Category: Partisan Media


“Do you think there is blood on the president’s hands, considering the slow response?” — NBC’s “Meet The Press” anchor Chuck Todd to Vice President Joe Biden this morning.

“I think that is a little too harsh.” — Biden answer.

The late great Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert just turned over in his grave.

Russert (1950-2008) served as the much-respected and well-liked host of NBC’s Sunday morning interview show for a record 16 years.

Todd’s unrestrained arrogance, spawned his February suggestion that Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters amounted to a “digital brownshirt brigade.”

Sanders is Jewish. The reaction from the repeatedly persecuted Jewish community was swift and certain. Nazi imagery and comparisons do not belong in American political discourse.

Almost DailyBrett is not devoting this post to simply beating up Chuck Todd, but instead to offer that America needs balanced, objective journalism now more than ever. Instead, we are getting open suggestions the president’s hands are soaked in blood and images of storm troopers.

Will NBC take well overdue disciplinary action against Todd, just as the network did against former MSNBC host Chris Matthews? Will Todd be forced to apologize to Bernie Sanders, let alone Donald Trump?

Forget about it.

Esteem for America Media? Downward to the Right

Even before the Corona virus (COVID-19) extracted its deadly toll on the USA and the world, the trust of the American public in mass media was rapidly losing altitude.

The steady decline in American approval in mass media, which began in the mid-1970s, is actually accelerating its continuous downward-to-the-right loss of trust trend.

If the media was publicly traded, even a dim-witted investor would have sold this “dog with fleas” (Gordon Gekko quote) years ago.

Worse, there seems to be no bottom in sight when it comes to the media. If an institution cannot reach its nadir point and keeps falling in terms of public esteem or to be more precise, lack of public esteem, how can the media demonstrate any recovery … even a dead-cat bounce?

According to the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer, mass media recorded a -17 percent score when it comes to competence, and an additional -7 percent in terms of ethical behavior. Conversely, business scores +14 in competence and -2 percent when ethics is weighed.

Only government is worse, minus 40 percent in competence and minus 19 percent in ethics.

Cessation of Presidential Corona Virus Broadcasts?

“If Trump is going to keep lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we (collective media) should, all of us, stop broadcasting it (presidential corona task force briefings).” — MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow

If the media en-masse decides what we as great unwashed Americans are permitted to see or not see, isn’t that another word for censorship?

If the government attempted even for a nano-second or two to impose any type of limitation on media coverage, wouldn’t Mizz Maddow be the first screaming about a chilling impact on sacred First Amendment rights of free speech?

Maybe the president’s veracity is not the issue. Could the real catalyst for Maddow’s call for a “broadcasting stop” be President Trump’s improving approval ratings, particularly his handling of America’s corona virus response?

According to Gallup, the nation’s hospitals hold an 88 percent approval rating compared to a 10 percent disapprove score.

Vice President Mike Pence (e.g., Corona virus task force chairman) clocks in with a 61 percent to 32 percent approval/disapproval rating.

President Trump has drawn a 60 percent thumbs up and a 38 percent thumbs down result.

The media? The lowest score of them all … 44 percent approve, 55 percent disapprove.

Whattyathink Chuck “Blood on the President’s Hands” Todd? Any comment from “stop broadcasting” presidential pandemic briefings, Rachel Maddow?

Almost DailyBrett has zero doubt that many — certainly not all — in the media want America to fail in the face of this global pandemic, and with that crisis Trump is not re-elected.

Count how many times the media use the noun/verb fail in the coming days, weeks and months of reporting/interpreting with related commentary from unnamed sources.

If a Democrat was in the White House, the collective mass media swooning would remind one of the gushing coverage of a … New York Governor Andrew Cuomo briefing.

If there any doubt, spend some time with Pew Research’s results demonstrating a pronounced division by political preference when it comes to trust in the media. Democrats are mostly trustful; Republicans are distrustful.

The reason? The loss of integrity by the majority in the media, who fail the objectivity test and cannot hide their personal loathing of the president and for the most part, any and all Republicans.

If the mass media aids and abets the nation in failing in the face of the corona virus pandemic and as a result President Trump is not re-elected, will the arrogance in media centers subside? Not a chance.

Will the sense of unrestrained power and importance grow and mutate in news rooms and political bureaus?

Will they claim another Nixonian scalp, this one with blood on his hands?

Conversely, will America applaud its oppositional media or will the public eventually become even more fearful and distrustful of the networks and/or major mastheads?

Will we have created an even bigger monster?

Will the American people ask, ‘who is going to watch, the watchers’?

