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

RIP “Mr. Baseball”

Bob Uekcer has died at 91.

CBS News’ Jon Wertheim offered his appreciation last fall.

It merits a look today.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/a-visit-with-mr-baseball-bob-uecker/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h

“Stupid Is As Stupid Does” – A Modest Proposal to Everyone Hell Bent on Punishing California

While facts (real or alternative) rarely seem to matter either to Trump or the GOP… maybe their proposal to punish California for its flagrant disregard of sound forest management is ripe for implementation.

Or maybe just ripe? Why do so many GOP legislators in Washington want to punish Californians in exchange for any mercy or money?

{Let’s remember that according to AI, the Federal government owns 56-70% of California’s forest lands. Private ownership accounts for 40%, leaving the state responsible for just 3%.}

It is high time for a little responsible forest money management.

Starting immediately…

To hell with California’s smelts. Screw the waterfowl. Damn dams are inconvenient, and besides a good dam break and resulting flood is good to clear out slums in decrepit, declining, sanctuary-declared, leftist democrat-led cities and towns. California – the world’s 5th largest economy – needs to get a fiscal haircut and stern reprimand.

Nationally too, there has been too much waste… proverbial pork… bridges to nowhere…

From now on, there will be no federal aid for hurricane relief in the Gulf States. No hurricane is a surprise… many are charted with Sharpies, so we all know where in advance they will strike.

Lava flows in Hawaii? Ha! Eruptions can be largely predicted and lava moves slowly. If someone cannot get out of the way, it’s their fault.

Earthquakes too… a little rattle and roll is good for enhancing your rhythm.

As far as Tornado Alley is concerned, a good readjustment of topsoil is good for everyone. While the Dust Bowl is an ancient memory, moving a chunk of Kansas to Illinois seems reasonable, and less expensive than by truck or rail cars.

Nor’easters in New England? Not a worry. Just think of lobsters clawing their way as they relocate to higher ground in Penobscot Bay. They have 10 legs. Use them. No transportation subsidies for them.

Certainly, we have to stop reimbursing Springfield, Ohio residents for the loss of their pets; even if they were delicious.

Isn’t chicken the new white meat anyway… or was that more pork?

And let’s not forget about Alaska… high time to stop spending money on binoculars for a better glimpse of Russia from our windows.

Montana? Sorry… no money for you for errant Chinese spy balloons falling from the sky, even if that carnage might cause the buffalo to stampede. Bison meat… certainly exportable to global markets without government trade sanctions is good too.

And farm subsidies are a thing of the past.

And pork… government pork? Nope… it’s your bacon in the fire from now on.

FEMA? Cast off into the dustbin of history.

I think it is wonderful that Congress is finally stepping up to put some much-needed and long-overdue fiscal controls on flagrant emergency spending to help American citizens.
It’s high time to put a stop to this financial drip, a leakage that is undermining the inherent strengths of the states and allowing good Americans to rely on handouts in emergencies, even when all else has been lost.

The wildfires in LA are the proverbial (flammable) straw that broke the camel’s back.

And we should punish nature too when Mom doesn’t provide enough rain.
Let’s cloud-seed the skies… until the heavens burst, and who cares about flooding in Missouri, Iowa, or along the Mississippi?

The reappearance of, “Stupid is as Stupid Does” reportedly dates to 1862
Anthony Trollop used it in 1882.
Forrest Gump popularized it in 1994.
Thank goodness Congress has restored it to our lexicon by its actions in 2025.

Why don’t the American media and Op-ed writers see this as clearly as I do?

Jonathan Swift surely would approve of all this.

And your mother wears combat boots!!

Nah-Nah-Nah

Are Lofty Thoughts Lost in American Politics, and Beyond?

This NYTimes story presents an interesting and disconcerting story that past Presidents have been better orators than those to whom we have become accustomed in recent administrations.

Compared to what has become a standard diet of bravado, braggadocio, self-serving “I told you so” and outright propaganda, not to mention tens of thousands of falsifications, the old days seem pretty darn different.

