this will all sort itself out.

And since most Danes already speak English, their assimilation will be a piece of cake, what we all know to be et stykke kage.

This is all going to work out splendidly.

Problem Solved.

Crisis Averted.

Washington? You’re welcome.

President Trump’s Hiraeth

Again and again, Ameican’s are promised a return to a life, a universe, a world of glorious ‘agains.”
But, just when was this: again?

I want someone in the press to ask, when was ‘again’?

When was America strong, again?
Was that in the post-WW2 era when our military and nuclear might were unmatched? Again here certainly can’t be Vietnam… a war from which the President excused himself, and what’s more, we lost.
Was it 1959 when President Eisenhower warned of the unchecked military-industrial complex rampantly growing to unsustainable proportions?

Was when America safe, again?
It certainly couldn’t have been the 1960s and 70s which saw dramatically higher crime spikes. But maybe it was before cameras in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, among other cities showcased poverty and injustice directly into our living rooms, and Black Lives Matter was splashed on downtown DC streets?

Was safe again when people who made us uncomfortable were compelled to hide in the shadows?
Was that the 1950s and 60’s when sexual repression castigated fags, queers, and dykes in even the most polite conversations, if they were recognized at all? Sniggers and condemnations… Shall we return to that? Again?

Was safe before desegregation? Before the Freedom Rides? Before Selma and Montgomery? Before Little Rock? Or Boston even in the 1970s?
Before the riots of the late 1960s which burned American neighborhoods to ash? Before blood was spilled in the streets; when was that again?
Was that when America was safe? Or when white people felt safe?
Is that the ‘again’ to be sought?

When was America at peace, again? Surely not in my 7 decades of life… from Korea to the Iron Curtain, to the Bamboo Curtain, to Vietnam, to the innumerable battles and terror of the Middle East and the armaments provided by the U.S., Kosovo, to civil wars and revolutions (Argentina, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Senegal), to the Iran Contra affair… and what about Afghanistan, Iraq? Kuwait? Wars all – again, and again.

AI calculates, “As of 2024, there are 56 ongoing conflicts worldwide, with 92 countries involved in conflicts outside their borders. This represents the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since World War II, highlighting the continued prevalence of armed conflicts in the modern era.” It calculates today 160,000 active duty military personnel are assigned to foreign posts in 80 countries at 750 bases. Again? Is that safe again?

So when was there peace, ‘again’?

When was America good, again? Was it again before the Poverty Program which lifted the living standard and fed so many impoverished Americans? Was it before a health safety net – perhaps before Medicare? Before LBJ? Certainly, it must have been before the Obama Affordable Care Act, but just when was it healthier, ‘again’?

Was America better before desegregation – in schools, hotels, restaurants, and public transport? Or even baseball? Surely, better must be before DEI – so what are we returning to, ‘again’?

Was America better and stronger in the world when U.S. corporations ran entire governments? When the CIA choose who would rule and who would fall in a coup? When we determined who would be bribed, regardless of the consequences to their citizens, but always to our advantage — think oil prices or bananas… and so much more. When was that ‘again’, Pax America?

And what about some of the poorest of the poor – the American farm worker? Is returning to the era of Harvest of Shame what is meant by again? When prices at the market were at a low because the pickers on American farms were treated as slaves.

Just when was ‘again’?

I am puzzled.

America is not a Norman Rockwell painting – a romanticized distortion of life years ago, a saccharin reminder of a supposedly gentler time that was never completely accurate but has become a political symbol of a supposedly better life then.

Thomas Wolfe wrote you can’t go home again for what was has surely changed and evolved, just as we have individually.

Is ‘again’ really better? Is ‘again’ even realistic?

Where is “again” anything more than a political rallying cry? And for what?

Is your again my again? And are you sure? I’m not.

Mr. Trump’s oft-repeated word ‘again’ is, still, once again, undefined, unasked, and unanswered.