Sure hope we don’t have to answer these questions.

https://www.edelman.com/trustbarometer

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/29/chuck_todd_to_joe_biden_does_the_president_have_blood_on_his_hands.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/300680/coronavirus-response-hospitals-rated-best-news-media-worst.aspx

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/has-all-media-become-partisan-media/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/elite-media-psychologists-psychiatrists/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/02/26/lets-take-hitler-out-of-american-politics/

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

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

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/12/msnbcs-chuck-todd-under-fire-for-reciting-quote-comparing-sanders-supporters-to-nazis_partner/

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/488777-maddow-hits-trumps-happy-talk-on-virus-i-would-stop-putting-those-briefings-on

U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided

“Every individual counts. We are not condemned to accept the spread of this virus as an inevitable fact of life. We have the means to fight it. “ — German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s televised address to the nation, March 18, 2020

Germany is not known for televised speeches by its heads of state. And yet no one questioned the extraordinary step taken this past Wednesday by the Vaterlands first-ever Kanzlerin for the past 15 years, Angela Merkel.

Reading her 12-minute text in both English and German and watching her calm, measured and impressive performance, she assured Germany it will prevail against the Coronvavirus (COVID-19). She made it clear the absolutely necessary practice of social isolation will eventually slow the spread of the virus, buying time for the country’s prominent healthcare infrastructure to finally get ahead of the global pandemic.

Having traveled to Germany three times — up to three weeks each time — in the last five years alone, Almost DailyBrett has not seen or read sorry expressions of misogyny against Merkel or any other woman office holder. Merkel is a strong moderate-conservative leader (e.g., Christian Democrat or CDU) performing well under pressure.

And to drive home this point … Germany’s Chancellor just happens to be a woman.

Looking 400-miles-plus to the west, there is another accomplished CDU moderate-conservative woman — confidently speaking German, French and English — serving as the president of the European Commissioner (EU), former German defense minister Ursula von der Leyen.

One of the most vital tasks she has undertaken is to reduce the up-to-30-kilometer (18.6 miles) traffic jams at national borders within the EU, essentially gridlocking the delivery of medical equipment to hospitals and clinics, and likewise people returning to their homes. These well-intentioned security tie-ups have been greatly reduced under Ursula’s leadership without compromising the ability of the EU’s 27 nation states to fight the highly contagious virus.

And let there be no mistake the leader of the European Central Bank (ECB) is also another measured and confident woman, France’s Christine Lagarde. She was nominated to head the European version of America’s Federal Reserve by France’s moderate-conservative President Emmanuel Macron.

To date, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt has directed €870 billion ($936 billion) in needed liquidity to European banks and businesses. The ECB’s stance under Lagarde is, whatever it takes.

Having reviewed the leadership from these three tremendous women leaders — Angela, Ursula and Christine — Almost DailyBrett totally rejects the oft-mentioned premise that Americans will never elect a woman as President of the United States?

Not This “Particular Woman”

“I want a woman president soon, but I don’t want this particular woman (e.g., Hillary Clinton). — University of Virginia Political Science Professor Larry Sabato reflecting on a frequent refrain from many women — young and old — on the 2016 campaign trail.

Whenever American political scientists and media pundits refer to the gender gap, it’s always a one-way street … how women vote as opposed to men. Using this hallowed measurement Hillary won the gender gap over Donald Trump, 54-41 percent in 2016.

Employing a non-gender gap standard, alas Hillary did not prevail among men, losing 52-41 percent … a sure sign of misogyny. Right?

Using ethnicity demographics Hillary actually lost the white women vote 52-43 percent, and was clobbered among white men, 62-31 percent. Was it misogyny in both cases or was it … do we dare imply … the performance of a sub-par candidate in 2016?

Shifting forward to the present presidential election cycle, Almost DailyBrett carefully noted that when U.S. Senator Kamala Harris’ (D-California) campaign imploded last fall … there were zero pundit cries about misogyny.

Likewise when Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar suspended her campaign earlier this month, no one seized upon this widely anticipated action to question whether a woman could ever be elected president of the United States.

And yet when another Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren finally called it quits after winning zero states and coming in third in her home state of Massachusetts, yes indeed … misogyny was without doubt the culprit.

Almost DailyBrett is scratching his follicly challenged skull trying to deduce the difference between the decisions of two Democratic U.S. senators on one hand (no misogyny), and the presidential campaign suspension of an anointed Democratic U.S. Senator on the other hand (misogyny).

Are Europeans just better human beings than Americans? After all, the Finns are the happiest on the planet (World Economic Forum).

