Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

“Kabuki citizenship” isn’t the worst of it….



The continuing self-degradation of the media is enabling, in all too obvious ways, the shipwreck of our public discourse on politics and government.

The advent of Trump’s nativist demagoguery—and the media’s willing role in keeping him on life support—has largely legitimized the public expression of prejudicial fears and hatred and bigotry that we know have always existed, but which have been at least nominally derided by decent and/or “politically correct” folks.

The New York Times’ Wesley Morris highlighted a specific element of it yesterday in his commentary on “Who Gets to Be Called a ‘Patriot’?”  Read it here.

Morris digs in to the doctrinaire spew of the folks who lead the charge in disputing the patriotism of folks who have a different skin color or a different religion or a different political stance or a birth certificate that was signed in another country….

Such despicable bias gets all too much air time and, thus, all too much credibility among folks whose powers of reasoning too often aren’t used for full effect.



Morris offers this zinger: “As a result, modern patriotism has become Kabuki citizenship.”

The masks and the make-believe and the stylized exaggerations of sentiment are meant to be instruments of entertainment….

…not the bling of the horrifying world of Twitter morality and anonymously obscene commenters who hide behind ad hominem attacks……



















Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Media “fairness” is bogus


I’ve been noticing this in the past several weeks. Maybe you have, too.

The media, after finally getting around to actively and explicitly reporting the grotesquely negative aspects of Trump’s presidential campaign, are spending more or less “equal time” grinding away at the Clinton campaign.

Example: a few days ago TheNation.com reported “Hillary Clinton’s [August 25] speech on the racial bigotry and white grievance that pollutes Donald Trump’s campaign should turn out to be the most consequential address of the campaign, even of the decade.”

You can agree or disagree about how notable the speech was, but there’s no denying that Trump is ringing so many bells that encourage public display and, in effect, legitimize public expression of hatred and bigotry against our fellow Americans who don’t have white skin.

In response, Trump said and tweeted repeatedly that Clinton is “a bigot.” No details, just that dastardly epithet.

Now, Joan Walsh at TheNation.com goes on, “…you can dislike Clinton’s speech. You can fact-check it, and perhaps find something wrong—although to my knowledge nobody claimed any inaccuracy. But what you really shouldn’t do, if you are a journalist of any kind of conscience or capacity, is act as though Clinton had somehow gotten down in the gutter with Trump—merely by describing what Trump is doing.


“Yet that’s the kind of coverage we got. Some commenters got it right, but the reporters and editors charged with “objectivity” immediately equated Clinton’s clear-eyed exegesis of Trump’s racially divisive campaign with Trump’s calling her a “bigot.” The Washington Post headlined its story: “Clinton, Trump exchange racially charged accusations.” Bloomberg went with “Trump and Clinton trade charges of racism.” Lots of outlets went for the more colorful metaphor of “barbs:” The Huffington Post, Fox News, CNBC, and the Financial Times all went with some version of “Clinton, Trump trade barbs on race.”

....and on and on....Shame on American media for hyping their coverage of the campaign for audience ratings points, and for trying to cover their tracks by foolishly and fecklessly giving “fairness” a bad name.

I don’t believe there’s a “media conspiracy” favoring either the right or the left.

I do believe that almost all of the media are doing a crappy job. This is congruence, not conspiracy. It’s worse than conspiracy.










Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016  All rights reserved.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Take soap to a Trump rally


New York Times reporters have been recording what some of our fellow Americans have been saying as they stand in the crowds at Trump rallies.

It’s disgusting, and I think it’s a dangerous portent.

“Build a wall—kill them all” is probably the nicest sentiment captured on tape.

Quite a few of the others illustrate how readily a segment of the electorate uses the F-bomb and “bitch” to characterize a candidate for president of the United States.

Trump won’t shut it down.


This is a menacing reality in our democracy.

Too many mouths are unclean at a Trump rally.











Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Mindless media hype


Who watched the TV broadcasts of the Republican and Democratic conventions?

The short answer is: not too many people

More than 85% of adults in America didn’t bother to watch either of the nominees giving the big acceptance speech.



Fox News had the biggest average audience for all eight nights of the Republican and Democratic conventions—but, hold on, only 1.8% of adults were watching Fox on a given night.





Possibly we’re having the most emotionally charged presidential election of all time—Tom Jefferson and Andy Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt didn’t have television to deal with. It’s scarcely credible, but nevertheless, most Americans didn’t give a hoot about watching those big speeches. Obviously, most Americans didn’t learn anything much from them.



For the seeming endless hours of convention coverage by the broadcast and cable channels, much of the time only a tiny minority of Americans was watching, regardless of the pompous blather of Wolf and Rachel and Megyn and all the others.



While I’m on this topic, I’ll give a thumbs down to TheHill.com, which blasted this headline on its website yesterday: “Trump tops Clinton on speech ratings” and to TheHill writer Joe Concha, who started his story with “Donald Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton…” The underlying details tell a much less provocative story.

Here’s the detail: Trump had a reported audience of 34.9 million people, and Clinton’s audience was 33.3 million. The audience ratings are reported from a survey sample of about 5,000 viewers. I have long experience in the design of surveys, and I feel real comfortable guessing that the margin of error in this audience report makes it ludicrous to say one candidate “tops” another, or one candidate “has defeated” another. The viewing audience for Trump and Clinton was close to being the same, probably no significant difference between them.

In their convention coverage, the media generally didn’t take any opportunity to minimize the hype or the preposterous emphasis on discord.







Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Another outlook on the presidential election


The media continue to make a mockery of campaign coverage by highlighting the outlier events and the most lopsided poll results, as they try to crank up the noise level every day in their reporting.

The New York Times (among others) to the rescue!



Check out this NYT website:  The Upshot









Of course it’s simplistic in reducing the cosmic range of possibilities to a single ratio. On the other hand, it’s a sincere mashup of many polls, so-called expert opinion and the online political betting markets that allow anyone to bet actual money on the election outcome (these betting sites have been more or less accurate predictors in the past).

It’s way better than the outlandish poll result of the moment that gets all the air time in the media.

By the way, The Upshot is pegging the election for Clinton as of today.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have to vote.

If you don’t vote on November 8, you’re going to let everybody else pick the next president of the United States.









Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.


Saturday, June 18, 2016

Fish wrapper….


Public confidence in newspapers has been declining for more than a generation.

Now Gallup says only 20% of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the institution that has proclaimed itself the “public watchdog” for more than a couple centuries.

I think it’s been a long-running head fake.

It’s somewhat surprising to me that younger folks (18-34) have relatively positive attitudes toward newspapers—America’s dailies and weeklies have notoriously lost their fight to keep younger readers. Less than 20% of folks under 35 claim to have read a newspaper yesterday. Even among this minority of readers, those with unfavorable perceptions outnumber those with favorable views of newspapers.

Let’s push the point here: Gallup doesn’t elaborate on the meaning of “have a great deal of confidence in newspapers.” Confidence about what?

Journalists and newspaper owners have always trumpeted their self-appointed role as a watchdog institution that champions the interests of “the public.”

I’ve never seen any statistics on the scope or success of this watchdog role. Of course, newspapers big and small have done investigative stuff from time to time, and occasionally a blockbuster story about scandal, corruption and greed makes big headlines for a while.

Think about all the bad stuff and the bad guys who never get a headline.


Newspapers have left an awful lot of watchdog stuff get past them.

Now, the core of newspaper readers are older folks who have lifelong reading habits. When they die, there’s no one to replace them.










Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Extra! Extra!



I think it’s maybe one more step in the demise of newspapers.

Maybe you can understand this better than I can:

The Tribune Publishing Company is being led off the primrose path by its board and its board chairman, Michael Ferro.

Last week they announced that the company will change its name to “tronc.”  Yup. tronc. All lower case. It’s supposed to mean “tribune online content.” Which has been about as popular as your average run-of-the-mill newspaper-generated online news and entertainment content. You know what I mean.

Keep in mind that Tribune is America’s third largest newspaper publisher, with 10 dailies (including the Los Angeles Times) and some community tabloids.

Last week after the board meeting Ferro announced that tronc will be a “content curation and monetization company focused on creating and distributing premium, verified content across all channels.”

Maybe this means no tronc-generated content will be given away free anymore. Could mean other things, too. I thought about saying “Beam me up, Scotty.”

Here’s the thing. Ferro’s announcement did not mention the word “newspaper.” Did I mention that tronc owns only newspapers?

One other thing: at the board meeting, Tribune shareholders cast 49% of their votes against the board’s own nominees for director, mostly in protest against Tribune’s refusal to consider a seemingly generous buyout bid from Gannett. Ferro and the rest don’t want to give up the sinking ship. You know what I mean.


  






Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Crimestoppers


Here’s my opinion: yesterday, on CNN, Donald Trump committed a federal crime.

Let’s be fair: Sen. Ted Cruz did pretty much the same thing.

Why isn’t every Republican and Democratic leader in America calling for both of them to drop out of the presidential race?

A CNN interviewer asked Trump for his thoughts about the Republican convention voting for the party’s nominee.

Trump said if he doesn’t get the nomination, “I think you’d have riots.”


That’s a clear message to Trump supporters encouraging them to take to the streets to riot, break things and hurt people. It’s a federal crime “to incite a riot.”






Cruz said almost the same thing. He said a “brokered convention” with delegates choosing a nominee who didn’t have the most votes on the first ballot “would be an absolute disaster. I think the people would quite rightly revolt.”

Trump is dangerous for America. Cruz is dangerous for America.

Why isn’t every Republican and Democratic leader in America calling for both of them to drop out of the presidential race?









Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

"We're from the news media, and we're here to help you...."


The news media are making the whole terrible Trump thing worse.

The media are wantonly giving free air time to Trump and implicitly legitimizing his antics, his hate messages and his demagoguery.


The news media are keeping Trump top-of-mind, and they’re making him more dangerous.

A couple points of reference:
TheNation.com reports that Trump is getting 10 times more coverage than Rubio.



In February the Republican primary debacle was getting twice as much coverage as the Democratic wrangle.

Trump is getting 23 times more face time with America than Sanders.





John Nichols at The Nation says “…the modern media shape the narrative, as opposed to simply reporting on it…” 

More:
“The past 20 years have seen radical changes in the American media: the pandemic downsizing of newsrooms, sweeping layoffs of journalists, and a desperation for clicks and ratings that guarantees that civic and democratic values will always be trumped by commercial and entertainment demands.”

Here’s a wacky thought: turn off your TV for 24 hours, and think about what’s important to you in America and in your life.









Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Friday, March 11, 2016

Time for everybody to talk about Trump and America




Say it out loud: Yes, there are some decent people who have decided for now, for their own reasons, to support Donald Trump.

Say it out loud: Trump is saying hateful things. He doesn’t offer constructive leadership for America. 
What he’s doing is dangerous for our country.


Vote for someone else.

Tell your friends.

Say it out loud.












Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Lest we forget….


Maybe it was mentioned in the “too white” Oscar flub-a-dub, but I’ll just rack ‘em up one more time for Hattie McDaniel.

If you’re asking “Who’s Hattie McDaniel?” you’re not a Gone With The Wind fan.

Hattie McDaniel (1895-1957) was “Mammy” in that remarkably durable romantic swashbuckler.



She also was the first black thespian to earn an Oscar. She took Best Supporting Actress in 1940, one of the eight Oscars awarded to Gone With The Wind.







Hattie had many talents. She sang in traveling minstrel groups as a teenager, and was one of the first black women to be a radio singer in the U. S. She started doing films in 1932, and played the roles of maids and cooks in almost 40 films in the 1930s, capping that run with her memorable role as a house slave, opposite Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh.

Hattie’s portrayal of stereotypical black servants was criticized in some quarters, but she shrugged that off, saying she’d rather play a maid than be one.

Too bad it’s too late to say “You go, girl!”


p.s. my trusted personal advisor notes that Hattie—the only black person who was sitting down at the Oscar awards ceremony—wasn’t seated at one of the banquet tables with the white folks, she sat with her escort at a small round table near the kitchen door. Oh yeah, another thing: Clark Gable had intended to escort Hattie to the premiere of Gone With The Wind in Atlanta, but he was waved off—neither Hattie nor any other black person was allowed to attend the film showing.

Homework....think again....





Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Full circle….


I was born before the debut of commercial television. There was no TV on the wall in the maternity ward.

Of course, I’ve had a TV (and later, several TVs) in my home since I can remember. For better or worse….

I wouldn’t say I’ve been a TV junkie in my time, but yeah, sure, I watched my favorite shows for close to 60 years.

A few years back, for my taste, the “better” stopped happening and the “worse” started kicking in.

I just said “No,” cold turkey, seven years ago today. Stopped watching the boob tube. Stopped wondering what the heck was the appeal of reality TV. Stopped getting angry enough to yell at the screen during news broadcasts. Stopped wishing TV news would get sensible and meaningful.


So I don’t turn the TV on now. OK, I make exceptions for the Super Bowl and the State of the Union address and election returns in early November and maybe, every other year or so, an old movie I can’t find on one of the streaming sources.

I’m bound to say I don’t think I’m missing much.

The news media industry, particularly TV, has become a beast with no scruples. I think it is deranging our society.

At least, in the old days, we had Dragnet and Sgt. Bilko.







Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

The boob tube....


My parents were early adopters in the early 1950s: they bought a television set. How they rationalized that expenditure I do not know. I think it was a portable, maybe with a 7-inch screen.

They were among millions who were putting down the cash to acquire technology with rabbit ears.
TV in its infancy was the fastest blooming technology in the history of humankind.

At the end of World War II there were only a few tens of thousands of privately owned television sets. Within 10 years, two-thirds of American households had one. By the early 1960s more than 90 percent of homes had a boob tube.


In the early years, when few households had a set, the neighborhood tended to gather at the house with a TV for a social evening, watching whatever was on one of the (maximum 3) available channels. I was a kid when the family drove into Philadelphia to watch The Wizard of Oz on my uncle’s brand-new color TV.

I don’t watch TV now—stopped channel checking almost seven years ago. OK, I make exceptions for the Super Bowl and the State of the Union address and election returns in early November.

I’m bound to say I don’t think I’m missing much.

The news media industry, particularly TV, has become a beast with no scruples. I think it is deranging our society.

At least, in the old days, we had the Milton Berle Show







Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Populism: just say no


Okay, who wants to take the blame for this one?

I want to mention that I am past my limit in tolerating repeated uses of the words “populist” and “populism” in commentary on the current presidential campaign.

A recent New Yorker item pushed my button. John Cassidy wrote a piece titled “Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Ride the Populist Wave.”

I think anyone who has finished 7th grade can figure out that Sanders and He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-Again could not, in any planetary system, simultaneously represent a singular socio-political phenomenon.

Furthermore, Cassidy refers twice to a “populist wave” without clarifying his meaning in any way.
Strictly speaking, nobody knows what “populism” means, at least not in the way that we have a consensus understanding of “apple” or “rainbow.”

So, “populist” and “populism,” here are some attempts to define them:

—a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people—that’s right, you can move right along to argue about the meaning of “ordinary people”….

—a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite—let the dance begin, what does “regular people” mean?



—political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person—yup, this narrows it down, until you start arguing about who the “common people” are….

—Wikipedia mentions that definitions of “populism” have varied widely over the centuries, and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to denote appeals to "the people"—ah, at last, everyone knows who “the people” are….

Politicians and commentators and the news media don’t hesitate to use and abuse emotionally-laden words like “populism,” and everyone tacitly agrees to avoid defining the word. Who is served by this convenient and inflammatory obscurantism?

I think we can rule out ordinary people, regular people, common people….

Next time you hear someone say “populism,” just say no.







Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.