Who in the media will ask, yea demand, and ask, and ask again until he defines his ‘again’… and then we can see if there is a consensus for that destination or if are we just being taken for a ride?

Quick! Multiple Choice Quiz

CNN management told their top journalists not to editorialize or ‘express outrage’ during the inauguration coverage.

What’s MOST wrong with this?

CNN management had so little faith in the reporting skills of their journalists to be impartial observers and reporters that they needed to be muzzled by the bosses?
CNN’s stable of journalists is so unprofessional and unskilled expecting to wax poetic and share their opinions under the guise of news coverage, and they didn’t know that’s not their responsibility?
CNN ‘leaked’ their instructions from a presumably, professional and private meeting to curry favor with the new administration watchdogs, eager to pounce on any misstep or misdeed by a bona fide news organization?

From the NYPost story, “During the meeting, Thompson “made it clear that he did not want the coverage to relitigate the past,” according to Status reporter Oliver Darcy — an allusion to CNN’s historically hostile relationship with Trump.” (Italics mine)

What’s wrong with a historically hostile relationship between politics and the press? Did mean reporters hurt the feelings of the Trump 45? Did those nasties in the press room cause him a boo-boo for challenging his words and deeds?

And continuing from the Post, “Instead, he urged CNN staffers to focus on Trump’s second term and to be “open-minded” about the next four years.” Is that code for playing lovey-dovey or footsie from a corporate viewpoint?

It seems to me that a new cautiousness, perhaps a fear or threat of reprisal, and a growing timidity is setting the course for the next 4 years.

If the public prefers unchecked, unvarnished, unfiltered propaganda over the truth… that’s a dark choice.

Hinmatóowyalahtq̓it Was Right

Over the last 36 hours, much of the cable-verse has been unremarkably predictable. MSNBC grieves, Newsmax and Fox gloat, and CNN searches to strike a moderate tune, whatever that might be.

Each media entity is frantically and fanatically preaching to its choir. That’s what their audience wants and believes. That’s where their commercial success lies.

While I seriously doubt there has been any audience transference from its well-entrenched political ideology of choice, therein lies the problem.

They are squandering our future, and we are succumbing to their pabulum. Former New Mexico Governor and US Ambassador Bill Richardson promoted collaboration and compromise, “We cannot accomplish all that we need to do without working together.”

Instead, too many of us hear a story and mutter, “Geez, what a bitch!” Or dismiss some politician or businessman bemoaning, “What a rich bastard they are, what do they know about…?”
We pit one another against each other for short-term political gain. Congressperson Majorie Taylor Greene has announced her intention to hold hearings on the leftist-leaning PBS for insinuating that Elon Musk’s raised salute was an endorsement of either fascism or Nazism. Hearings? Really?

To quote one of America’s great orators, Bugs Bunny, “Heh. What a maroon!”

See, I did it there!

But I must also recognize that on the other side of the aisle, statements by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez routinely boil the blood of many conservatives.

We are seduced and reduced to embracing (liking?) a diet of bromides and broadsides from one side to the other and back again. We toss around words like liberty and freedom and define them solely and judgmentally in our terms… and if you disagree, you’re disloyal, un-American, and wrong.

Ronald Reagan reminded us to be more careful with what we say and what’s at stake. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

We expect MSNBC to interview guests aligned with a left-of-center ideology, just as Newsmax or Fox celebrates the right. Name-calling predominates the headlines. Guests appear especially for their vitriol and the cleverness that predominate the airwaves.

Are media power brokers and gatekeepers so committed to being an echo chamber of their audience’s ideologies and so terrified of losing market share that they cannot present another idea?

Dare we suggest we deserve better?

Anchors and hosts giggle, make snarky editorial remarks, and castigate anyone who disagrees with their political line. Listen to the adjectives. Count the adverbs.

Admittedly, it’s so easy to sit in judgment. And the view ain’t bad either!

It is as unreasonable as it is unlikely that the media will change, and certainly not willingly, if ever. They will continue to pander to their perceptions of this divided and discordant mob of viewers.