This chasm of lost oratory prompted me to think: who and what’s responsible for the dearth of great communicators?

Can we attribute this to speech writers and consultants who master-manage and maul every message?  What about the corruption of money? Do politicians and executives fear that saying anything of substance will cause a break in the money chain or stock market?
What about religious leaders and influencers? Are they still believable, as so few seem to hold much sway anyway?
Or, is over-exposure by the media that which diminishes (even extinguishes) everyone’s light before it can gain more than a glimmer?
Have we lost the art of speaking and persuasion in place of 280-character social media posts?
Are we impatient, turning off after less than: 30 because we are too busy to press on to our next conversation or encounter?

What seems missing most to me is honesty and authenticity.
In multimedia, in the past and still today, to become trusted and believable, one must start with being liked. People judge one another in nanoseconds, making quick, knee-jerk judgments based on appearance, intonation, articulation, and whether they feel the speaker actually believes what they’re saying.

Does your audience like you? What is even likable about you?

In speaking, achieving success and impact is as simple as using clear words, being concise, and sounding conversational.

Too many of my students struggled to find a more complicated word in the thesaurus to sound authoritative at the expense of being understandable. They complicated a simple message by searching for bigger, polysyllabic words in a futile hope of sounding impressive.

In short, they thought too much and didn’t write as they most naturally spoke.

I taught writing for 15+ years. So many students struggled due to years of teachers who valued volume instead of quality. So many students struggled to write what they wanted to say for fear of criticism when all they had to do was write as they spoke and speak from the heart.

Great writing is the product of a good first draft, terrific editing, a better second draft, and repeat.

Great speaking can and should motivate and inspire — but it isn’t just about big words but the speaker’s use of all their inherent, personal strengths – and their belief in what they have to communicate.

The Times story is interesting as it highlights what we have lost.

PASTEURIZING MEDIA

Countering “media fallout”

{{This was written by my friend, teacher, and colleague Marty Perlmutter and first appeared on his substack today.It is thought provoking, and I felt worth sharing

Marshall McLuhan had a central idea he termed “media fallout.” He knew the only way to avoid the mind-manipulation of media was awareness of how these modes of consciousness envelopment work on our brains. In the absence of awareness, you have media fallout. He explained this to advertising and broadcast executives of the time — half a century ago. He said that he felt a lot like Louis Pasteur in 1860. He was aware of pervasive and invisible forces that caused disease and spread infection. But all around were individuals, doctors along with patients, oblivious to imperceptible but all-too-real microbes that were killing them.

To become conscious of how balkanized, corrupted, disinforming and ever-more-pathetic media are shaping our minds and behaviors requires a quantum leap in awareness of invisible forces. Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox News are the easiest of the “cavorting beasties” (as the inventor of the microscope termed single-cell organisms) to detect, and begin to disinfect. Social media, fragmented attention, cell phone dopamine addiction — these will take more time to elucidate and defang.

Our plight seems more fraught than simply entertaining ourselves to death. As McLuhan taught, what we’re not aware of will have its way with our delicate cerebra. A lot of what we’re dealing with now barely makes it to the cortex. This is the age of the medulla oblongata, the brain stem where fear and rage abide. While we are distracted, addicted, disinformed and terrorized, what hope is there that we’ll grok how this enveloping miasma operates?

Another teaching gives me hope. A peerless penetrator of the loom of passions and persuasions, Friedrich Nietzsche, taught, “Understanding stops action.” When you comprehend how something triggers you, when you grasp the roots of your convictions, there’s no heat, no drive to act. There is only a tranquility that passeth manipulation.

So spread the word: Cavorting beasties are abroad in the land. We cannot see or sense this stuff til we surface the mechanisms by which they reach into us. By slowly becoming aware of how these forces massage our senses, impact our feeling and thinking, we can disabuse ourselves of thralldom and become, truly and at last, free.

Good God! Can the Democrats Be Any Less Inspiring In Their Selection of Party Leadership?

Bland. Milk toast. Banal. White bread. Safe – in an era which demands thoughtful, novel and strong leadership shouldn’t there be another option?