Or could it be differences in political philosophy, moderate-conservative women in Europe vs. liberal-progressive women in America? One has a track record of winning, the other does not.

Maybe, just maybe … moderate-conservative political philosophy can usurp misogyny in America just as it does in Europe.

https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-en/news/statement-chancellor-1732302

https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-de/aktuelles/fernsehansprache-von-bundeskanzlerin-angela-merkel-1732134

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response_en

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/topnews/M-004595

https://www.ft.com/content/281d600c-69f8-11ea-a6ac-9122541af204

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/finland-is-the-world-s-happiest-country-again/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/are-europeans-better-than-us/

“If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing theirs, and blaming it on you.” — Poet Rudyard Kipling’s, “If” (1865-1936)

One thing is certain when it comes to any crisis — earthquake, floods, fires, pandemics — the media will hyperventilate and will be totally out of control.

Another is that no good deed goes unpunished.

And an absolute truth in politics: You have a finite number of friends and the same is true for your enemies. Your enemies will never change; your friends can change.

Finally, the public wants and needs to see its president, governor, mayor, CEO … whoever is the elected/designated leader … that individual must be there repeatedly, visible on the front lines.

The images of President George W. Bush with the bullhorn at Ground Zero, Rudy Giuliani being designated as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in response to the brutal attacks on 9/11 are illustrative of leaders immediately present and active in response.

President George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina is less of a text book example. The failure of Exxon Valdez CEO Lawrence Rawl to visit the 1989 Prince William Sound spill site for three weeks or maybe worse, BP’s former chief executive Tony Hayward lamenting about the impact of his company’s 2010 Gulf Spill … on his personal life.

“I’m sorry. We’re sorry for the massive disruption its (Gulf Spill) caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.”

Sorry to say Tony, this song was not about you.

Crises present opportunities and perils. Some succeed in the face of unprecedented challenges, others fail miserably. There are few who just for lack of better words, screw up.

When asked at an emergency site to characterize what he was seeing with his very eyes, former California Governor Pat Brown didn’t realize what he was saying until he said it: “This is the worse disaster since my election.”

During the course of any political lifetime, there will be crises. You are not judged when all is well, but defined when all are losing their heads.

And besides keeping your head, a public sector team should always operate under the philosophy that good government always takes precedence over good politics.

Almost DailyBrett believes for any incumbent, regardless of whether it’s an election year (it is) or not, the “What is the good government response?” question should always be answered first.

If the answer is good government, then the question of good politics should address itself.

Invoking The Wrath Of The NRA

“There’s no logical reason for anybody to own an assault weapon.” — California Governor George Deukmejian (1928-2018)

As a Republican governor in a blue state, Governor Deukmejian recognized immediately the political landscape changed when troubled Vietnam vet Patrick Purdy took an AK-47 onto a Stockton schoolyard, filled with happy playing Korean children, in 1989.

The good government response immediately following this senseless massacre intended for the protection of innocent children and the public at large was to ban assault weapons in California. This responsible action predictably triggered (pardon the pun) an immediate vitriolic response from the NRA.

Good government, won. Good politics came along for the ride.

As President Donald Trump directs the nation’s emergency response to the global Corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic, he and his team must be mindful that anything and everything will be viewed in terms of the electoral season.

No action taken by the administration (i.e., blocking flights from China and Europe, teaming with private sector on mobile testing, relaxing and suspending burdensome federal regulations) will meet with universal approval, not this year in particular. There are those who cannot and will not be positive. So be it.

The nation needs to see its leader. The leader of the free world cannot be perfect (impossible standard to uphold), but he must be confident. Some have said we need more teleprompter Trump and less tweeting Trump. Politics needs to be left to others, particularly those out of power.

Instead, good government must rule … good government must take precedence. This is a time for message and political discipline. Can Trump and his team do it?

Let’s give them a chance.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if—

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-05-19-mn-112-story.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/the-governor-who-changed-my-life/

 

“I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940. And the (French) general calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says, ‘How can it be?’ “You got the greatest army in Europe.’ ‘How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.'” — MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews analyzing the impact of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders overwhelming win of the Nevada Democratic Caucus

“Never thought part of my job would be pleading with a national news network to stop likening the campaign of a Jewish presidential candidate whose family was wiped out by the Nazis to the Third Reich, but here we are.” — Tweet from Sanders campaign spokesman, Mike Casca

Historical comparisons to Adolf Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust with today’s American politics are inevitably inaccurate and worse, they come across as trivializing the genocide against 6 million Jews.

The reaction to these clumsy analogies will always be sharp, misunderstood and hurtful, especially candidates who are indeed, Jewish (e.g., Bernie Sanders). Matthews responded correctly to the outcry and calls for his resignation by apologizing and saluting Sanders for his victory.

As a longtime political counselor and message developer, Almost DailyBrett will always advise when it comes to bringing up images of the Third Reich … don’t go there.

Agree, Chris Matthews?

Watching and re-watching the host of MSNBC’s Hardball  commentary about Bernie’s electoral surge with colleague, Brian Willams, Matthews inexplicably compared Sanders win in the Nevada Caucuses with Hitler’s Panzers conquering France in 1940.

Why … oh why … oh why.

Almost DailyBrett is a huge fan of Matthews’ 2013 book, “Tip and The Gipper, When Politics Worked,” a wonderful reminder of the 1980s when civility actually reigned in Washington, D.C. and divided government — Ronald Reagan as president and Tip O’Neill as the house speaker — actually produced compromises and meaningful legislation.

Even though Almost DailyBrett does not concur with Matthews’ philosophy or the politics espoused daily by MSNBC, he deserves a second chance. Matthews made a mistake. Who hasn’t?

It’s time to move on.

Social Media Concentration Camp/Holocaust Comparisons

Everyone left and right should stay away from Nazi analogies..” — Long time Washington Post, CNN, Fox News media commentator Howard Kurtz

Starting in 2015, your author noted repeated social media associations, comparing the worst man whoever walked the planet, Adolf Hitler, with Donald Trump. And now, memories of Nazi Blitzkrieg is being brought into the public arena in the context of … Bernie Sanders.

Wonder if any of these digital rocket scientists have ever read William L. Shirer’s Pulitizer Prize winning book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?” Doubt it.

Fast forward to today, Almost DailyBrett is doubting whether these social media historians actually know the difference between die Wehrmacht and die Bundeswehr.

The unfortunate images of cages at the U.S. border are not the same as Auschwitz. Please, don’t even try to make these inappropriate comparisons. These sorry references say more about the state of mind of the sender than it does the political target. Digital is eternal.

The revulsion against Adolf Hitler has actually increased with time, not receded. If you are going to make any type of comparison to Hitler, his Bunker cronies, Nazi Germany’s armed forces, please understand these references are becoming more — not less — radioactive with the passage of time.

Rightfully, Jewish organizations and those who lost ancestors to the Holocaust (e.g., Sanders’ family) will never equate today’s politics in a stable democracy with the hateful actions of the worst dictatorship in the history of the world.

After a lengthy summation of the impact of Bernie Sanders’ Nevada victory on the state of affairs of the Democratic Party, Matthews inexplicably weaved his reading about the 1940 Nazi conquest of France into the televised discussion.

Why his red lights in his own mind didn’t flash, putting the mental brakes on inserting Nazi Germany into the analysis, is a question that does not have a ready answer.

Instead, this unfortunate case should be a lesson to all of us.

Regardless of conventional or digital format, none of us should raise the specter of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, Blitzkrieg and the images of the Holocaust into any and all discussions about American Politics.

Just say nein!

Verstehen Sie?

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders-022024087.html

https://nypost.com/2020/02/24/chris-matthews-apologizes-for-comparing-bernie-sanders-win-to-nazi-invasion-of-france/

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6135518724001#sp=show-clips

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/already-comparing-america-to-nazi-germany/

“I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president.” — Speaker Nancy Pelosi responding to a question whether she hates Donald Trump.

“If Nancy Pelosi fears images of her ripping up the speech, perhaps she shouldn’t have ripped up the speech.” — Tim Murtaugh of President Trump’s re-election campaign

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

As a public relations counselor and message developer for eight years in gubernatorial and campaign politics, Almost DailyBrett would have advised Speaker Nancy Pelosi to maintain her high-ground advantage once President Trump refused to shake her hand prior to the Feb. 4 State of the Union Address.

The stories would be about Donald Trump, essentially walking over his own speech.

Instead Nancy stooped even lower, petulantly tearing up Trump’s speech before the President of the United States had even left the dais. She knew her actions — ripping up page after page — would be captured by the television cameras and by excited members of her own caucus, but they also wiped out her moral and image advantage over Trump for the evening.

Didn’t Michelle Obama once say: “When they (Republicans) go low, we (Democrats) go high”?

Worse yet is the ammunition Madam Speaker provided to the videographers and Meme-sters of Trump’s campaign and sympathetic political action committees. It’s amazing what talented people can do with Apple’s Final Cut Pro video editing or still frame software and a little time.

