Complicity or Complacency?

Complicity or Complacency?

With the spate of White House ‘tell-alls” decrying the deteriorated health of former President Joe Biden, the more compelling question is why wasn’t much of this detected and disclosed by the WHPress Corps when it was happening.

Sure.. we all saw the President’s awkward gait; and his tumble up the steps of AF1 and down on the stage at the Air Force Academy; we all were witness to the debate debacle.

But – as a former member of the press corps in the days of CBS’ Dan Rather and ABC’s Sam Donaldson, I don’t think those correspondents would have been so forgiving to ignore the patently evident signs of physical and mental deterioration.

Mark Barbaks column (reposted here) makes the case that hiding presidential illnesses is not a new phenomenon. What seems disingenuous now are the reporters who covered the WH expressing surprise at just how bad things really were.

In a business which is based on ardent competition, where currying sources is the #1 priority, and in an era where there are more platforms and media companies dueling for scoops, was the ignorance of this president’s poor health due to the complicity of WH reporters choosing silence in order not to rock the boat, or not to jeopardize their standing in the WH Press Office, or due to laziness and complacency?

Reporters, anchors, hosts and pundits who postulate today but who said nothing while the story was actually happening are disappointing and doing a dishonor to their profession.

Scary! When a judge rules against a newspaper’s right to print an opinion story!

Judge Orders Mississippi Newspaper to Remove Editorial, Alarming Press Advocates

The owner of The Clarksdale Press Register said he planned to challenge a judge’s order against an editorial that criticized city officials.

A brick building with a black-and-white sign saying “Press Register.”
“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” 
Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register in Clarksdale, Miss., said of a judge’s order.

By Michael Levenson {{<— New York Times reporter}}

Feb. 19, 2025  5:54 p.m. ET

A Mississippi judge on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order requested by the city of Clarksdale requiring a local newspaper to remove a critical editorial from its website, a move that alarmed press advocates.

By Wednesday, the newspaper, The Clarksdale Press Register, had removed the editorial from its website. But Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register, said he planned to challenge the judge’s order at a hearing next week.

“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Mr. Emmerich said in an interview, adding that the judge had targeted “an editorial that is pretty plain vanilla, criticizing the City Council for not sending out the approporate notices.”

The Press Register, which dates to 1865 and serves about 7,750 readers, published the editorial on its website on Feb. 8 under the headline, “Secrecy, deception erode public trust.”

The editorial criticized officials in Clarksdale, a city of about 14,000 residents near the Arkansas border, for what it said was their failure to notify the news media before they held a special meeting on Feb. 4, where they approved a resolution asking the Mississippi Legislature to impose a 2 percent tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

“This newspaper was never notified,” the editorial read. “We know of no other media organization that was notified.”

The editorial also questioned city officials’ interest in the resolution.

“Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kickback from the community?” it asked. “Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea — at public expense.”

Clarksdale’s Board of Mayor and Commissioners voted on Feb. 13 to sue the newspaper for libel, saying the city clerk had created a public notice for the Feb. 4 board meeting but forgot to email a copy of it to Floyd Ingram, the editor and publisher of The Press Register, as she usually does.

After the meeting, Mr. Ingram went to the clerk’s office, where the clerk apologized for not sending him the notice and gave him a copy of it and the resolution that had been approved, city officials said.

In their lawsuit against The Press Register, city officials said that efforts by the mayor, Chuck Espy, to lobby for the tax proposal in Jackson, the state capital, had been “chilled and hindered due to the libelous assertions and statements by Mr. Ingram.”

On Tuesday, Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Miss., granted the city’s request for a temporary restraining order and told the newspaper to remove the editorial from its “online portals” and to make it inaccessible to the public.

“The injury in this case is defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle,” Judge Martin wrote.

Mr. Ingram referred questions on Wednesday to Emmerich Newspapers. Mr. Emmerich said the editorial was clearly free speech protected by the Constitution.

“I don’t know how they can argue that a critical editorial is interfering with their businesses in a country that has a First Amendment that protects our right to criticize the government,” he said. “That’s the very idea of what an editorial in a newspaper does.”

The city’s lawsuit was part of what Mr. Emmerich described as an ongoing feud between The Press Register and Mr. Espy. He said that the newspaper had irked the mayor and other officials by reporting on their increased compensation and other issues and that “they’ve been at us ever since.”

Mr. Espy, a Democrat, said that the increased compensation had “nothing do with” the city’s lawsuit against the newspaper and “its malicious lies.” He said the city had threatened to sue the newspaper in the past, forcing it to retract an article.

“The only thing we’re asking for in city government is to simply write the truth, good or bad,” Mr. Espy said. “And I’m very thankful that the judge agreed to impose a T.R.O. against a rogue newspaper that insisted on telling lies against the municipality.”

Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports free speech, criticized the city’s lawsuit, writing on social media that it was “wildly unconstitutional.”

He said that governments “can’t sue for libel” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.

“Free-speech threats come from all corners of society, whether it’s the president of the United States or a mayor, and they come from all political parties,” Mr. Steinbaugh said in an interview on Wednesday. He said that once “we start eroding those rights, all other rights are threatened.”

Layne Bruce, executive director of the Mississippi Press Association, said he supported The Press Register’s right to publish the editorial and its effort to challenge the judge’s order.

“This is a rather astounding order,” he said, “and we feel it’s egregious and chilling and it clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

OPINION — Why Give Absurdities Ink & Prominence?

Elon Musk owns a communications company (and so much more), and if he wants to promote an idea, surely he is free to do so. That’s the epitome of free speech…. Unchecked, unregulated, and uncensored.

And when he suggests that a media company’s employees deserve a “long prison sentence” for a story that he disagrees with, again, he is free to shout that from his platform and bask in the glow of his X echo chamber, maganified by the Prince of Mar-a-Lago.

Musk has long criticized CBS for a Kamala Harris interview during the November election. Most recently, following a critical story about Musk’s closure of USAID, the DOGE boss wrote, “60 Minutes are the biggest liars in the world! They engaged in deliberate deception to interfere with the last election. They deserve a long prison sentence.”

Seriously… “a long prison sentence” for? What would be the legal charge? What is the offense? What is the rationale, other than perhaps currying favor with prominent politicians? Evidently, Musk didn’t learn about the American value of free speech in his South African school system.

While Musk can and should be allowed to say anything, why does other media give him any credence by repeating his nonsensical mutterings?

Deciding what to include on any media platform is the province of editors who, one hopes, make their decisions based on what is newsworthy, the prominence of the person speaking, and the likelihood that what’s said will be impactful.

On any responsible calculus, in my nearly 50-year experience in media, I believe even repeating silly ideas or promoting individuals who are so out of touch with inherent American values is, in itself, irresponsible.

Just Because He Says It Doesn’t Make It True

In retaliation for not changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, a decision Present Trump appeared to make on the spur of the moment, the AP – the Associated Press – one of the world’s preeminent news services – is banned from covering the White House.

On what level does that form of censorship make any sense?

No one should ever have the sole authority to rename the map of the world.

And if a news organization pauses on accepting an unsubstantiated, unauthorized edict, it appears that our government has determined that failure to comply is a punishable offense.

Presidents once relied on news services to reach the people, but today, the White House and President Trump are their communications companies. They no longer need the media. This communications machine no longer faces the hurdle of a gatekeeper or fact checker interfering with the ‘company line.’ This media empire now reaches a global audience in the space of a nanosecond.

Not long ago, government-dictated media was considered propaganda.
Sure, there has been anger from the press corp, and even the appearance of moral and professional outrage, but then, crickets.

Encouraging or enabling any dictatorship or accepting muzzling is a frightening harbinger of what may come next.

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater?

As Musk and his army of ‘techno-children’ run rampant among U.S. government computers with security and safeguards removed, is anyone else worried that classified material is going to wind up on private servers, if kept only as souvenirs, and ultimately find its way to the Black Web and our national enemies?

Personnel records, private data, addresses, and more are of incalculable value.

What is the risk to U.S. intelligence… and that of foreign allies who thought it was once safe to share with us?
What is the real risk of compromising U.S. agents overseas and their missions?

Why do so many in the media seem giddy whilst acting as cheerleaders at the prospect of indiscriminately destroying decades of work and billions of dollars of investment?

Government reform is a good thing, and even here, it may be overdue. But are we being thoughtful—or just capricious?

This may seem like a macro-question putting the historic, longview lens to current events.
But, I suggest, a major screwup now may be irreparable for decades to come.

Just musing and wishing my media colleagues would pose this concern.

Is the Fentanyl Crisis a Red Herring?

Is U.S. drug treatment both so insufficient and inefficient that higher guacamole prices are the only solution to the Fentanyl crisis?

President Trump has claimed 3-hundred thousand (300,000) Americans die of fentanyl overdoses annually.

But – huh? A question: Where is this mountain of corpses? Is this certified by any coroner, anywhere?

The official number of deaths (73,654 in 2022) reportedly dropped in 2023, and the data from 2024 is not yet available.

So, a discrepancy prompts this question: Is the media buying and perpetuating this crisis without raising proper doubt and inquiry?

The second question?

And so, it is worth asking again: Is raising the cost of an avocado, much less disrupting world trade, sufficient to stem this epidemic?

Maybe a third question?

Is U.S. drug treatment both so insufficient and inefficient that higher guacamole prices are the only solution to the Fentanyl crisis?