Audiences respond to two distinct emotions. Anger and fear. Only. The more that fear is stoked, the angrier audiences become. The more that anger intensifies, the fear grows more profound.

What’s wrong with challenging audiences – not from opposite poles – but from a single theme articulated by Hinmatóowyalahtq̓it (Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce), “We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe.”

Would you listen and watch? Or is that theme too frightening for you? Is there any media company or talent with courage which is willing to try?

I, for one, would be proud to produce a show like that.

From CNN’s Reliable Sources – Media & Trump Day 1

AN insightful window in to how people see their news coverage

The Capitol Transformed – Reimagined & Enhanced for the Inauguration

What if this was true…

We have heard tales that workers putting the final touches on the Inside-the-Capitol-Inaguration have completed improvements just in time for Monday’s ceremony.

The famous marble and bronze statutes have been reimagined as animatronics showcasing leading cabinet nominees and contributors, including Pete, Stephen, Marco, Kristi, Pam, Elon, Mark, JD, Vivek, and Kristi, among others.
There is even one for wanna-be and almost-weres like Matt, his shown cowering just aside the entrance to the Ladies room.
Demonstrating politically inspired internationalism, Chinese businessmen Shou Zi Chew, Vladimir, Viktor, and Bibi are also presented in the rotation. As a nod to media and entertainment, Sean & Tucker will look down benevolently thanks to a projection illuminating the Capitol dome and sponsored by a national news broadcaster.

The marble walkway, used by tourists gathering on January 6th, 2024, in what will be henceforth only be remembered as a celebration of love, has been repaved with gold nuggets, thanks to Hollywood and Silicon Valley titans eager to pay homage to the Wicked king.

All guests will be handed ballots for next year’s Nobel Awards which they can deposit in specially festive ballot boxes located conveniently at the exits and protected by armed Capitol police.

The historic 12×8 foot, oil portraits featuring iconic scenes of American history, including the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the surrenders of Burgoyne and Cornwallis, the Landing of Columbus, and others, are updated with more contemporary imagery featuring President Trump:
Teeing off for yet another hole-in-one at Mar-a-lago
Descending the golden escalator at Trump Tower
Clandestinely tallying his score on the 19th hole at Bedminster
Hurling rolls of paper towels to victims of the hurricane in Puerto Rico
Introducing Elon at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania
Straddling the Korean DMV with Kim Jong Un
Musing in his Moscow hotel room at the Miss Universe Pageant
Locking metal gates at the southern border as tears stream down the cheeks of the Statute of Liberty weeps

Of course, while the mainstream, lame-stream media will most likely not include these artistic improvements in their coverage, but a fawning press corps eager to show allegiance will be briefed in the White House press room shortly after the ceremonies are concluded. Stay tuned.

Sun Zhu was right…

The following post is making the rounds…

“Help make history, Boycott Inauguration Day, by turning your TV off at 12 o’clock ET on January 20. Make this inauguration the least-watched live event in the history of television. What an incredible message to the new administration. And for someone who loves to talk about crowd size, this is not going to make him very happy. It will put him on notice That we, the people, also have power! What a wonderful way to make Martin Luther King proud with an old-school approach to change. So tell your friends and tell your friends to tell their friends. Don’t presume people are not going to watch let’s make sure everyone doesn’t. Turn the TV to PBS so all the civil rights documentaries will get the ratings.”

My response is, what absolute poppycock.

In the days of Neilsen ratings, when that was all that was available, measuring a TV audience was the prime way to gauge a media event. That was then. It’s not today.

This week’s Trump inauguration will be available to a global audience on television, cable, audio, social media, and countless internet streams. It is potentially going to be the most watched inauguration simply in terms of its distribution and availability.
The TV numbers will be a pittance.

So – you don’t want to watch? Good on you.

Good luck to you.

And PBS should be so lucky to see a surge in their ratings.

Does anyone think that the sycophants who surround this president would ever be so bold as to tell that narcissist about a campaign to boycott his remarks?