Sure enough a new video surfaced and was seen by 11 million+ with Trump’s gallery introductions of a black school child, a military wife being reunited with her stationed overseas husband, a surviving member of the Tuskegee Airmen … inter-spiced with images of Nancy … tearing up the speech.

Predictably Nancy’s political team went bat excrement, but the political damage was already done. The sequence was obviously altered, and the rightness and wrongness can be argued.

Here’s the main point: Why give political opposition manna from heaven?

Wouldn’t tucking the speech away and simply claiming victory in the form of moral superiority be a better course of action for Speaker Pelosi?

Do Nancy and Donald Hate Each Other?

“Are you (Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff) suggesting the president didn’t make those remarks or the speaker didn’t rip the speech?” — Andy Stone of Facebook

“What planet are you living on? This is deceptively altered. Take it down.” — Drew Hammill, speaker’s deputy chief of staff

The speaker’s office demanded that Facebook and Twitter pull the manipulated video. So far the two social media leaders have stuck to their internal policies and allowed the video to run its course.

Predictably Trump’s campaign is celebrating a made-for-television commercials windfall, which literally dropped in their collective laps. It easily beats Madam Speaker mocking the president in an earlier State of the Union address.

Before taking issue with Speaker Pelosi’s public relations counselors, Almost DailyBrett must ask whether she would even listen to prudent advice?

The same question can be posed for those who attempt to manage communications for Donald Trump.

With the advantage of political hindsight and looking back two weeks, Trump should have shaken the speaker’s hand, and Nancy should have simply put the state-of-union speech back into the presidential envelope.

Donald Trump won the evening because he delivered one of the best speeches of his career with CBS News reporting a 76 percent viewer approval of his prose.

What is the most important public relations of all? Personal public relations.

In a race to the bottom with Trump declining to shake hands and Pelosi ripping up the State-of-the Union address, Madam Speaker finished in first place.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-trump-video-state-of-the-union-turning-point-usa/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/nancy-pelosi-lashes-out-at-reporter-who-asks-if-she-hates-trump.html

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/429148-president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-after-state-of-the-union

“It (Trump acquittal celebration) was dark because he’s made clear that his mind is dark. This is somebody in deep psychological distress right now. Self-pitying, insecure, angry. He doesn’t accept abstract concepts like right or wrong, like morality or immorality, like true or false. He recognizes what is good for him in the moment.” — New CNN White House correspondent John Harwood

Right or wrong? Morality or immorality? True or false? Does this dispassionate interpretation say more about Donald Trump or John Harwood?

To his credit, Harwood earned his bachelor’s degree in history and economics from a good school, Duke University. Alas, he did not earn a bachelor’s or better yet … an advanced degree in psychology (e.g., study of mind and behavior) or psychiatry (e.g., study of the treatment of mental illness).

With that undeniable information in mind, Almost DailyBrett must ask: On what basis is Harwood able to appear on elite national television and “diagnose” the president as being “in deep psychological distress?”

The day after President Trump’s oh-so-predictable-for-months easy acquittal by the U.S. Senate, POTUS #45 was last seen happily displaying the front page of the Washington Post, conjuring images of Harry Truman holding up the 1948 Chicago Tribune headline: “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

No reporter, editor, anchor, correspondent ever questioned Truman’s psychological fitness, so why is it open season on the present incumbent?

“I have asked this question a number of times in (the media) describing the president’s state of mind, he’s angry, he’s unhinged and all of these negative attributes, prescribed by the arm-chair psychologists in the media.” — Long-time media analyst for the Washington Post, CNN and Fox News Howard Kurtz

As far as Almost DailyBrett knows, the only elite media commentator with any academic credentials to credibly analyze a public figure’s state of mind is the late Washington Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer. He earned his M.D. in Psychiatry from Harvard University in 1975.

“Trump is right. It (elite liberal media) is the opposition party. Indeed, furiously so, often indulging in appalling overkill. It’s sometimes embarrassing to read the front pages of major newspapers, festooned as they are with anti-Trump editorializing, masquerading as news.” — Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)

And they are self-anointed psychological and psychiatric analysts as well.

Never Took A Psychology Class In College

Almost DailyBrett holds two academic degrees, a bachelor’s degree in broadcasting journalism from the University of Southern California in 1978, and a master’s degree in communication and society from the University of Oregon in 2012.

Your author went on to become a political reporter, a gubernatorial press secretary, a semiconductor industry communicator and a university professor in public relations, corporate communications and investor relations. Having said all of that, there was never even one class in psychology or psychiatry, much less a degree in either subject.

Unlike Charles Krauthammer, we know Harwood does not have a degree in either of these subjects along with certainly dozens and dozens of elite media practitioners.

If that is indeed the case, why do they believe they are qualified to publicly diagnose — without violating the medical privacy HIPAA — psychological impairment of a certain offending politician?

And with this precedent established will they (reporters, correspondents) make similar mental fitness conclusions for others in the future, who are not part of the their political party?

Could this practice be based upon simple unbridled arrogance as well?

Almost DailyBrett has repeatedly analyzed the empirically demonstrated loss of public esteem for the elite media during the course of the last four decades-plus as demonstrated by the Gallup Organization.

Are elite media adding to the political division in our country?

With only 41 percent nationally approving of their performance (less than Trump’s approval rating), including only 36 percent of independents and 15 percent of Republicans, the answer is obvious.

And when a White House “correspondent” and other elites goes way beyond their pay grades and training to question the sanity of a “vulgar” and “vindictive” president, is there any wonder why the esteem of the media has taken such a nose dive in our center right country (e.g., median voter)?

You don’t need an advanced degree in psychology or psychiatry to understand why.

 

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/has-all-media-become-partisan-media/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/not-pretending-to-be-fair-anymore/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/has-all-media-become-partisan-media/

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

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/01/21/is-msnbc-less-fair-than-cnn/

“That’s one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC. Because he knows on MSNBC no one will be defending him … Because we don’t bring on liars. I don’t bring on a liar. I won’t do that.” — MSNBC “Last Word” host Lawrence O’Donnell on Al Franken’s January 12 podcast.

It’s one thing to pretend to be fair and objective, when in reality you’re not. It’s another to remove all doubt, and …. be happy about it.

O’Donnell may have already raised arrogance to an art form, but does he really have to be gleeful about MSNBC winning the race to the bottom when it comes to fairness or to be more precise, the lack of fairness?

“One third of their (CNN) payroll loves Trump. So you’re guaranteed on any hour of CNN to a minimum one-third of the programming supportive of Trump. Some people on their payroll saying, ‘Here’s why Trump’s right.'” — MSNBC’s O’Donnell on CNN programming

O’Donnell was lamenting that CNN actually has guests that are one-third (really?) sympathetic to Trump, and will actually present why the president is right. The representation of both sides of the story does not exist on his “Last Word” and conceivably other MSNBC programs.

Almost DailyBrett must stop here and ask:

Are we reaching a new low point when not only are cable networks partisan (i.e., MSNBC and CNN, liberal, Fox News, conservative), but these media outlets blacklist any and all other voices who do not pass a sacred litmus test?

It’s not just a case in which viewers are selecting their own “news,” but they are not even being offered any semblance of any other point of view as a comparison … at least not on MSNBC.

The intensification of pro-Democratic bias/anti-Trump content on MSNBC as a counter to pro-Republican/pro-Trump programming on Fox News is paying off in terms of ratings (e.g., eyeballs) and with them, advertising.

According to Nielsen, Fox News Channel (FNC) won 2019 with a nightly average viewership of 2.57 million. MSNBC is second with 1.80 million evening viewers. CNN is third with … 1 million prime time viewers. If the world already has one MSNBC, why does it need another.

Whattyathink, CNN?

When Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally last week refused to answer a question from a CNN Capitol Hill reporter, calling him a “liberal hack,” the network anchors were shocked … yes absolutely shocked. Deep down inside they were oh-so-happy, but does that make CNN any more relevant as the third horse in a two-horse race?

What did former GE Chairman Jack Welch say about market share? You either want to be No. 1 (Fox) or No. 2 (MSNBC) … number three should be rethinking their programming focus (CNN).

No More Masquerades

“The media is so messed up. It’s disheartening to me. … CNN is biased to the left … They are indistinguishable from MSNBC.” — Megyn Kelly, former NBC and Fox News journalist

“As reporters, we masquerade as being objective. We masquerade as being neutral. We masquerade as being without bias. These things are not true, and they are unrealistic.” — Lara Logan, former CBS News correspondent

As a former cub reporter for two suburban dailies and as a public relations practitioner for three decades, Almost DailyBrett understands completely that reporters/editors/correspondents come to their respective jobs with a healthy degree of skepticism and preordained political views (e.g., overwhelmingly liberal).

The real question comes down to professionalism. Can a reporter/editor/correspondent/anchor keep their personal views out of their copy?

The best reporters can do that, but cable television in particular has literally 24 hours of programming to fill. Journalists are now charged with offering interpretation (e.g., The Commentariat) of the news. Does this duty inflate their own sense of worth, and lead to the absurdity of reporters interviewing … fellow reporters?

Are journalistic standards of professionalism, fairness and objectivity gone forever to the delight of advertisers and our two political parties?

As consumers of mass media, are we responsible for the news we receive?

The vast majority of us are obviously asking for media, which conforms to our political views. Are we surprised to learn that our nation is more divided than at any time since the Civil War?

Our polarized media is without doubt aiding and abetting our division.

Is there anyway to put the brakes to this ever spiraling journalistic race to the bottom?

https://deadline.com/2019/12/cable-ratings-2019-list-fox-news-total-viewers-espn-18-49-demo-120281

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/has-all-media-become-partisan-media/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/25/megyn_kelly_cnn_became_the_thing_trump_said_they_were_indistinguishable_from_msnbc.html

“Trump is right. It (elite liberal media) is the opposition party. Indeed, furiously so, often indulging in appalling overkill. It’s sometimes embarrassing to read the front pages of major newspapers, festooned as they are with anti-Trump editorializing, masquerading as news.” — Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)

Will the New York Times send editor-columnist-reporter super delegates to the 49th quadrennial Democratic National Convention, July 13-16 in Milwaukee?

How many Washington Post editorial writers will be casting delegate votes for their party-proclaimed, next president of the United States?

We are not talking about covering the every four years convention held in the red state (e.g., Wisconsin), the Democrats overlooked to their own electoral peril four years ago. Instead, CNN and MSNBC talking heads will be actively cheering/campaigning for their party’s nominee on public airwaves.

Forget about dispassionate analysis. Does that practice exist any longer, let alone straight reporting?

How many readers and viewers have become wise to NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Brian Williams, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, literally reading between the lines for the not-so-hidden political agenda? As your author has mentioned previously, they don’t even pretend to be fair any longer.

Some readers of this blog may immediately chastise Almost DailyBrett for not mentioning right-of-center, Fox News.

Isn’t Fox News partisan as well?

Doesn’t the obvious fact of 24-7-365 partisan media, support the premise of this blog that terrified news rooms made economic decisions to jettison objectivity and fairness to survive a digital onslaught, they were way too slow to recognize?

Eastman Kodak used to dominate the film photography market, and then digital imaging came along and the stodgy upstate New York company was too late to respond … way too late. The stock is mired in single digits, serving as a desultory money repository for brain-dead investors.

Billionaire Blockbuster founder Wayne Huizenga (1937-2018) was the talk of Wall Street in the late 1980s/early 1990s until … you guessed it … streaming video content (i.e., Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Disney … ) doomed his company. Today, there is precisely one Blockbuster with three employees in … Bend, Oregon.

The model of professional non-partisan objective media, which worked well for so-long, was personified by Walter Cronkite at CBS, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC, and Howard K. Smith at ABC.

Those days are gone, long gone.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)

Donald Trump is the newsroom gift from heaven that just keeps on giving.

He is without any conceivable doubt the president elite liberal media loves to hate. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush used to be tied for that distinction … no longer.

Donald Trump trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton big time in both paid media (e.g., political advertising) and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) in 2016 because he didn’t need it … massive earned media attention was more than enough to make up the difference.

Every outrage produced another coming unglued story, which in turn generated ever more attentive eyeballs and ears.

As a candidate and now as president every account, whether it contains a Trump hook or not, becomes a story about that man … Donald John Trump.

Iran shoots down a Boeing 737-800. You would think by the coverage that Trump actually pulled the trigger … Didn’t his actions and policies prompt the wreckage and loss of life?

Sure.

Syria’s brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad’s crossed Barack Obama’s “red line” in the sand with poison gas against his own innocent citizens in 2016, and the media shrugged its collective shoulders.

Trump orders the 2020 drone assassination of Iran’s military leader, Qasem Soleimani, and the partisan media goes, Defcon 1.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) arrives for a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss transmitting the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. January 14, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst – RC2QFE9EVPID

Some may contend the shift to media partisanship (we are going way beyond editorial pages and commentary) and the death of objectivity and fairness is not a new story. Almost DailyBrett contends the intensity of media partisanship is off the rails and intensifying.

The media wants to pontificate, rant, rage and bloviate about the eventual downfall of Donald Trump. And when he is finally gone, what will they talk about?

Don’t worry. There will always be a Trumpian legacy to condemn for months, years, if not decades.