It is an indisputable fact: There have been catastrophic drug epidemics in the United States dating back to the Civil War, featuring a rotating menu of morphine, heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and marijuana, again and again, over and over.

Another fact, courtesy of AI: “The U.S. federal government spends significant amounts annually on drug treatment and substance abuse programs. Key figures include:
Federal Substance Use Treatment Spending: The federal government allocates over $1.1 billion annually for drug treatment programs, excluding spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs1.
Opioid Epidemic Funding: Congress has approved $10.6 billion in discretionary spending between 2017 and 2028 to combat the opioid epidemic, with $1.5 billion allocated in 2023 alone for the State Opioid Response program to expand treatment and recovery services3.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): In FY 2022, SAMHSA received $6.6 billion for substance use prevention and treatment activities, including $3.5 billion for block grants to states and territories7.
These figures highlight the multifaceted approach to addressing substance abuse through healthcare, prevention, and justice system initiatives.”

Let’s take a deeper dive into the avocado dip: Is the assertion that the only way to stave off the fentanyl crisis is to change world tariffs?

Is the fentanyl crisis being hyped for political gain?

Is there no better alternative to helping addicts than to penalize everyone’s wallets?

Is the administration selling a fear – and the media not investigating that sufficiently?

Those seem to be questions worth asking.

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?

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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

Bursting media bubblesJim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesAs you digest news coverage about President Trump‘s first acts in office, keep in mind that various audiences are hearing very different stories about what Trump is doing and what impacts he is having. Trump devotees are scrolling on social media apps and seeing triumphant memes about the “new golden age” he promised. They’re watching Fox News and hearing all about the fun times at the inaugural balls. (Jake Paul carried Mike Tyson on his shoulders last night.) They’re hearing from radio hosts and podcasters that Trump is immediately closing the border and making them safer. They’re enjoying the gloating. “The libs have no idea what’s coming,” anti-DEI crusader Christopher Rufo said last night.  But pro-Trump media consumers are not hearing much at all about the January 6 pardons that have outraged and horrified so many people. The only MAGA-approved storyline is that Trump is keeping his promises to the families of “hostages,” which ignores that the rioters were charged and convicted. But it’s barely breaking through as a story at all. Conversely, mainstream media consumers are hearing all about the stunning reversal of the largest criminal probe in U.S. history, and on the consequences for the country. They’re hearing not just about Trump’s executive orders, but about the legal challenges. In short, while newsrooms are focusing on the rule of law, MAGA opinion outlets are focusing on Trump’s rule. Notably, right-wing commentators are both celebrating Trump’s immigration restrictions and preparing their audiences to ignore the inevitable backlash. “The media will now rely on its time-tested tactic of showing only one side of the immigration issue,” Daily Wire reporter Megan Bashampredicted. The message, as always, is to just trust Trump and his favorite media sources. I’m leading with this topic today because we have to burst these media bubbles in order to understand what Americans of various political persuasions are feeling and thinking right now. Some conservative feel like they can breathe again — that sentiment keeps coming up on Fox and Newsmax. Contrarily, I’m sensing that some liberals are choking over the “normalization” of Trump, and abandoning traditional media outlets altogether out of frustration… 
News overloadIn one day, the outgoing and incoming presidents generated a month’s worth of news, easily. Maybe two or three months’ worth. President Biden‘s pardons could have filled a week of rundowns and homepages on their own! Trump’s impromptu back-and-forth with the White House press pool was full of storylines, too. And he is expected to make a lot more news today, including an infrastructure announcement. It’s news overload! Which is why followups, explainers and human interest stories about the impacts will be so valuable in the days ahead…No press briefing today“Let’s get to work!” new White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in her first post from her @PressSec X account. Does that entail a traditional press briefing? Not today. Of course, Trump is his own spokesman. On “Fox & Friends” this morning, Leavitt said “President Trump will be speaking to the press later this afternoon at the White House, and we will have a big infrastructure announcement.”  >> When she was gently asked about the January 6 pardon “controversy,” she audaciously responded, “I don’t think it’s causing much controversy.” (That’s evidence of the pro-Trump media bubble’s power, right there.)  >> And when asked about the date of her first briefing, she said “to be announced.”The producer-in-chiefTrump tries to produce news coverage of his presidency in real-time. After taking the oath of office, he told fans at the Capital One Arena “oh, you’re going to be happy reading the newspapers tomorrow – and the next day and the next day and the next day.” (Trump voters favor Fox and social media over newspapers; Trump’s reference to print is a reflection of his age.) Later in the day he seemingly tried to reposition the videographers in the Oval Office. He beamed on stage at the inaugural balls late at night. As an anonymous Trump advisor told Axios, “He owned every second of screen time today.”