Take it a second step, if told, would he care? How would we know?

On a larger plane, I find it risible to think the next 4 years will be better tolerated by being an ostrich. For anyone who disagreed with the President-elect or voted for his opposition, I might offer, “Get over it.”

Mr. Trump won, perhaps not with the mandate he has claimed, but with sufficient numbers in the popular vote and with a Congress prepped to do his bidding.

Is the answer not to watch, listen, or react to them too? For 4 years?

As for the line, “What a wonderful way to make Martin Luther King proud with an old-school approach to change” the perpetrator of this campaign forgets that Dr. King was all about publicity for the cause of racial justice. And more, he was a fighter… lest you forget the arrests, injuries, and deaths suffered by those who chose to stand by him. “Old-school approach…” seems like looking at history through a colored lens that has been distorted by memories of a gentler day.

These days are not gentle, dear reader.

If one disagrees with policies or positions, it’s far braver to speak up than to remain mute. If you think the country is on the wrong path, then speak up and be heard.
Sun Zhu tells us the path to victory begins with ourselves.“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Is the media pimping the confirmation hearings for the Mar-a-lago casting couch?

It is not much of a stretch to consider the Senate confirmation hearings for President-elect Trump’s cabinet as much more than a show-and-tell, superficial and unsatisfying peek-a-boo into the nominees’ character.

While it’s not a new phenomenon, the same vomit of words is heard at so many confirmation hearings as, in this case, GOP Senators spread their lips and gush platitudes of praise. At the same time, their Democratic counterparts swallow hard as they choke back words of doubt with so much regret for their losses last November.

It’s equally tough to envision the nominees as anything more than pawns in this current, Republican drama featuring a live, on-camera ritualistic dance aimed at an audience of one. The Senators are prostituting themselves in, what seems to me to be, a dance of fielty to the high prince of Palm Beach.

To quote the American comedian and satirist Will Rogers, “Senators are a never-ending source of amusement, amazement, and discouragement.”

Are the networks live broadcasts anything more than pimping for the President? One could and should argue, “No. The public should see for itself and note the character and tenor of the nominees.” But the fact that so many hours are offered free of charge and without obligation or an equal amount of time without balance is a concern.

Whether you support the nominations or have doubts is a private matter.

But what is public is this Senatorial progression of posturing themselves with obsequious, scripted mission statements and softball questions, aimed more at impressing or currying favor with Mr. Trump than eliciting real knowledge or a response from the witness.

Is it a question of what’s best for the American people? (The Senator’s job). Or is it a question of what can they say to be quoted on Fox to be noticed, appreciated, thanked, and soon rewarded?

Have we learned much of anything that wasn’t already prepared, shared, and promoted before the gavel fell opening the first session?

Aren’t we being treated to a regurgitation of message points crafted by speech writers? What a pitiful diet they are asking us to ingest.
And can’t you imagine these sycophants congratulating their bosses as they come off the dais — “What a good job you did.” And, “You sure looked great performing on camera at the microphone.” And, “We’ll be sure to send the clips from C-Span to the local stations in your state for rebroadcast on tonight’s evening news. The folks at home will love seeing you.”

I’ve noticed several Senators who have promoted their pleasure that the new secretary of defense will restore the military to its bygone glory. Forgive me, but is the military in tatters? There seem to be plenty of ships, and soldiers, and tanks, and even a new Space Force — isn’t that enough? This message may play well with old geezers down at the VFW hall, but what about the rest of us? Do these same Senators think any future war will really be fought primarily with boots on the ground? 
The hearings are not offering much more than an echo chamber.

The hearings are a reminder of P.T. Barnum’s assessment of the public, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

One would hope.

There is not much to see and learn here… there was an opportunity for better, but it seems that in the current politicized and fragmented world, any such hope has been dashed on the jagged shoals of reality.

The Senate hearings remind me of another Will Roger’s recommendation.
“After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring.
He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.”