The two front-runners for leadership of the Democratic National Committee seem to be two sides of the same-old, hackneyed coin which was battered and bruised in the November 24 election… a tarnished token which shows little spark, energy or life since.

Quoting Sunday’s 12.5.25 NYTimes, “The two candidates who have emerged as front-runners to become D.N.C. chair, Ken Martin of Minnesota and Ben Wikler of Wisconsin, are both middle-aged white men from the upper Midwest and chair of their state parties whose politics are well within the Democratic mainstream.”

I’m sorry, was that a typo? Didn’t they mean to write mausoleum?

My concern has nothing to do with DEI or political correctness. Still, rather, I am just surprised that the party is choosing to act more like an ostrich in defeat than a righteous, rigorous contestant who wants another crack at the champ who just flattened them at the ballot box. (If you’ll forgive the tortured mixed metaphors).

Washington beltway wags often speak of the best and the brightest minds populating the halls of power. (Of course, look where that got us in the Vietnam era). But I do wonder if this is really the best to be mustered for what is surely among the most difficult and seemingly unattractive jobs in DC?

All I can hear echoing is “4 More Years” – a disconcerting call considering the disarray in the Democratic Party hierarchy and populace.

Or maybe I am just a ~~realist~~ pessimist?

Can Anything About a Nazi War Criminal Be Newsworthy Today?

I suppose it depends on your definition of news.

In the contemporary era of “fake” news, alternative facts, and presumed media bias, what constitutes news to you?

How do you define newsworthy?
Is it primarily what affirms or echoes your defined set of beliefs?
What or whoever endorses your accepted truths?
What boosts your self-esteem and opinions?

For some, traditionally, what’s considered news includes large and catastrophic events; proclamations of elected officials; wars and civil strife; as well as the work, decisions, or actions by anyone (or thing) that consequentially affect our lives, families, and communities, whether for good or bad. We note those who influence our lives, both positively and negatively.

Admittedly for some with a more limited scope, the only news they consume is whatever is positive and non-threatening in a world which increasingly seems so negative and beyond their control or effect.

The cliché of news being a first draft of history is also a truism. Equally true is the role of obituaries for and appreciation of people who played a role, even accidentally or tangentially, in history

I believe the most impactful stores are always about people – first and foremost. We best relate to those of our species. (Perhaps our pets second). Who’s interesting, perhaps entertaining, provocative, intriguing, or offensive?

Our most frequent triggers: who (and what) do we fear or make us angry?

Let’s take a deeper look at something which, on first blush, you may not consider newsworthy.

I pose this question: Can anything about the 1962 execution of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann be newsworthy, or even interesting today?

Consider this:

An elderly man named Shalom Nagar died last month. His death received scant attention. It was reported in the Israeli press, on the BBC, in the New York Times… but little mention appeared elsewhere.
Most news gatekeepers determined that a story featuring a bit player in a global event 6-decades ago would generate or even deserve interest today. No buzz. Few clicks. The story was too old, or too difficult to tell briefly, and few remember or much care.

Who was he?

Shalom Nagar was the reluctant 23-year-old Israeli guard who hanged Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Shanghaied by the authorities and press-ganged onto the execution team, Nagar’s job was to release the trap door on the gallows.

Nagar’s story and Nazi Adolf Eichmann’s are intractably entwined in history. It is ironic that such a notorious war criminal who caused such suffering for the living and who, even after his death, still haunted and caused lifelong dismay – he scarred even his executioner.

A simple guy – a prison guard of no particular rank – a schlub selected against his will to do a job that no one else would accept… Nagar did that job as assigned. He was, to use the phrase, “just following orders” too.

He was the little story in the larger event, the small story in the big one. But can’t we all relate to something similar in our own life’s journey?

According to the NYTimes obit by Sam Roberts (Dec.5, 24), “Eichmann’s face was white as chalk, his eyes were bulging and his tongue was dangling out,” Mr. Nagar told Mishpacha magazine in 2005. “The rope rubbed the skin off his neck, and so his tongue and chest were covered with blood.”
He added: “I didn’t know that when a person is strangled all the air remains in his stomach, and when I lifted him, all the air that was inside came up and the most horrifying sound was released from his mouth — ‘baaaaa!’ I felt the Angel of Death had come to take me, too.”

Continuing from Roberts’ obit, “In discussing the execution with Mishpacha magazine, Mr. Nagar invoked Amalek, the biblical archenemy nation of ancient Israel, to justify his task.
In spite of the trauma, he said, he appreciated the value of his experience: God “commands us to wipe out Amalek, to ‘erase his memory from under the sky’ and ‘not to forget.’ I have fulfilled both.”

There is an irony here. I think that irony is what triggered media coverage; it is what caught my eye as a reporter/producer/editor/and teacher.

For executing someone convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the executioner too suffered mightily.

Nagar’s burden of taking a life became, apparently, a life-long cross for him to bear.

We presume Nagar found his peace, as is shared in Sam Roberts’ appreciation.
That does add context to a larger story as it reveals little-known-till-now-nuggets of history. And in that is an irony.

More than a half century after Eichmann’s execution, I submit a backstory is still interesting and informative – offering new details, or a previously unknown perspective or consequence. It meets my working definition of being news-worthy, being interesting and informative, shedding new light on people and events in our worlds.

My definition expands: Newsworthy is something that makes me pause and think as I take note of the evolving history.

So, what do you think? Was the New York Times, the BBC and the few others right to consider this newsworthy for their audiences?

Would you have made the same decision, or not, and why?

Vigilantism Against the Media… Maybe the media should correct the narrative?

The recent attack on a news reporter in Colorado by a man screaming epithets at him for not appearing to be a white, Anglo-Saxon American really should not surprise anyone.

What’s perhaps more surprising is how these racial or ethnic attacks have been perpetuated (and tolerated?) in this burgeoning era of “I hate anyone who doesn’t agree with or look like me.” When did Trump’s America become a battlecry for racial hate?

What prompts anyone to think they are doing a civilized act by randomly chasing another human being and beating them for their looks or a presumption of their inherent evil? Who gets to decide this? What sort of person animal has that chutzpah?

We can wring our hands over recent political diatribes glorifying vigilantism. We can decry bravado which promotes the superiority of some and the inferiority of others whom we dislike (or fear), but when did vigilantism become acceptable?

The media is the fall guy for a host of problems, real and manufactured. The media is allowing itself to be pilloried. The adults (owners, publishers, editors, statesmen) in the media must speak up as influencers, critically and urgently to set the record straight about the generally outstanding job being performed every day.

Audiences must not be allowed to randomly assume or equate cable talk-TV with responsible reporting; audiences must be corrected when they make assumptions or fall for a diet of propaganda; knowledge stems from bonafide news (sourced, double-checked, and most important of all: presented without emotion or adverbs). Noise is not to be confused with “news.”

At least that is what I believe and taught my students.

A media double standard or is ISIS a name too juicy to omit?

Once upon a time not so long ago, crime victims and their perpetrators were routinely headlined and included in the narrative of news stories.

Then, in a more sensitive and enlightened decision, many in the media decided not to name victims of sexual assault, or molestation, among other crimes to protect what might remain of their privacy. The same rule of not naming juveniles remains a standard.

So why is the perpetrator of the horrific crime in New Orleans being bantered about with his association with ISIS?

Isn’t that connection and publicity precisely what he was seeking? Isn’t that why he chose to attack a public place instead of harming his own family?

If the decision is not to name individuals to deprive them of their notoriety, an argument could be made to repeatedly or redundantly decline to trumpet ISIS in conjunction with the horrific events in New Orleans.

His association (no name needed as we all know the subject of this story can be found in a web search) is a legitimate fact worthy of being included for the record. Once, maybe twice. But I get a feeling of almost glee in the intonation of some anchors who nod soberly as they do more for propaganda than any soldiers of ISIS might ever hope for.

Just a thought… Moderation can be a good thing, and editorial judgment can be too.