Schools of Partisan Journalism and Communication (SOPJC)

“And what are spies and politicians and journalists if not themselves selectors and manipulators of the truth for their own ends?” — British spy author John le Carre

In order to accommodate the shift to unbridled journalistic partisanship, university liberal journalism and mass communication schools (are there any other?) must amend their respective progressive curriculas to ensure that future “journalists” are equipped to lead the fight for socialist justice.

Can they psycho-analyze (without any psychology degree) those with offending political philosophies?

Can they filter information and factoids commensurate with partisan orthodoxy, and ignore anything and everything to the contrary?

Can they be absolute arbiters of the truth, however that term is previously defined?

Can they become warriors with note pads, cameras, recorders, boom mikes and smart phones?

Most of all can they advance the cause … the justice cause … without crossing the line into the dark side of advocacy public relations?

Have they have already meshed partisan journalism and political public relations into one and the same?

 

Anyone mature enough to remember the 1964 presidential debates between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater?

How about the debates four years later between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey? Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972?

President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, shake hands Tuesday night, October 28, 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio, before debating before a nationwide television audience. (AP Photo/stf)

There was precisely one presidential debate in 1980. Jimmy Carter was throwing the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, only to have Ronald Reagan remind the nation they were not better off after four years of Carter’s troubled presidency.

Almost DailyBrett is asking here-and-now: Are 2020 presidential debates a forgone conclusion?

Yes, there is the hallowed Commission on Presidential Debates. How many grande lattes at Starbucks does that fact, buy?

The first 2020 presidential debate is set for Tuesday, September 29 at University of Notre Dame followed by a vice presidential debate and two more presidential debates on college campuses in October.

One of the real questions that must be asked: Are there any objective impartial  journalists, at least pretending to be fair, who can moderate the 2020 debates?

If not, does that provide President Donald Trump the Twitter excuse for not participating in any of the presidential debates, ditto for Vice President Mike Pence?

In a world dominated by partisan polemics on television (i.e., Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Chuck Todd, Brian Williams … ), are there any real journalists left that can moderate a debate between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

Do you think that crying Martha Raddatz will ever referee another debate after showing her true colors on election night 2016?

Only 41 Percent Trust The Media, 36 Percent on Independents, 15 Percent of Republicans

Ever wonder why 69 percent of Democrats — according to Gallup — trust the media?

Could it be the media doesn’t even attempt to be fair anymore? Modern era journalism professor-types claim there was never a time of true objectivity and impartiality; these virtues are just so … yesterday.

As Almost DailyBrett opined more than once: Oppositional Journalism rules the day. That contention cannot be questioned any longer. Interpreting media elites should be required to register as special interest lobbyists.

LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 19: Fox News anchor and moderator Chris Wallace speaks to the guests and attendees during the third U.S. presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Tonight is the final debate ahead of Election Day on November 8. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Besides the likes of Chris Wallace and Bret Bair, are there any truly objective journalists who would be fair to The Donald and Bernie without “Feeling The Bern?”

Does the dwindling supply of truly fair (let’s drop the term, “objective”) journalists provide justification to President Trump to not debate in 2020. Would the celebrity truly bypass an open microphone on a national stage? Probably not, but he has the option to debate or not debate (he turned down a GOP primary debate in the last presidential election cycle).

As a former press secretary for California Governor George Deukmejian, we made the decision to skip 1986 gubernatorial debates with Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

As a result of our decision to not debate the second time around, the editorial pages of California’s elite media blasted our stand and wondered aloud about the fate of Democracy in the Golden State.

The California electorate knew these two candidates as they were contesting each for a second time in just four years. We were also cruising to re-election, winning 61 percent to 37 percent in the blue state’s greatest-ever landslide.

If Trump opts out of one, two or all of the debates, will he suffer on the editorial pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the talking heads on NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and other liberal networks scold the president?

What else is new?

Do the anointed in the Fourth Estate accept any blame that public esteem in the media is once again heading for an all-time low? Your author is betting the media next year will pierce the 32 percent nadir achieved in 2016, and go even lower.

If Trump decides not to debate (his standing in battleground state polls, the robust state of the economy, no new wars, radical socialist opponent … ), do the elite media — who no longer even attempt any more to be fair — bear any responsibility?

The answer is an obvious, ‘yes,’ but collectively they are too sanctimonious to admit the obvious.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

https://www.debates.org/2019/10/11/commission-on-presidential-debates-announces-sites-and-dates-for-2020-general-election-debates-and-2020-nonpartisan-candidate-selection-criteria/

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

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

Donald Trump Attacks Debate Commission, But Suggests He’ll Still Face Off With Democratic Nominee

 

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/

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: