Tag Archive: ACLU


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/

 

 

 

 

 

In military terms, is it ever wise to launch a frontal attack from a position of weakness?

What happens if the Oliver Stone-directed political offensive … not to be confused with his offensive-to-many movie, “Snowden” … fails to convince a lame-duck Barack Obama in his final days, if not the last day, to pardon Edward Snowden of Russia?

Wouldn’t you then expect the Clemency-4-Snowden crowd to shift the focus of its public relations thrust toward the new administration of one, Hillary Clinton?

Wait a minute. Didn’t Snowden use Twitter’s 140 characters last June 1 to essentially contrast himself with Hillary in a very unflattering and politically damaging manner? Was that smart? Do you think he would like to take those words back?snowdentweet2

Almost DailyBrett has repeatedly contended that Digital is Eternal. Heck, maybe even Donald Trump’s handlers are trying to keep him away from Twitter before he infuriates, bloviates and pontificates once again.

Your author has already predicted a fawning Snowden blockbuster movie – check – an epic New York Times bestseller – still to be checked –  university commencement addresses – still to be checked – and most importantly of all, the presidential pardon – still to be checked.

The pardon question comes down to three people: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.snowdenmovie

Probable? Improbable? NFW?

“Mr. Snowden has been charged with serious crimes, and it’s the policy of the administration that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face those charges. The fact is the manner in which Mr. Snowden chose to disclose this information damaged the United States, harmed our national security, and put the American people at greater risk.”White House press secretary Josh Earnest

As a former gubernatorial press secretary, Almost DailyBrett knows that a categorical statement uttered by the press secretary – “… it’s the policy of the administration … “did not arise from spontaneous generation. The question of Snowden’s pardon was anticipated, and the official response was preordained and preapproved.

Does that mean the case is closed? Absolutely not. Any administration can simply disavow a prior statement by reciting that was then, and this is now.

Is it right? Of course not, but these rhetorical gymnastics are a fixture of political life.

Back to Obama, Hillary and The Donald, not necessarily in ascending order.

Will anything involving a Snowden pardon occur before November 8? Nyet.

If Donald Trump is elected the 45th president of the United States on November 8, is there any chance that he would pardon Edward Snowden? Two chances: Zero and less than zero.snowdentweet

A Trump election would result in a frantic push by the Hollywood, ACLU, academic and progressive crowd, who celebrate Snowden as a patriot without quotation marks, exhibiting relentless pressure on Obama. He may relent; he may not. Almost DailyBrett is taking the “over.”

If Hillary Clinton is elected the 45th president of the United States on November 8, is there any chance that she would pardon Edward Snowden, especially in light of his snarky Tweet against her? The Clintons never forget. Period. Almost DailyBrett takes the “under” on Hillary pardoning Edward Snowden.

This exercise brings us back to Barack Obama. If Hillary is a likely “no” and The Donald is a “hell no,” then the hopes of the Oliver Stone-crowd lies solely and squarely on Obama.

Was it smart for Snowden to publicly insult Hillary Clinton at a time he needs friends and not more enemies? Let’s ask the question another way: Does it ever help your cause to be snarky and sassy, particularly when you are living “free” in Russia at the unpredictable pleasure of Vladimir Putin?

Do the words, “gulag” and “Siberia” ring a bell?

The rest of your life is a long-time Mr. Snowden. Wonder how many more Russian winters you will endure? Maybe you should think about that before firing out even more intemperate social media missiles.

http://www.popsci.com/edward-snowden-tweets-photo-his-own-hillary-clinton-protest-tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/can-oliver-stones-snowden-convince-the-world-that-its-subject-is-not-a-traitor/2016/09/14/61e88768-79b4-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/15/republicans-and-some-democrats-fight-back-against-snowden-clemency-campaign/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/the-coming-presidential-pardon-of-edward-snowden/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/pr-advice-for-edward-snowden/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/apples-indefensible-september-10-attitude/

Most of the time, I come down hard on the side of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations.

So why am I aligned more on the side of the ACLU and Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen when it comes to First Amendment Rights of Free Speech, and Yelp reviews?

yelp1

The answer lies in a complicated set of circumstances and trends with many sinners and very few saints.

Let’s try to make some sense of these intertwined factors:

● Our society has evolved from agrarian/agriculture to industrial/manufacturing to technology/service provision.

● Web 2.0 through the means of digital ones and zeroes has not only put word-of-mouth advertising on steroids; it has given consumers an unprecedented level of control over the reputations and brands of service providers (e.g., doctors, lawyers, contractors, Realtors, resorts, restaurants, butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers).

● Yelp (NYSE: YELP), TripAdvisor (NASDAQ: TRIP), Angie’s List (NASDAQ: ANGI) are the market leaders in affording consumers and travelers digital opportunities to publicly review service providers. They also have business models based upon delivering lots of eyeballs to advertisers, thus attempting to satisfy shareholders.

● The personal reputations and brands of service providers are in play as never before, assisted by positive reviews and potentially damaged by negative criticism. The best defense for service providers is a good offense as exemplified by the Zappos creed of under-promising and over-performing, delivering a “Wow!” experience to consumers.

● Yelp has been accused of being willing to employ its “automated review filter” to remove negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars. An L.A. dentist with some negative reviews allegedly was informed that these critiques could magically go away by means of a few Yelp advertising dollars. The doctor during on-camera interview equated this practice to “blackmail.”

● Virginia resident Jane Perez hired building contractor Christopher Dietz to perform some work. She was not pleased. She wrote negative reviews about Dietz on Angie’s List and Yelp, giving him the dreaded one star out of five potential stars review.

dietz

● Dietz in turn claimed that Perez’ less-than-pleasant review cost him an estimated $300,000 in business, and in turn filed a $750,000 defamation lawsuit against Perez. The case is going to trial. The ACLU and Public Citizen are representing Perez on a pro bono basis. Did Chris Dietz really sue his customer? Would you hire Mr. Dietz to fix your deck, knowing you too could end up in court as well?

Dude, what are you thinking?

So what do we have here?

  1. Publicly traded online consumer review outlets in search of big-time and small- time advertising dollars.
  2. Literally thousands of service providers, each of which is critically dependent on their good names and reputations to be successful and stay in business.
  3. Consumers, who can ethically or unethically inflict literally hundreds and thousands of dollars’ worth of damage against the reputation and brand of a service provider, and possibly put themselves rightfully or wrongfully in the cross-hairs of a defamation law suit.
  4. The rights of consumers to use their constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech to express their opinions and by doing so providing a service for fellow consumers.

And what are the public relations/marketing/communications implications for this simmering stew of providers, reviewers, lawyers and Yelpers?

Service providers need to understand and accept that the rules of engagement have forever changed and are continuing to change. Doing a good job and delivering a great service and/or product is the best defense on the planet.

Service providers need to constantly monitor what is being said about them via social media sites and blogs. And if a review is less than positive, the provider needs to respond pronto. In some cases, there is value in accepting the criticism and moving to make things right. If not, the service provider needs to respond and offer a professional rebuttal. If the service provider does not have the time to monitor digital media, then she or he should hire someone to do so.

Consumers should be mindful that service providers have legal rights. They can defend themselves against willful defamation. They can also launch countersuits, and win.

When Yelp, TripAdvisor, Angie’s List all decided to go public, accept investor dollars and report quarterly and annually, they triggered questions as to which priorities are more important: advertisers, shareholders or reviewing consumers. Maybe these firms would be better off going private.

These firms, particularly Yelp, need to be cautious about responding to a wounded service provider with an offer to essentially trade advertising for a little sleight of hand when it comes to algorithms (Poof! … the negative review has gone away). Wonder if that is what happened to my Yelp review about a particular Pleasanton, CA Realtor, Tim McGuire of Alain Pinel Real Estate?mcguire

Our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech are precious. They need to be protected, safeguarded and cherished. Having said that, there are limits besides not yelling “Fire!” in a theatre. An example of these limits is deliberate and willful, and most of all untruthful, defamation of a service provider’s character, reputation and brand.

Service providers would be well advised from a PR standpoint to think long and hard about filing one of these defamation suits. The $750,000 suit by Christopher Dietz against Jane Perez has drawn the attention of the national media, including the Washington Post and Beltway network affiliates, (guess who they are privately rooting for?). And if and when Mr. Dietz publicly loses his case, they will be sure to make the verdict very public.

Dietz will be known as that contractor guy, who sued his customer because she wrote a bad Yelp review. Want to hire Mr. Dietz for your next construction job? Make sure your lawyer is on your speed dial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/750k-lawsuit-over-yelp-review-will-go-to-trial/2014/01/26/63e9d372-8539-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html#!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/aclu-public-citizen-to-fight-lawsuit-over-negative-yelp-review/2012/12/20/9242b430-4ab8-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/2012/12/04/1cdfa582-3978-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/yelp-lawsuit-_n_4179663.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/yelp-extortion-rampant-say-small-business-owners-class-action-lawsuit-against-review-bully-appealed

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Yelp-Under-Fire-for-Alleged-Pandering-to-Advertisers-232472381.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/christopher-deitz-sues-jane-perez-over-negative-yelp-review-222800638.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=YELP+Profile

http://sueyelp.webstarts.com/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/loss-of-control-how-to-safeguard-reputations-and-brands-in-a-digital-world/

http://www.yelp.com/biz/tim-mcguire%E2%80%94alain-pinel-real-estate-pleasanton.

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/hard-lesson-in-seo-search-engine-optimization/

%d bloggers like this: