Category: Journalism Education


“Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” — Former Texas Governor Ann Richards (1933-2006)

You’ve probably received a hundred of these ‘feet’ but I want you to have this one from me – a peace offering.” – President-elect George H.W. Bush note, sending a silver foot pin to soon-to-be Texas Governor Ann Richards November, 1988

”I think it was a kind and generous gesture on his part. I was delighted that he saw and enjoyed the humor in the keynote address.” — Ann Richards upon receiving the silver foot pin

How come our politics can’t be practiced with clever satire, even a smile, a wink, and better yet … take it that way?

Ann Richards gave #41 the business in her keynote address to the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta with a smile on her face, an endearing Texas drawl, and great sense of timing and humor.

Yes, Harry S. Truman once said that if you needed a friend in Washington, D.C. — get a dog. Does that require everyone to be so doggone mean?

Maybe, just maybe, that old dog can still hunt.

See The Other Point Of View

“Do it with all you’ve got. Keep your cool, work like hell, don’t let the meanness that will surface get you down, don’t overreact, see the other guy’s point of view. See his merits but convince people you are the better man — for you are.” — Former President George H.W. Bush advice to his son former President George W. Bush in 1977

“Ellen (Degeneres) and George Bush together makes me have faith in America, again” — Tweet from Matt highlighted on Ellen’s Show

The broadcast image of Ellen Degeneres sitting right next to former President George W. Bush at last Sunday’s Dallas Cowboys vs. Green Bay Packers game went viral, and generated a series of unpleasant comments about how she could occupy the same space with #43.

The CBS Evening News’ headline said that Ellen “defends” her friendship with the former president.

CNN along the same vain noted that Ellen “explains” sitting next to the Republican chief executive.

Almost DailyBrett must rhetorically ask these media elites: Why does someone, anyone have to “defend” or “explain” being nice?

Have we reached a point that being kind to someone, who does not share your political philosophy, is somehow a crime?

People were upset, why is a gay Hollywood liberal sitting next to a conservative Republican president? I am friends with George Bush.” — Ellen Degeneres

Your author is mature enough to remember vividly Ann Richards chiding George H.W. Bush, literally bringing down the house in Atlanta with laughter. Richards was effective, but she was not mean … not even close. The prevailing civil behavior of our politicians at that time was a model for the nation.

The outright hatred and hostility in Washington toward those who do not share a given philosophy has extended to public discourse and nasty behavior from sea-to-shining sea. We are talking about the way each individual sees the world and the direction of the country.

There are some that are even amazed that a Reaganite Republican and a Obamaesque Democrat cannot only inseparably co-exist for seven years, but most of all … love each other. Jeanne even happily joined me for a 2017 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

Almost DailyBrett will speak in an ex-cathedra manner: If a couple cannot love each other because they hold differing … maybe even diametrically opposed … political philosophies, then the relationship is doomed from the start. How about focusing on areas of agreement?

Your author is often chided for romancing a better time, somehow turning back the clock. Guilty as charged. It was better then, why can’t it be better now?

As Ellen stated on Tuesday: “Just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean I’m not friends with them. When I say, ‘Be kind to people,’ I don’t mean only the people who think the way you do. Be kind to everybody.”

Amen, Ellen. Amen.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ellen-degeneres-defends-george-w-bush-friendship-cowboys-game-tweets-monologue-2019-10-08/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-george-bush/index.html

 

A lot of truth is often spoken in jest.

According to the old joke, Richard Nixon dressed in his presidential windbreaker gathered the Washington Press Corps at his presidential retreat on the beach in San Clemente, California.

After chastising the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate for not covering him fairly and accurately during his political career including his presidency, he gave them one more chance.

Nixon miraculously walked out onto the Pacific Ocean and back without getting his wing tips wet.

“Now, you can finally cover me fairly and accurately!”

The New York Times front page headline the following morning: “Nixon Can’t Swim.”

The liberal elite media could not and would not cover Nixon fairly back in the 1970s. The negative coverage trend toward Republican office holders has only intensified with time. There is zero benefit of the doubt when it comes to Republicans, only to Democrats.

Almost DailyBrett knows this undeniable fact based upon eight years of hard-earned experience as a campaign media director and press secretary for California Republican Governor George Deukmejian.

“Rebuilding Trust Requires Embracing Bias”

“A more partisan media is the last thing America needs. Those who doubt that should consider that it would be squarely in Mr. Trump’s interest. The president’s attempt to gin up his supporters by depicting the media as biased is one of his most powerful lines. Why vindicate it for him?” — Lexington, USA columnist for The Economist

“We don’t want to change all of our structures and rules so much that we can’t put them back together. We don’t want to be oppositional to Donald Trump.” — Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times

Almost DailyBrett is begging for mercy.

The New York Times along with CNN (Clinton News Network) and MSNBC lead the oppositional journalism pack against Donald Trump. They detest the man (understatement), wanting unlimited license to label him as a “racist” regardless of context. After four-plus years, we know for a fact the liberal media will take everything and anything he does or says and add a negative spin to employ a PR word.

Hiring foreign affairs hawk John Bolton with his goofy mustache (Liberal media: ‘Trump added a dangerous war monger to his team’) and later firing him (Liberal media: ‘Trump can’t retain anyone on his staff’) is vivid proof that any Trump action triggers an automatic negative take. The media always wants it both ways.

Liberal columnist Nathan Robinson (see quote above) suggested out loud that elite media should openly express a bias and affinity to left-wing causes in order to rebuild public trust. Why shouldn’t the liberal media come out of the closet? Let the world know, what it already knows: Liberal media outlets are just another special interest group, similar to Planned Parenthood, ACLU and NPR.

Bias leads to trust?

There are hundreds of always excitable journalism professors, who will be more than happy to intensify their “guidance” of impressionable students toward socialist justice, encouraging them to express their bias digitally, in print and across the airwaves. These academics will declare … wrongly … that objectivity never existed and never will in America’s newsrooms.

Robinson is essentially arguing the media should simply come clean and openly side with Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Democratic Socialism, lauding those who drink the Kool Aid and chastising any and all who dare to dissent. Lexington counters that a gallant admission of oppositional journalism by the major mastheads and networks will aid and abet Trump’s talking points about the media losing its way, abandoning any pretext of being fair and accurate.

Didn’t St. Louis Post-Dispatch executive editor Joseph Pulitzer once say the three most important words in journalism are: “accuracy, accuracy and accuracy”? He made this famous assertion even though he was a staunch Democrat, actually serving in Congress, and crusading against business and corruption.

If a reporter. correspondent, anchor or media outlet sacrifices personal and/or institutional integrity on the low-altar of abandoning fairness and objectivity, any and all of these lost souls should not even sniff the prestigious journalism award that bears Joseph Pulitzer’s name.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/09/12/a-full-court-press

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/10/media-bias-is-ok-if-its-honest

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/oppositional-journalisms-victory/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/profs-should-not-force-political-opinions-on-students/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/is-the-word-racist-becoming-cliche/

 

 

 

 

 

“Anytime. Any Place. Any Conditions.” — Former Oregon basketball coach Dick Harter discussing 4 am practices.

“I’d kick off at 6 a.m. When you wake up — if you’re a college football player or coach, you want to wake up and you want to play football.” — UCLA Football Coach Chip Kelly.

Does the “Anytime” motto really apply to long-suffering Pac-12 fans, including the select oh-so-few who chose to show up for the conference “championship” game last December?

Does anybody actually care about the good folks who make generous athletic department contributions and buy football season tickets?

For Almost DailyBrett, this fall will mark his 30th as an Oregon season ticket holder. Your author is therefore entitled to ask:

When is Oregon playing Stanford? To-Be-Determined, TBD.

When is Oregon playing Washington? TBD.

When is Oregon playing USC? TBD.

When is the kickoff for the Civil War game between Oregon and Oregon State? TBD

And who is doing the To-Be-Determining?

Are we waiting for the 12 university presidents and athletic directors to set the times for these games and hundreds more? Fat chance.

The universities have absolutely no say when it comes to answering the week-by-week TBD questions. Pac-12 universities in particular prostitute themselves to the sports networks.

The $5.3 million paid yearly Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott is now exploring 9 am PDT/PST kickoffs in order to ensure conference teams make the football highlight shows in God’s anointed Eastern and Central time zones. Highlight shows?

What? Larry, you just received a $500,000 annual pay raise for that “outside the box” thinking?

Bloody Mary breakfast tailgates as the sun rises over the stadium parking lot? Middle of the night drives home?

Anybody consider the safety of the fans?

“We Don’t Control Our Schedule And When We Kick Off” 

(Washington Coach Chris Petersen) “should be thanking ESPN for actually having a relationship.” – ESPN’s Kirk Herbstreit.

“The hardest thing with Saturdays is when you wake up and then you’ve got to wait until 7 at night. But we’re also big on we don’t control our schedule and when we kick off. So tell us where it is and when we’re kicking off, and we’ll be there.” — Chip Kelly

Who runs the Pac-12 universities? ESPN and Fox or the university presidents?

As a proud capitalist Almost DailyBrett understands that cash is king, and that obviously applies to contract broadcast fees.

Bur isn’t the money donated by alumni (e.g., Phil Knight), just as green? How about university athletic fund members and season ticket holders?

We know the university presidents and athletic directors are in bed with the networks, but what about the fans who fill up the stadiums and buy over-priced beer, snacks and trinkets?

Oregon’s first two-games against Auburn and Nevada are set for 4:30 pm(PDT) kickoffs. Sounds good.

Oregon’s next game against Montana is scheduled for a 7:45 pm start or 10:45 pm in the EDT and 9:45 pm CDT. What’s the point for such a late kickoff when virtually no one in the Eastern and Central time zones will watch the game?

Pac-12 (programming) After-Dark?

More importantly, why should Oregon fans wait until every other football game is played that day (September 14), and then be faced with a midnight drive back home. Heck, isn’t it easier to simply watch the game at home in high-definition comfort?

Maybe that is the point for the networks. Why not play these games in sterile studios instead of near-empty stadiums and forget about the fans?

Making The Pac-12 Great Again?

Don’t university administrators want to bring alumni back to campus for some school spirit, social inebriation, and some check writing too?

How about the energy that comes from the student section?

Why can’t the Pac-12 presidents huddle with overpaid and overrated conference commissioner Larry Scott and declare:

Our football games are going to be played between 12:30 pm PDT/PST and 5 pm PDT/PST, which are the best times for our fans whether they are attending in person or watching on television. We provide great content to ESPN, Fox, Pac-12 Network and others. They are welcome to cover our games.”

Undoubtedly Harvard-Head lawyer Scott will point to existing television contracts and the fact that every Pac-12 game is televised. Keep in mind that contracts expire. They are typically renewed. Let’s get better terms.

Almost DailyBrett has noted those  poor souls, who were born in the Pacific and Mountain time zones, lost the biological lottery. We are two-or-three hours behind the rest of the nation. That’s a fact of life, but not an excuse.

Why don’t we concentrate on Making The Pac-12 Great Again?

Let’s schedule our football games, particularly homecoming contests, at times and places, which are convenient for the vast majority of our fans, alumni and students.  If the East of the Hudson types want to believe we all exist in Baskets of Deplorables, we can only conclude that mindset says more about them than us.

The Pac-12 universities, their respective presidents and athletic directors need to declare their independence — or at least co-existence for the good people who matter — alumni, students and friends, those who actually go to the games.

https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2019/05/canzano-pac-12s-biggest-news-commissioner-larry-scott-got-a-raise-to-5300000-a-year.html

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27259246/pac-12-commish-exploring-idea-9-games

https://goducks.com/schedule.aspx?path=football

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/pac-12-after-midnight/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/the-conference-of-champions/

 

“I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” — President Donald Trump

At least he’s not a “crook” or didn’t have sex with “that woman,” Monica Lewinsky?

“I do not believe you are a racist.” — Senator Kamala Harris casting doubt on the integrity of former Vice President Joe Biden

Are you sure about that, Kamala?

By incorporating the good name of Joe Biden and “racist” in the same sentence, was Senator Harris connecting the former vice president with this über-charged word? Talk about damning with faint praise.

Kamala knows full well that, “I do not believe you (Biden) are a racist,” is subjunctive. I don’t believe you are, but Mr. Vice President … you could be.

The damage was done.

The real question Almost DailyBrett is posing today: Is the word, “racist,” in danger of becoming just another delicious condiment for every outrageous political attack sandwich?

Let’s see … should we slap some “racist” on sour dough at this contact sport delicatessen? Maybe, we can add “sexist” as another ingredient? How about “homophobic” and/or “transphobic” as well? Hmmm … a juicy racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic … political invective sandwich.

Consider the debating points of Elizabeth Warren: “We live in a country now where the president is advancing environmental racism, economic racism, criminal justice racism, health care racism.”  If you are scoring at home that is four racisms in one mere sentence.

By employing … over-employing … these venomous words time-and-time again …  to humiliate a political opponent and silence dissent … is the power and shock value of these words becoming diluted? Will Americans between now and November 3, 2020 (and beyond) just roll their collective eyes when they once again hear the words, “racist” or “racism” bandied about?

It really doesn’t matter whether the word is being used as an adjective (e.g., “racist tweets”) or a noun (e.g., … not a racist), racist is now so accepted, the media is employing it without qualifiers, such as alleged racist, charged racist, accused racist. Instead the political target is just … an unmitigated, unadulterated, categorical … racist. Will the word have the same power next year that it has this year?

According to Merriam-Webster, cliché equates to a “trite phrase or expression, a hackneyed theme, characterization or situation, something that has become overly familiar or commonplace.”

If a Catholic high school lad is standing at a rally in Washington D.C., wearing a MAGA hat (Make America Great Again), is he “racist” or practicing “racism” by doing nothing and saying absolutely nothing?

“We’re a Catholic school and it’s not tolerated. They don’t tolerate racism and none of my classmates are racist people.” — Nick Sandmann responding to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie’s predictable, “Are you a racist?” question.

Wonder if Almost DailyBrett is going to have “racism” lathered on his sandwich for daring to raise the spectre that the Mother of All Charged Words is maybe losing its steam? Are we overdosing on “racist” and “racism” opioids?

Barack, Who?

Remember Barack Obama’s, “Yes We Can,” campaign?

He won and the motto was updated to “Yes We Did” in a transformative moment when America took the extraordinary step of electing an African-American to the White House.

As Almost DailyBrett mentioned before, America proved once again it’s an extraordinary and exceptional nation by rising above ancient racist dialogue to prove the overwhelming majority can set aside any and all consideration of one’s ethnicity, when deciding who was going to lead the free world in the second decade of the 21st Century.

Have to admit it, your author back in 2009 was wondering about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. With Obama’s historic election, what were they going to talk about?

Keep in mind that not only was Barack Obama elected and re-elected, America passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, ended segregation laws, implemented Brown v. Board of Education (Topeka, Kansas), and abolished slavery with the 13th Amendment. We have come a long way from America’s “Birth Defect” of slavery as described by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

What happens if the battle is over and the war is won? As it turns out, “racist” and “racism” are once again daily entrees featured on any political attack menu.

Your author is NOT suggesting the last vestiges of racism have been completely wiped off the fruited plain. They exist. Having said that, Almost DailyBrett does not concur with the insinuation the 62 million Americans, who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, are indeed “racist.”

The fight is not over, but does the word “racist” need to be employed by every pandering candidate and every screaming talking head on cable television?

Are we going to reach a point that we collectively tune out the word, leading to the possibility that we do not respond to a real racist hate crime?

As Senator Cory Booker said: “Trump is worse than a racist.” Will there be a new attack dog word to follow, “racist”?

Almost DailyBrett believes the once verboten in proper company, F-word … oh WTF … the word “fuck” has become routine and cliché.

Will “racist” join the ranks of words that once were used sparingly, but have now become oh-so-commonplace in our coarse society?

Almost DailyBrett thought long and hard about even raising this volatile subject. The fact that journalists and correspondents are cavalierly using this attack word without any qualifiers is yet another example of growing Opposition Journalism, and another nail in the coffin of Objective Journalism.

How many nanoseconds are there between now and the close of the polls, November 3, 2020?

Wonder how many times the word, “racist,” will be conventionally and digitally uttered, printed and transmitted between now and then? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?

Will this practice stop once the election has come and gone?

Don’t count on it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/trump-attack-progressive-congresswomen-1416579

Watch Kamala Harris Demolish Joe Biden on Race During the Democratic Debate

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/what-happened-to-the-exceptional-nation-that-twice-elected-barack-obama/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clich%C3%A9

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/22/18192908/covington-catholic-video-nick-sandmann-maga

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/22/limbaugh_if_you_can_be_worse_than_a_racist_it_means_the_word_is_losing_its_impact.html

 

 

 

“Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn’t really serve us in the age of Trump.” – Jim Acosta, author of “The Enemy of the People”

“The (CNN) chief White House correspondent is saying out loud that Trump is so dangerous that he cannot be neutral, which is another word for ‘fair.’” – Howard Kurtz on Acosta’s “stunning admission”

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the least fair of them all?

Jim Acosta is the greatest correspondent in the history of the planet, and if you don’t believe Almost DailyBrett … just ask him.

His network and many others are invested in demise of one Donald Trump, never mind the 62 million Americans who voted for POTUS #45 in 2016 or more importantly, the 306 electoral votes he compiled.

Story ideas that are favorable to the president are discarded or damned with faint praise, and any morsel — no matter how sketchy the source — is seized upon by the frothing apex predators at CNN and other liberal networks.

They were certain that Madam Secretary would win the presidency.

They were counting on Robert Müller to produce a report that would end the age of Trump.

They are rooting and championing any Democrat with a heartbeat and pulse running for president.

Almost DailyBrett started his studies at the USC School of Journalism in the heady media days following the Watergate Scandal and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The standard as enunciated by the Most Trusted Man in America, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, was the imperative to secure and accurately present both sides of every story … whether you agreed with one side or the other.

The same applied to CNN’s universally respected anchor Bernard Shaw, who posed tough penetrating questions to leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Skepticism was essential. Cynicism was to be avoided. Objectivity was the Holy Grail. The goal was to follow the story to where it ultimately led, and then to present both sides clearly and succinctly. You were expected to be professional and neutral.

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t analysis born out of the facts on both sides of a given issue. The commentaries of Erik Sevareid of CBS are still classic … even though by making this reference your author’s age is showing.

Reporters Decide Right and Wrong?

“ … He (Acosta) told Publishers Weekly there aren’t two sides to the story when it is a matter of right and wrong. Right and wrong in the opinion of journalists? Sure!” – Howard Kurtz

No one cares about the personal opinion of a journalist, even the chief White House correspondent for CNN.

As Clint Eastwood, playing the role of “Dirty Harry” so famously said: “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.”

There aren’t two sides to every story? Hello?

Sorry to mount the soap box: Almost DailyBrett totally, utterly and completely rejects that premise.

Remember taking Pro Seminar, an exhaustive review of communication philosophy, at grad school at the University of Oregon. Your author never took upon himself to determine the Kantian differences between right and wrong for consumers of mass communication. That lofty aspiration was simply above Almost DailyBrett’s pay grade.

Diva Journalism?

When you take an unhealthy mix of narcissism and combine with a nightly anti-Trump harangue, you come up with the ultimate White House Press Corps’ diva, Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta may actually be besmirching the good name of … arrogance.

Acosta’s 354-page first-person-singular tome with 100 “I” references and 25 “me” mentions is a celebration of CNN’s chief White House correspondent’s service to the country, the planet, the galaxy and the universe.

Will Almost DailyBrett break down and shell out nearly 20 bucks and purchase Acosta’s, “The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time To Tell The Truth in America?”

Wonder how much the Acosta page-turner will cost a year from now at the discount book rack at Walmart?

Almost DailyBrett Editor’s Note: The credit for “Hero of His Own Book” goes directly to Howard Kurtz, who used these exact words during his Media Buzz review of Jim Acosta’s book. Kurtz is a long-time and widely respected critic of political media for the Washington Post, CNN and Fox News.

https://contemptor.com/2019/06/16/fox-news-media-analyst-jim-acosta-should-be-grateful-to-trump-for-raising-his-profile/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-media-obsessed-with-polls-and-trump-comments-on-campaign-aid-acosta-obsessed-with-acosta

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/the-death-of-objective-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/oppositional-journalisms-victory/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/dan-rather-father-of-affirmational-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/lose-lose-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/what-happened-to-bernie-shaws-cnn/

 

 

 

“Liberals believe America is not good enough for the world; conservatives believe the world is not good enough for America.” – Washington Post Columnist Charles Krauthammer

“I do think that America was born with a birth defect; it was slavery.” – Stanford Provost Condoleezza Rice

After losing two world wars and killing 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, Germany has been struggling from Zero Hour 1945 to the present with its horrendous history. The Germans have a special word for it – die Vergangenheitsbewältigung — or dealing with this past.

Does this 25-letter-jaw-breaking-compound-noun also apply to the nearly 250-year history of the United States of America?

After listening to so many Baby Boomer colleagues and friends complain about “this country” for years-and-years, who could blame Almost DailyBrett or any other American with a sense of patriotism for thinking that we have to deal with our past? The question is, how?

The sun never set on the British Empire and Britannia indeed ruled the waves. Look at the mess they left to dozens of these former colonies, and yet English is the world’s Lingua Franca. The scoresheet for the United Kingdom over the years is … mixed with a positive lean.

Have Americans ever been perfect? Are we perfect? Will we ever be perfect?

The responses to all three of these questions are the same, and obvious. The answers are, “no.”

Perfection is an impossible standard for any nation to achieve, including the USA.

Is the answer to these fallibilities – slavery, expulsion of Native Americans, Japanese internment camps – to truncate the teaching of American History? Is revisionist history to the downside inevitable?

There is an ongoing – and maybe never ending fight over whether and how Advanced Placement (AP U.S. History) should be taught, and more to the point: The level and extent of negative reinterpretation of American history.

For example, McGraw Hill stepped in deep doo doo when its history books described a migratory path of millions of “workers” from Africa. Err … they were slaves.

A related question has been raised among the 21+ would-be Democratic presidential nominees (i.e., Harris, Booker, Warren, Castro): Should we pay reparations (particularly slavery) to those who were wronged by America?

If so, where do we start? What precedent are we setting? More importantly where do we end? Can we end? Which descendants of those wronged should we pay? How much should we pay?

Should we apologize for being … Americans? Should we stop embracing any and all red, white and blue patriotism?

The Vietnam War Is Over; Get Over It

The helicopters took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 or more than 44 years ago, if you are keeping score at home.

There are those who cannot or will not get this unfortunate period of American history out of their systems.

Almost DailyBrett has noted that way too many of these tortured Baby Boomer souls do not like their country, and take issue with America being labeled as an exceptional country.

They point to socialism in Denmark, Norway, Sweden – all monarchies – as “happy little countries,” suggesting America should do the same.

Some of these people actually teach at American universities and schools and harbor reservations (putting it mildly) about the positive side of American history. But wasn’t the first act in U.S. history a rebellion against authority, telling what England’s King George III what he could do with his royal scepter?

Didn’t America fight a bloody Civil War from 1861-1865 to eliminate slavery? Didn’t Abraham Lincoln’s 13th Amendment end slavery once and for all?

And wasn’t it America that played a monumental roll in terms of blood and treasure to end Nazi and Fascist tyranny in Europe and the Pacific?

The United States was the first and to this date the only country to put a man on the moon. It was America, which gave the world Silicon Valley and with its pioneering entrepreneurs with break-through innovations that made the conveniences of our digital world possible.

And let’s not forget that America defeated Communism and made our imperfect world, safer.

Almost DailyBrett championed a bi-partisan action – one can dream – to add Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (won World War II) and Republican Ronald Wilson Reagan’s (beat Communism) busts on Mt. Rushmore.

With all due respect, what has Denmark given to the world? Hans Christian Andersen and The Little Mermaid.

If the royalists in Norway, Sweden and Denmark wish to examine their collective navels in the sauna, who are we to stop them? It’s their humble collection of socialist monarchies (not an oxymoron).

Those who don’t like America and never will, have the freedom of movement. Almost DailyBrett will happily visit them in Scandinavia … in the summer.

America can learn from its past. When it comes to America’s over/under, your author will take the “over” in a nanosecond.

The United States of America remains an exceptional nation. No amount of revisionist history can change that fact.

https://nypost.com/2017/01/22/why-schools-have-stopped-teaching-american-history/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-history-class-dilemma/411601/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/who-should-decide-how-students-learn-about-americas-past/385928/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/12/support-reparations-grow-so-does-pushback-some-black-americans/?utm_term=.427e54c28480

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/charles-krauthammer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d651db9a0c6

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332307-condoleezza-rice-says-america-was-born-with-a-birth-defect-slavery

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/roosevelt-and-reagan-for-rushmore/

“Not only had @realDonaldTrump become a mass-media juggernaut, but Twitter had for the first time become a primary outlet for the views of a major American politician. With Trump’s election, the transformation was complete: The social network had become the new public square.” – Nicholas Carr, POLITICO

Without a shred of doubt, nothing on this planet drives the media crazier than Twitter use by one Donald John Trump.

Within the friendly confines of 280 characters coupled with the always-on powerful bully pulpit of the presidency, Trump can set the agenda and be a part of any breaking story regardless of subject.

Wait.

Under Agenda Setting Theory, the big masthead media (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post) supposedly establish the agenda about what grateful everyday Americans should be thinking about.

As they say in political circles the big mastheads have been, preempted.

The very dragon they are attempting to slay, is spewing counter-punching fire right back at them any time, all the time.

“Beware of the overnight tweet.” — CNBC NYSE reporter Bob Pisani

Most of the Trump Tweets are … provocative (outrageous?) and thus are newsworthy. The ensuing conversation is about Trump, always about Trump.

Does the sun ever set on Donald Trump’s Twitter account?

With the Müller Report destined to be a non-factor by the end of this year – let alone next year – the media/entertainment elites in Manhattan, within the confines of the Beltway and Hollywood are facing the prospect of a re-elected Twittering Trump.

Columbia Journalism Review worries about whether journalists are correcting all of Trump’s tweets and statements.

Will they eventually interrupt Trump during the State of Union, the same way MSNBC’s Brian Williams cut off Senator Lindsey Graham?

When it comes to always telling the truth, nobody does it better than Brian Williams.

Will the media at some point — kicking and screaming — be forced to stop pretending the no-further indictments/actions Müller Report is the death knell of a president they detest (putting it mildly)?

Even though they torched Joe Biden’s last days as a non-candidate, will they line up behind him if he somehow captures the Democratic nomination?

Whoever emerges as the Demo nominee, will be their standard bearer.

The Never-Ending, Always-On News Cycle

Campaigns are not happy places.

Familiarity always breeds more than contempt.

Sleep is a precious commodity, and there is never enough to go around.

There was a time when there was only one news cycle per day.

As Almost DailyBrett commented two years ago, White House “death watch” is not what it used to be. Translated: Reporters stationed in the White House briefing room while the president sleeps were Journalism’s answer to graveyard shift. No more.

Trump’s nocturnal tweets (does he ever sleep?) have changed the game. Just ask Wall Street.

Every campaign in the 2020 cycle will have to compete effectively in a digital-is-eternal atmosphere with a minimum of sleep. With digital social media – particularly Twitter – every campaign and every media outlet is an always-on, 24-7-365 wire service.

Trump tweeted (fill in the blank). Respond within the fewest nanoseconds possible.

Biden tweeted (fill in the blank). Democratic rivals answer within the fewest nanoseconds possible.

Bernie tweeted what? Man or Woman the Twitter barricades!

Almost DailyBrett remembers the days when wise pundits (oxymoron?) lamented about how policy debates were being reduced to 30-second bites.

How about 280-character tweets? Used to be 140 characters.

With more than 20+ would be Democratic nominees, how many pithy responses will immediately jump from their keyboards. More to the point how many mistakes, which can’t be recalled, will emerge from these Twitter accounts?

“Fatigue makes cowards of us all.” – Vince Lombardi

Even though early Baby Boomer Trump is 72-years-young, he seems to have the energy and stamina to keep the Twitter stream coming, even accelerating and intensifying the flow. There are no signs of fatigue.

Will the next president (or the same president) be the one who best utilizes the Twitter characters? Should social media be the penultimate factor in determining who will be the leader of the free world?

Let the Twitter debate commence.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/donald-trump-twitter-addiction-216530

https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/twitter-media-trump.php

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/death-watch-aint-what-it-used-to-be/

 “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” – CNN anchor Bernard Shaw’s opening debate question to 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis

“No, I don’t Bernard. And I think you know I opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that’s it’s a deterrent and I think there are more effective ways to deal with violent crime …” — Dukakis’ answer to Shaw’s question.

How could Shaw have asked that question? More astonishingly, how could Dukakis have failed to explode at it?” – Jack Germond and Jules Witcover, “Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars”

The unthinkable and startling image of the first lady of Massachusetts being raped and murdered was offered up by a respected CNN anchor, Bernard Shaw, from your father’s CNN of 1988 … obviously not the hyper-partisan CNN of today.

Some reportedly accused Shaw of throwing a fast-ball right down the plate for Dukakis to angrily hit the ball out of the ballpark. Shaw emphatically denied this assertion.

Dukakis didn’t even swing. His wonkish answer without showing any vitriol or emotion about Shaw raising the spectre of a raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis, effectively ended the campaign of the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

The author of Almost DailyBrett distinctly remembers settling into his seat for the October 13, 1988 second presidential debate at UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion, when Shaw serving as moderator opened the proceedings with his provocative (understatement) question.

To most in the audience and millions more at home, Shaw’s question was shocking, one-sided as it did not apply to both candidates … Vice President George H.W. Bush and Dukakis.

Having said that, Dukakis and his campaign team had to know that a death penalty question was coming. Looking back, the Shaw question was a great opportunity for the Massachusetts governor to express outrage, thus firing up his supporters and maybe even the electorate.

Can you imagine one of today’s CNN anchor/correspondent asking that kind of question to a Democratic standard bearer in Donald Trump’s America?

Whattyathink Anderson Cooper? Don Lemon? Jim Acosta? Chris Cuomo? Jake Tapper?

Are There Any Objective Reporters Left To Moderate Presidential Debates?

“News people are no longer trained that they have to bury their personal views and bend over backwards to be fair. That concept went out the window a long time ago.” — Edwin J. Salzman, former Sacramento Bee Capital Bureau Chief

“ … If you have a son in the Marine Corps, and that you don’t trust the commander-in-chief (Trump)” – ABC Martha Raddatz, crying on 2016 election night.

Do you think Raddatz will ever be asked again to serve as a fair, objective and dispassionate presidential debate moderator?

How about noted-for-his-personal-integrity, Brian Williams of MSNBC?

More to the point, is there anyone at Jeff Zucker’s  CNN, who could be trusted to fill this critical role?

Almost DailyBrett has asked this question before and will pose it again: Where is this generation’s Walter Cronkite?

More to the point: Where is modern day equivalent of Bernard Shaw?

“Never laugh at Ted Turner too early …”

There was a time when America supposedly needed only three networks: ABC, CBS and NBC.

CNN (Cable News Network) was Ted Turner’s dream, which after initial scoffing and snickering became the first all-news, all-the-time network.

The network was there to cover live virtually any significant event regardless of its origin around the world … This was Bernard Shaw’s CNN. He served as the network’s lead anchor from 1980-2001.

When the San Francisco Bay Area was struck by the 6.9 Richter Scale Loma Prieta Earthquake on October 17, 1989, my boss California Governor George Deukmejian was sleeping in an airport hotel in Frankfurt, Germany.

By the means of a continuously open line from our office to the governor’s hotel room, and just as important through the reporting of CNN, Governor Deukmejian was able to direct the state’s response to the earthquake from nine-time zones away.

California’s Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy was in San Francisco, when Loma Prieta struck with no phone connections, zero television (including CNN) and literally no way to communicate.

This may seem like a stretch, but Almost DailyBrett appreciated at the time that Bernard Shaw’s CNN had become America’s go-to-network for news and information.

Alas, a shift to über-partisan journalism accelerated with the creation of MSNBC, serving the left, and Fox News, oriented to the right, both in 1996.

CNN continued with its emphasis on breaking news stories, but some concluded it was Melba toast, thus suffering in the Nielsen Ratings, compared to MSNBC and Fox News.

Today, CNN has morphed into the second coming of MSNBC with a 24-7-365 stream of angry talking-heads’ invective directed against a hated president. The country already has a MSNBC, it doesn’t need another one.

Does any CNN anchor today exhibit the professionalism, integrity and objectivity to dispassionately moderate a 2020 general election debate?

During Bernard Shaw’s era, the answer was an emphatic, “yes.”

Today the answer is “no,” … “hell no.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/debatemoments/bernieshaw.html

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1844704_1844706_1844712,00.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/31/raddatz-media-watching-each-other-a-little-more-after-missteps-reporting-on-trump-378739

https://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-president-martha-raddatz-tears-up-abc-news/

“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” – Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor from 1962-1981

“Walter Cronkite could not get a job in the media today.” – Harvard Law Professor Alan Derschowitz

 “As a former journalist and former press secretary, you should know there has never been ‘objective journalism.’” – Professor teaching digital journalism to college students

“Never” leaves absolutely no room for nuance, much less retreat.

According to my dear faculty colleague and friend (and presumably many more kindred spirits), objective journalism “never” existed even at times (e.g., 1960s and 1970s) when Walter Cronkite was widely regarded as “The Most Trusted Man in America.”

If you don’t believe the ex-cathedra summation by a Ph.D in Journalism, just visit your nearest modern-day college journalism/communication (indoctrination) classroom.

Or how about famous correspondents crying on national television when political results do not match their impeccably high moral standards (e.g., ABC’s Martha Raddatz on 2016 election night or MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow upon the 2019 release of the Müller Report conclusions).

As a cub reporter covering politics on a daily basis way back in the stone-age 1970s, there were times when your Almost DailyBrett author nodded his head, rolled his eyes or told a cynical joke … as skeptical reporters are prone to do.

We all harbored our own personal opinions, just like everyone else.

The real question is whether our opinions unprofessionally showed up in our copy and/or broadcasts? Were we truly open-minded, professional and yes, objective in carrying out our responsibilities to readers and/or viewers?

The best reporters/correspondents covered both sides of a given issue (e.g., California’s Proposition 13 tax revolt), and most importantly did not allow their personal analysis and interpretation to corrupt and pollute their stories.

As a former press secretary to a Republican governor, Almost DailyBrett knew for a fact the vast majority of reporters, editors, and correspondents were philosophically aligned to the left side of the great political divide.

Having acknowledged the obvious, virtually every reporter played a great devil’s advocate to elicit the strongest (and most newsworthy) response from yours truly. In almost all cases our point of view was fairly represented in the resulting copy or broadcast.

There were times when your author detected a bias in the questioning toward a predetermined narrative. In these cases, all responses that corresponded to the story line were seized upon and all those that didn’t fit were ignored.

Your author called out these unprofessional reporters for exhibiting a preset philosophical bias, resulting in an unpleasant conversation.

These unfortunate instances were the exception then; they are the norm today.

What Are Future Journalists Being Taught In Today’s Universities And Colleges?

Instead of actually covering the news for a grateful public, are future reporters, editors and correspondents being groomed by doctrinaire university professors to be the next wave of social justice warriors with notepads, microphones and cameras?

Is their mission to take the side, to advance the cause, to silence the opposition and ultimately bring down a president?

Rather than reporting the news, will they use their journalistic licenses to fashion stories, which are really poorly disguised or denuded editorials, interpretation and analysis that conform to the narrative?

If the prescribed goal is an ever-present, all-powerful taxing, redistributive, gift-giving socialist society, will tomorrow’s “journalists” be only favorable in their coverage to facts that conform to the orthodoxy? Likewise, will they be cynical, dismissive and downright hostile to any statements that do not pass social justice litmus tests?

Maybe that explains journalistic mutations in the forms of Jim Acosta, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow?

It was widely known that Walter Cronkite was liberal in his political orientation. Having said that, he always insisted upon fairness – yes objectivity – in the coverage of Democrats and even Republicans.

Some will claim the media’s collective decline in public esteem is directly attributable to their new-found designation as “the enemy of the people.” They will place 100 percent of the blame at the feet of the 45th POTUS.

Almost DailyBrett believes the media elite needs to collectively reassess the unfortunate trend toward oppositional journalism, interpretation, analysis and editorializing, and once again embrace professionalism in the form of true objectivity.

Let’s hope objectivity can once again rise from the ashes.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/brinkley-walter-cronkite/index.html

https://cronkite.asu.edu/about/walter-cronkite-and-asu/walter-cronkite-biography

https://brandingforresults.com/walter-cronkite/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/dan-rather-father-of-affirmational-journalism/

“The news blindsided many liberals — particularly those with an ambient knowledge of Rachel Maddow’s nightly monologues on MSNBC.” – Amy Chozick, New York Times

“The 3 biggest losers from the Mueller report in order: the media, the media, the media.” – Rich Lowry, National Review

Trump won. The liberal media elite declared … “victory.”

The two-year hunt by oppositional journalists for WMDs came to an end. It was a dead scud.

The long-awaited $25 million Müller Report didn’t quite read the way they wanted. It was a dud.

Ahh … Rachel Maddow can rewrite it for you.

Chris Matthews is tan, rested and ready.

As they say in politics … “When in doubt, declare victory!’

The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer declared the Müller report a great success, but no one seems to be clapping in the tony enclaves of Manhattan, Inside the Beltway or in Hollywood.

Let’s see how do Oppositional Journalists proclaim unmitigated victory? Has the comb-over dragon been slayed?

Our ratings are up (e.g., MSNBC … even CNN). Our print and digital subscriptions have soared (e.g., NYT, WAPO). They generated a combined 8,500 Russia probe stories to prove their point.

Almost DailyBrett remembers a time when objective journalists didn’t seem to care about their respective employers buying low and selling high.

Former FBI Director Robert S. Müller III was going to be the savior of the Republic. Let the impeachment proceedings begin!

Stephen Colbert still generated late-night “comedy,” but deep down inside … it’s painful. It has to hurt.

As Yoga Berra once said: “It’s like deja-vu all over again.” For the folks at CNN and MSNBC, it was a replay of November 8, 2016, even though some are now asserting a “cover-up” (e.g., MSNBC’s Joy Reid) and “obstruction of justice.”

Spin Control by the Media, For the Media

“They let all the normal rules of balanced reporting fly out the window as they competed with each other over who could land the biggest Pulitzer prize-winning Trump/Russia sucker punch that would KO the President they loathe.

“Only it turned out they were all punching thin air.” – Former CNN anchor Piers Morgan

“We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did.” – Jeff Zucker, CNN president

Walter Cronkite just turned over in his grave.

Almost DailyBrett has long advocated a return to the days in which political reporters were not serving as the Praetorian Guard for the progressive socialist left/Democratic Party.

Your author yearns for the days when most reporters/correspondents could claim the virtue of objectivity, and still pass the giggle test.

Yet as the ink dries on the Müller Report and President Trump basks in the glory of no collusion with Russia/no further indictments (not to mention media darling Michael Avenatti being led off in handcuffs for his $20 million blackmail attempt against Nike), the elite liberal media is resetting its bearings on electing a Democrat in 2020.

The question that must be asked: Have they learned anything from 2016?

Will they continue to arrogantly use the print and digital pages of the NYT and WAPO, let alone CNN and MSNBC, to denigrate the millions that work and live in the red states?

Remember the “Basket of Deplorables”?

The 12th Amendment (e.g., Electoral College) of the U.S. Constitution is NOT going to be amended/rescinded before the 2020 election, if ever.

Red states must be flipped for Bernie (or a reasonable facsimile) to become the 46th president of the United States. How many in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. follow liberal media talking heads and angry columnists?

In many ways it seems the elite liberal media types are talking to each other and preaching to the choir.

Democrats know they can only win California’s 55 electoral votes once regardless of the margin of victory. Hillary prevailed in the Golden State by 4 million votes. She only needed to win by one vote.

The liberal media elites will demand that red state voters change, and see the wisdom of social justice warriors commanding and controlling their lives through a greatly empowered government.

Almost DailyBrett suggests a little exercise of humility at CNN and others. If so, maybe the struggling network can return to the days of Bernard Shaw asking the tough question … even to the Democratic nominee at a presidential debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/media/mueller-report-media.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/mueller-report/585631/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/22/chris_matthews_why_was_there_never_an_interrogation_of_trump_how_can_mueller_let_him_off_the_hook.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6847671/PIERS-MORGAN-Mueller-report-shows-collusion-disgraceful-hoax.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7wPf9geSM

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

%d bloggers like this: