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.

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.”

Media Mayhem – The LA fires bring out the best and worst in reporting

This week’s fires in and around Los Angeles resemble an apocalypse.

Families lost loved ones; thousands more lost property accumulated over a lifetime.

The media coverage has been extensive on land and in the air. Anchors have raced from the safety and comfort of New York studios to appear earnestly reporting on the fire line.

 Snarky tabloid stories poked at anchors who tailored their Nomex fire retardant suits to appear fitted (more dashing?). In a holocaust, I suppose some news heavyweights think it best to look good while reporting on other’s suffering… before returning to the comfort of 4-star hotels for the night.

As my friend and colleague Bob Sirkin posed in an email today, “I am tired of watching network anchors trying to squeeze out the very last drops of emotion from victims. How much more do you want to ask the same banal questions to people who are left with nothing?”

The So California fires are a tragedy of unfathomable scope. Of course.

But dare we compare this natural destruction to human-caused misery in Gaza, the Ukraine, and Russia where cities have been leveled, buildings pancaked on residents asleep in their beds, and debris fields stretch for miles and miles – entire communities obliterated back to the stone age?

The media coverage and public interest in these stories has largely waned. Field reporters file stories about a horrific bombing or a gun battle, characterized by the news term “bang-bang.” But the rest of the story – about people…the losses they have sustained is largely sanitized from US media.

It’s absolutely as tragic, but if I may suggest, few if any of these victims likely have Go-Fund-Me pages.

The old bromide that all news is local is true, and the fires in California have greater resonance to fellow Americans than something happening thousands of miles away in a foreign country to people who are not “us.”

I get it.

Soon the fires will be contained. Even this weekend there will be less coverage as audiences over Saturday and Sunday decline and the newspapers shrink their page count. Anchors will return to their studios, where it is less expensive to sustain coverage.

The audience will tell pollsters that they’ve had enough, or feel overwhelmed, or worse yet, that the devastation is all beginning to look the same. And we’ll largely move on.

Newsroom cynics used to keep tally of what scope of devastation warranted network television news interest… hundreds of thousands of victims in a sub-continent typhoon barely earned a mention. Several thousand war casualties in Africa or several hundred killed in a South American earthquake might earn a flicker of acknowledgment. Scores in a domestic tragedy certainly earned a slot in the news window… but then, so too did a 2 car accident in New York’s Times Square so long as it was reported in the New York Post or Times.

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective after all.

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?

Why we need long-form, investigative journalism

A mole infiltrated the highest ranks of American militias. Here’s what he found.

ProPublica

It’s so ‘easy’ to hate some one or some group, to have an almost visceral distaste and hate, but it is so much more difficult to understand them… to really, really understand beyond that intuitive or instinctive disagreement.

What makes them tick? How did they form their ideology? What fuels and fosters their suspicions. For those who we disagree with, we shake our heads in amazement that they can be “so wrong.”

This ProPublica required time and guts to research, check, double check and write. For the mole, it required a whole lot of chutzpah.

The resulting work is well worth our attention.