Category: Reporter/Flack Divide


“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

 

“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/

 

 

 

 

 

As we prepare our collective bowels for the uproar of the coming arrival of the serious — not silly — presidential election season, we need contemplate the Golden Rules of Politics.

These rules are proven. They are time-tested. They do not change. They are inviolate.

Without further adieu, here are Almost DailyBrett’s listed in alphabetical order pathways to the Promised Land whether it be a statehouse, halls of Congress or even 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

Good Government Is Good Politics

“Govern wisely and as little as possible.” — Republic of Texas President Sam Houston

“Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m responsible.” — Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services

“I’m going to try and download every movie ever made, and you’re going to try to sign up for Obamacare (Sebelius), and we’ll see which happens first” — Comedian Jon Stewart

Almost DailyBrett fondly remember’s Monte Hall’s “Let’s Make A Deal” game show. There was the stage with a VW bug, and there was the … “Door.”

For 180 million Americans, their private health insurance plans are on the stage. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are offering America the door with the “promise” of single-payer government health insurance, and the elimination of all private-sector offerings.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Remember the online Obamacare rollout “debacle?” The website calculator didn’t work, let alone the system repeatedly crashed.

Do we want to deliver DMV-style health care for 329 million Americans, managed by Larry, Moe and Curly?

Good Government is indeed, good politics. Taking away private insurance is not good politics.

“It’s Not (Always) What You Say, But How You Say It”

Remember what mumsy told you?

She said that it was not what you say, but how you say it. She could detect in mere nanoseconds a sassy unmeaning, “thank you.”

Are you pleasant and reassuring? Or are you shrill, strident, angry and out of control?

Does it make sense for Democratic contenders for the White House to be angrily attacking the last Democratic president Barack Obama, who enjoys a 95 percent approval rating with … Democrats?

Didn’t Obama terminate Osama bin Laden, appoint Janet Yellen as the head of the Federal Reserve, see the NYSE and NASDAQ double in market value in his eight years, and deport more than 2.5 million? Why are fellow Democrats carping in the most unpleasant ways possible?

Is it simply because they don’t want front-runner former Vice President Joe Biden to justifiably play the Obama card?

Run As If You Are Running Behind

Whether or not you are holding a commanding lead and your media allies have your back or not, Yogi was right: “It ain’t over until it’s over.” 

Hillary was on auto-pilot heading for her media elite preordained 2016 victory, and then her campaign crashed and burned on election night.

The top two George Deukmejian Laws of Politics both are directly related to each other.

Even when he was cruising to victory in 1986 or overcoming a 22 point deficit with three weeks to go to win the closest-ever California gubernatorial election in 1982, the Duke assumed the underdog role.

He ran effective campaigns, (e.g., distributing 2 million absentee ballots to high-propensity voters) keeping his opponent in his sights or constantly looking over his shoulder.

The point is to sprint through the tape and leave absolutely no fuel in the gas tank. Don’t mind the metaphors.

Take Nothing For Granted

Every electoral vote counts.

Remember President Thomas Dewey? Hillary was literally building her administration, and measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

And then … and then … and then.

She didn’t visit “Blue Wall” state, Wisconsin, during the general election campaign against Donald Trump. She canceled a joint appearance with President Obama in Green Bay. Big, big mistake.

Wisconsin turned red; the blue wall was broken. Michigan and Pennsylvania also flipped into the red column.

Game, set and match.

The Golden Rules of Politics live on. They must be respected. They are eternal.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/the-bradley-effect-blindside/

Healthcare.gov Hurt Obamacare More Than Liberals Are Willing to Admit

“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/

 

 

 

“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/

%d bloggers like this: