Tag Archive: CNN


These are not the best of days for American reporters, editors and correspondents, let alone journalism schools.

The American media is running eight points behind Donald Trump in national esteem.

This Gallup result was registered before CNN’s Anderson Cooper conjured up the impression of the president taking a “dump” on his desk. Ditto for the network’s Kathy Griffin holding up the image of the decapitated head of Donald Trump.

The glory days of Walter Cronkite, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are clearly in the rear-view mirror. The era of CNN and conjured presidential excrement and bloody heads are upon us.

More to the point, Newsweek ist kaputt. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is gone. Farewell to the Rocky Mountain News, The Tucson Citizen and so many others that depended on Gutenberg’s printing press for far too long.

Let’s face it: many Fourth Estate types (i.e., reporters, editors, correspondents, anchors …) are looking for jobs, any job that keeps them in the business.

The good news is China is hiring. The bad news is China is hiring.

Should these journalists succumb and work for Chinese-government-sponsored and operated media?

Dollars are dollars. Yuan are yuan. Right?

Ketchum, Putin and $55 million

Before getting knickers in a twist or bowels in an uproar, consider that Almost DailyBrett has posed similar questions about the august public relations profession, namely Ketchum PR.

For years, Ketchum served a provocative client, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, to the tune of $55 million cumulatively. The ostensible mission was to promote the Rodina’s “economic development” and the country as a great place for “investment.” The fact that Putin was behaving as one would expect from the former head of the KGB appeared to be irrelevant to the brass at Ketchum’s New York headquarters.

Reportedly Putin eventually terminated the nation’s contract with Ketchum, which may have been a blessing in disguise for the New York based agency. No longer would they have to register as foreign agents for Putin’s public relations nightmare in which he wasn’t going to accept Ketchum’s council anyway.

The advocacy side (PR) of the great communication divide is not the only one with moral dilemmas to confront. The same applies to the objective side (Journalism), particularly with so many journalists out of work or soon-to-be beating the bushes for another job.

According to The Economist, China expanded the number of foreign bureaus for its government-controlled main news agency, Xinhua, to 162 by the end of 2011. China’s goal is to establish a total of 200 Xinhua bureaus by 2020.Considering the many American media outlets are shutting down, does the Xinhua expansion – doubling its number of correspondents — provide new opportunities for employment?

Also consider that China completed the rebranding of its television network last year and has announced the formation of CGTN (China Global Television Network) to rival the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera to spread China’s “voice” and to “showcase China’s role as a builder of world peace.”

Just as Ketchum would be tempted to dismiss the concerns about Putin’s Russia with “a client is a client,” will unemployed or soon-to-be-out-of-work American journalists regard a potential opening at Xinhua or CGTN (e.g., major DC bureau) as “a job is a job”?

In a way that sounds just like the Yuppie Nürnberg Defense — “I was only doing it for the mortgage”  — as preached in the Christopher Buckley book/movie, Thank You For Smoking.

The author of Almost DailyBrett remembers the days at USC journalism school, and the protracted discussions about objectively and Joseph Pulitzer’s mantra of “Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy.”

Is Xinhua or CGTN, objective?

Are the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC or CBS objective, let alone MSNBC or Fox News? Many journalists employed by these institutions are miffed that  their “objectivity” may be somehow compromised by their employer’s corporate parent (e.g., NBC owned by Comcast).

What happens if your media employer is owned by the largest nation of earth, run by a single party, and established as part of that country’s $10 billion annual investment in soft power?

If objectivity and fairness are part of the personal DNA as a journalist, would she or he be predisposed to resign if the “editor” wanted to censure/delete submitted copy if it ran afoul with China’s policy toward Taiwan, the Dalia Lama, Tibet or some other hot-button issue for the totalitarian state?

Would the same journalist be comfortable that her or his objective copy was universally regarded as self-serving China propaganda by the vast majority of readers and viewers?

Some may be tempted to rationalize accepting a position with Xinhua or CGTN and following their “editorial” dictates as a job is job (e.g., Yuppie Nürnberg Defense).

Other journalists may not have these same flexible morals.

If the choice came down to aiding and abetting Chinese propaganda or maybe finding another job, maybe the journalist should even consider wearing a green apron instead?

“Was that a grande latte or mocha?”

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/has-the-media-reached-the-point-that-it-can-never-cover-trump-fairly/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/05/31/cnn-fires-kathy-griffin-over-offensive-trump-photo/102349176/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russia-doesnt-give-a-particle-about-public-relations/

 https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/ketchums-new-client-in-1938/

https://www.ketchum.com/

https://www.economist.com/news/china/21719508-can-money-buy-sort-thing-china-spending-billions-make-world-love-it

https://www.cgtn.com/

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

 

 

“If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it.” – CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewing Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord

Do you think Anderson Cooper has reached the point (and beyond) in which he can’t cover Donald Trump objectively and fairly let alone his network, CNN?

According to Harvard University, the answer following empirical research of media coverage by CNN and several other major outlets during the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency is a resounding, “no.”

Let’s pretend Donald Trump did something really good for the country … and didn’t nocturnally crow about it on Twitter?

Before answering this interrogative, let’s first pose a relevant side question: Who do reporters, editors, correspondents respect more than any other living creatures on this planet? The answer is other reporters, editors and correspondents.

Taking this essential and undeniable truth into account, Almost DailyBrett must ask:

Can a reporter — any reporter, editor or correspondent — outside of the friendly confines of Fox News – write or produce a totally objective piece about Trump without triggering the wrath and disdain of his or her precious media colleagues?

Would that journalist be willing to take the risk of enraging the pack mentality, and maybe even jeopardizing a career?

It appears to be seemingly impossible for a CNN or NBC reporter/correspondent in particular to provide positive coverage of Trump as evidenced by new data harvested by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. Harvard reported that 93 percent of CNN and NBC’s first 100 days of Trump coverage have been overwhelmingly negative.

Seven percent of CNN and NBC Trump coverage has been positive? It doesn’t seem that high.

Right behind in the race to the bottom is CBS at 91 percent negative coverage, surprisedly beating even the New York Times with 87 percent and Washington Post with 83 percent respectively thumbs-down coverage of The Donald and his administration.

Conservative media outlets tilt to the negative on Trump, but they simply cannot compete with the Clinton News Network (CNN) or the networks of Meet the Depressed or Deface the Nation. The Wall Street Journal’s coverage is 70 percent to the negative, and even Fox News is 54/46 percent to the downside.

MSNBC was not even measured.

The only Trump story that was covered in a positive manner by the newsies was the launching of cruise missiles at poison-gas Syria with 80 percent of the media on the Trump side of the ledger. Guess the remaining 20 percent may be secretly siding with Bashar Assad or more likely … can’t bring themselves to say anything remotely positive about Trump.

As a result, Trump hates the media. The media hates Trump. And Sean Spicer was last seen in the bushes.

The Donald claims he is not being covered fairly compared to his predecessors. Conservative bastion Harvard backs up this contention. Barack Obama’s coverage during the first 100 days was 59 percent positive; George W. Bush’s was 43 percent affirmative; Bill Clinton’s was 40 percent positive … Donald Trump, 20 percent to the positive.

Is the media not-so-secretly rooting for Trump to be impeached, while trying to implicate Mike Pence as well? Consider the instant parallel to Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” with James Comey’s firing.

Almost DailyBrett always thought that a massacre required more than one person.

Below the Mendoza Line

The media feasts on Donald Trump’s record 54 percent negative approval rating. According to the same Real Clear Politics average, Trump has a 39.6 percent positive approval rating.

Gallup reported last fall the nation’s approval of the work provided by the media stands at only 32 percent or 8 percent behind Donald Trump.

The same polling firm reported that 72 percent of Americans approved and admired the media’s standing and coverage in 1976, right on the heels of the Watergate busting Pulitzer Prize work of Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein. Since that time, public approval of the media has dropped 40 percent in as many years.

Could it be, the media has become more partisan, more “interpretive” and less objective (i.e., CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO)? Do the media feed our nation’s divisiveness? Do they regale in the internecine warfare and bickering, while being above it all?

What’s next: Streaming video of the 21st Century version of a fatal Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton duel with tisk-tisk anti-Second Amendment commentary by Rachel Maddow?

If the media was a stock with a 40 percent sustained decline during four decades – essentially down to the right – a wise investor would have dumped these shares a long time ago. Putting this metaphor aside, does it sound like the American public with only 32 percent support (e.g., 14 percent among Republicans) has rolled their eyes in unison and washed their collective hands of the media?

Anderson Cooper’s disgusting metaphor about presidential defecation can be dismissed as an unprofessional verbal assault in the heat of battle. CNN’s and NBC’s 93 percent negative coverage of Trump and his administration points directly to the fact the newsies have reached a point they can no longer be fair and objective to the president.

And who are the ultimate losers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/anderson-cooper-apologizes-for-conjuring-image-of-trump-defecating-on-his-desk/?utm_term=.a458d852d72c

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/?mod=sm_tw_post

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

http://www.edelman.com/executive-summary/

 

 

 

 

“Good moments can be more important than good arguments.” – Former Presidential Campaign Manager Karl Rove

“Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” – Former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen to former Senator Dan Quayle

“There you go again.” – Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter

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)

President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, shake hands Tuesday night, October 28, 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio … (AP Photo/stf)

It was Reagan who walked over to shake Carter’s hand after their sole debate, not the other way around. Courtesy matters.

What will be THE moment that transforms Monday’s watershed presidential debate — maybe 100 million viewers — between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and business mogul Donald Trump?

What will be the indelible image (i.e., George H.W. Bush looking at his watch; Al Gore moving aggressively toward George W. Bush; aftershave dripping off the face of a haggard Richard Nixon; Mitt Romney’s ‘Big Bird’ remark), which will instantly go viral on literally millions of mobile devices and other second screens?

Remember when mom repeatedly and maddenly told you: “It’s not what you say, but how you say it”?

Temperament and persona matters in a presidential debate, not the ability to recite wonkish policy and stats.

The author of Almost DailyBrett was privileged to attend one debate, the second encounter between then Vice President George W. Bush and former Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. The debate will be forever remembered for Bernard Shaw’s (CNN) opening question to Dukakis and the governor’s response:

Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

DUKAKIS: “No, I don’t, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent …”dukakisdebate

It was not your command of criminal justice issues, governor … the question pertained to your wife being brutally raped and murdered. Shaw’s question was woefully unfair. Where was your revulsion? Didn’t you have any concern for the horrific image of Kitty being raped and murdered?

Instead, “I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent …” Were you a robot that night, governor? Where was the pathos?

Divorce Court?

The nationwide and swing-state polls are only snapshots in time at this particular moment. They will change after Monday.

Hillary has a lead in the horse race and most importantly in the Electoral College. The race is her’s to lose and she is doing her best to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

When it comes to boring wonkish detail (prose), no one can beat her. Monday’s debate is not a spelling bee. Will Hillary pile on Trump and his “basket of deplorables”? Will she offer more status quo or a vision of the future?

Conversely, which Donald Trump is going to show up? There are three debates, each lasting 90-minutes. Can Trump exhibit presidential discipline for four-and-one-half hours? Almost DailyBrett is taking the ‘under.’

The elite media of course will collectively declare a winner, most likely even as the debate is taking place, forcing one side to face the difficult chore of defending their champion in the post-debate Hofstra University spin room. Will the media winner/loser declaration drive follow-up polling, thus elevating the stature of the elites in communications? Bet on it.

But what if the event is judged as a tie? Doesn’t a tie go to the runner?

The 2016 election is a contest for an open-seat as Barack Obama is completing his second term. Who is the challenger (e.g., “the runner”)? One could argue that Trump holds that role, considering Hillary’s quarter-decade of more in politics (i.e., First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State).

Is a tie, a tie? No. It would be a win for Trump as the challenger always has the advantage.

Hillary will naturally swing for the fences, trying to expose The Donald’s lack of gravitas and more importantly trying to get under his legendary thin skin. Will The Donald take the bait? Your author is taking the “over.”

So … what are the best strategies for both candidates? Be offensive without being offensive. As Rove has suggested talk to moderator Lester Holt and therefore the nation, and not to be other candidate.

No one wants to watch a rerun of “Divorce Court.” And we don’t wonkish prose. What we need and what makes better theatre and “good moments” is passionate poetry, pointing to a brighter future or that Shining City on the Hill.

Will the debate degenerate into a bitter “he said, she said” series of exchanges? Quite possibly.

The goal is to win, but also to keep faith with mumsy’s “… It’s how you say it.”

PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

Maybe the Donald should remember he invited the Clintons to his third wedding in 2005, and Hillary should reflect she was sitting in the first row. There may be more poetry in being the first to walk over to shake the other candidate’s hand.

Maybe a single act of kindness will be is remembered from Monday’s debate?

Don’t count on it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-presidential-debates-matter-1474498044

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/business/presidential-debate-moderators-lester-holt-chris-wallace.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/21/carlos-curbelo/clintons-really-did-attend-donald-trumps-2005-wedd/

 

 

 

 

Some contend that you can’t quantify, “free media.”

Oh, really?

How about $2 billion in estimated free media for one, Donald Trump?trumpratings

To be more accurate let’s be sure to call publicity, public relations and dealing with the media for what it really is: Earned Media. There is absolutely nothing “free” about facing the music posed by the Fourth Estate.

And when it comes to wall-the-wall conventional-and-digital media coverage, no one rivals Donald Trump. The media just can’t get enough of the developer-reality TV personality-turned presidential candidate. They may instinctively not like him, but who cares for now; he’s good for ratings.

When a Republican presidential debate (e.g., sometimes a sophomoric verbal food fight) comes to an end, the host network each-and-every time interviews Trump first before turning to any other contender.

Is all the fawning attention on The Donald emanating exclusively from Fox News? Consider the ongoing feud between Trump and network boss Roger Ailes and the answer is an obvious, “no.” The GOP populist (oxymoron?) is also in demand on CNN and (gasp…), MSNBC.

Trump’s two remaining challengers for the Republican nomination have not even come close when it comes to earned media. According to mediaQuant and its analysis of media exposure equated to advertising dollars and media outlet influence and reach, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has drawn $313 million and Ohio Governor John Kasich has secured only $38 million.

Guess who is winning the Republican nomination fight?trumpmedia

On the other side of the great political divide, Senator Bernie Sanders has repeatedly complained about the influence of money in political campaigns and has called for the overturning of the 2010 U.S, Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.

In all due respect to the honorable senator, the possible future government imposition of advertising spending limitations (e.g., paid media) for political action committees (PAC), corporations and unions would have zero impact on earned media … and for that matter owned media (i.e., websites, social media, blogs, events, brochures …).

What’s ironic is Trump is certainly the wealthiest candidate to ever contest for the presidency (e.g., somewhere between $4 billion and $10 billion in personal net worth), and yet he doesn’t rely on advertising (only $10 million) or extensive PAC contributions. Why would he have to, if the media will provide gobs of free access to its airwaves, digital content and newsprint?

How about $400 million worth of media time in the last month alone?

Schadenfreude Journalism

“They [the Marines] break you down in order to build you back up.” – Oft-heard description of the tender-loving care exhibited by the U.S. Marine Corps

“The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” — Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne

The danger that comes from overreliance on earned media can be exhibited by the U.S.M.C.’s Camp Pendleton boot camp in California, but in reverse.

Instead of breaking you down in order to build you back up, the media loves to build you up only to gleefully bring you crashing down into a pile of personal wreckage. Almost DailyBrett has been known to refer to this practice as either ‘Vulture Journalism’ or ‘Schadenfreude Journalism.’vulture

The media is just so darn happy that you are so sad.

Remember President Gary Hart, President Newt Gingrich or President John Edwards?

What movie won this year’s Academy Award for best picture? Spotlight, the story of how the special investigative unit of the Boston Globe exposed the systemic neglect of Cardinal Bernard Law, allowing literally hundreds of pedophile priests to prey upon literally thousands of young boys and girls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger target than the Catholic Church. Guess the comb-over scalp of Donald Trump will serve these purposes for now.

The Big-Three networks and the 24-7-365 cable news types are basking in the advertising dollars that come from Trump-driven higher ratings, but do the media elites and Washington political class really want Republican Trump to be sitting in the Oval Office? The answer is obvious.

Let’s ask here and now, has there ever been a bigger political target for a salivating carnivorous media in the post-Richard-Nixon era than one Donald Trump?

Those who live by earned media die by earned media.

Most reporters, editors and correspondents literally take a vow of poverty in order to enter the brutal and volatile profession of journalism. They can only imagine a Donald Trump lifestyle, but will never have the personal resources to even come close. Will they care about a Comb Over smack down?

They will relish in afflicting his personal comfort, and most of all denying him the White House.trumpratings1

Republicans often complain about a double standard, not only having to contest the Democrats but the media as well. Take this equation and multiply it by 10 … or how about 100?

When the dust settles in early November, there is little doubt the undisputed earned media champion will be Donald Trump.

And also when in the dust settles in early November, will the earned media whipping boy also be Donald Trump? Don’t bet against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/15/the-medias-2b-gift-to-trump/

http://time.com/money/4260127/trump-free-media-coverage-2-billion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

http://breakingmuscle.com/sports-psychology/what-the-marines-know-about-discipline-that-will-make-you-a-better-athlete

http://breakingmuscle.com/sports-psychology/what-the-marines-know-about-discipline-that-will-make-you-a-better-athlete

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/persona-matters/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/megyn-kelly-and-the-beast/

http://www.poynter.org/2014/today-in-media-history-mr-dooley-the-job-of-the-newspaper-is-to-comfort-the-afflicted-and-afflict-the-comfortable/273081/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/movies/review-in-spotlight-the-boston-globe-digs-up-the-catholic-churchs-dirt.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/01/06/church-allowed-abuse-priest-for-years/cSHfGkTIrAT25qKGvBuDNM/story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“You say you want a revolution; Well, you know, We all want to change the world; You tell me that it’s evolution; Well, you know, We all want to change the world.” – The Beatles, Revolution

Sometimes it’s hard to provide PR advice to an accomplished hombre, who is 74-years young.

What do they say about: “Teaching an old dog new tricks”?Bernierevolution

Now before you accuse Almost DailyBrett of making aspersions about seasoned citizens, please weigh the fact that your author is on the cusp of this rarefied age group.

This particular epistle pertains to Senator Bernie Sanders (S-Vermont) not once — but actually twice — invoking a call for “revolution” during the course of his losing debate performance against Hillary Clinton, October 13.

And then this past weekend, Sanders doubled down on his summons for a citizen uprising with an airplane pulling the following streamer: “REVOLUTION STARTS NOW! FEEL THE BERN!”

The Saturday event was the annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner in first-in-the-nation caucus state, Iowa, to be held next February. Hillary Clinton brought along her beau, Bill, and conceivably he brought along Katy Perry.clintonsperry

In contrast, Bernie invoked visions of a Great October Socialist Revolution. Wonder what he will do for kicks on November 7? Are TJ and Old Hickory turning over in their respective graves?

Why even assess Bernie’s call for “revolution,” when conventional media wisdom points to Hillary winning the nomination in a cakewalk? Maybe, there’s something out there, which cannot be taken for granted, no matter how many times the word “inevitable” is employed. And that is the fact that the folks in retail states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are notoriously fickle, similar to herding cats.

What will actually happen in February, four months from now (a political lifetime), is not preordained. Let’s ask: Why is Bernie still conjuring up visions of Great Leaps Forward, little red books, collective farms, re-education camps and all-expense-paid, one-way trips to Siberia?

Honeymoon in the Rodina

Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case; Honey disconnect the phone; I’m back in the U.S.S.R. You don’t know how lucky you are boy,” – The Beatles, Back in the USSRcoopersanders

CNN’s anointed Wunderkind Anderson Cooper rubbed a few liberal … err progressive raw nerves with Bernie’s disciples when he asked during the debate whether Americans would actually elect a president, who honeymooned in the bucolic Soviet Union in 1988.

In response, the Daily Kos harkened back to the McCarthy-era (not Eugene) memory lane accusing the Clinton News Network anchor of “red baiting” Bernie about how he took his then-new bride, Jane, on a honeymoon beside the banks of the Kotorosi in Yaroslavl.

How romantic: hearing the balalaikas ringing out; keeping your comrade warm.

Cooper’s question envisioned a potential Republican attack ad against Sanders, which could “write itself,” conjuring up his support for the Sandinistas, opposition to capitalism and the couple’s romantic honeymoon behind the Iron Curtain.yaroslavl

Sanders didn’t even blink, pivoting to his tried-and-true attack on the system being “corrupt” and “rigged” against the middle class. Later he boldly called for revolution.

From a public relations standpoint does “revolution” work in Iowa and New Hampshire, let alone South Carolina and Nevada? Is Sanders a P.T. Barnum press agentry circus act with an aerial streamer buzzing overhead? Could he actually win the Democratic nomination and if he did, how could he put together a coalition that leads to 270+ electoral votes?

Asking Sanders to comb his hair (as opposed to the Donald Trump comb-over) is probably not in the cards. How about toning down the rhetoric, but not enough to aggravate his always excitable followers? What did Nixon say about running to the poles in the primaries and to the center in the general election? Sanders is taking the former to the extreme.

This exercise brings us to the heart of the question: Can one actually provide public relations, branding and reputation management to larger-than-life personalities including Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Bernie Sanders?

Trump doesn’t seem to care what you think or say about him, just as long as you are thinking and talking about him 24/7/365. Be sure to spell the name right.

Ketchum Public Relations shamelessly received at least $55 million in fees from Putin’s Russia even as the dictator occupies the Crimea, his compatriots shoot down jet liners and props up an evil despot in Syria. Ketchum is way past the point of worrying about selling its collective soul (not referencing the band). That relationship was terminated by Russia this past March.

Back to Bernie: Is there a pragmatic bone in Sanders’ body? Does he really think that Revolutionary Democratic Socialism will sell in Peoria? His message may have a chance in Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Portland, but alas for Sanders there aren’t enough of these collectivist societies to propel the senator to the White House.

Pass the borscht.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-sanders-rally-their-iowa-supporters/2015/10/24/ce6b1216-79d3-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-sanders-rally-their-iowa-supporters/2015/10/24/ce6b1216-79d3-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3l_2m8l8Aw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

http://russiatrek.org/yaroslavl-city

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/the-politics-of-inevitability/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/the-silly-season/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russia-doesnt-give-a-particle-about-public-relations/

 

 

 

 

olbermann

Cats only have nine lives.

Keith Olbermann has used up at least seven of his lives on television, and here comes number eight.

After two decades-plus of suspensions, firings, tantrums and incendiary comments, Olbermann is now preparing for at least his eighth gig on national TV when he returns to ESPN2 to host “Olbermann” starting on August 26.

I can hardly wait.

If Las Vegas assigns an over/under wager for Olbermann making it one year at the Mother Ship, I will gladly take the “under.”

What is it with network and cable television in which they are bound-and-determined to recycle “personalities” that just simply won’t go away?

Apparently, there is some truth about the longevity legend of cockroaches.

The species has lasted 300-million years. They reportedly made it through Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are survivors, reportedly because of their simple bodies and slower cell cycles.

You don’t want them around, but there they are. If you see one, you know instinctively there must be others. They spread diseases. They are nasty.

The same applies to commentators, particularly on television, who endure, survive, persevere and just plain refuse to be sent out to pasture for the benefit of man and womankind.

Geraldo Rivera will always be the guy who opened up Al Capone’s safe on nationwide television and found…a few empty bottles. And let’s not forget the 1980s era chair-swinging fights when Geraldo invited white supremacists to serve as his guests. He defined “trash” TV with quality programming about “Men in Lace Panties and the Women Who Love Them.”

He will be the guy who exposed the whereabouts of an US military unit in Iraq, violating the rules of an embedded “journalist.”

And yet, Roger Ailes hired him at Fox News. He is still there with the same 1970s-era moustache.

Just as the entire nation was simultaneously chanting “Shut Up Howard” to Howard Cosell on ABC’s Monday Night Football, many are switching the channel when Geraldo comes on the screen.

Lou Dobbs is another one whose time came and went…and yet he has returned to the scene.

His legendary arrogance, boorishness and nightly attacks on undocumented aliens and giving too much airtime and credibility to the “Birther” conspiracy crowd was just too much for CNN. How long did it take the network to show him the door? Too long.

And yet, he is a regular on Fox Business. As a former stock broker he knows the market and maybe that’s where he should concentrate his attention. A little contrition and modesty would not be a bad idea.

Fox News claims to be fair and balanced.

It would not make sense for the cable market leader to hire Olbermann because he is neither fair nor balanced.

Rupert Murdoch terminated Olbermann stating, “I fired him…He’s crazy.”

Is he still crazy after all these years?

If you are scoring at home, Olbermann has been suspended twice (ESPN, 1997; and MSNBC, 2010). He was fired twice (Fox Sports in 2001 and Current TV in 2012).

He wore an armband and gave the Nazi salute wearing a Bill O’Reilly mask at the 2006 Television Critics Association meeting, earning him a rebuke from the Anti-Defamation-League.

He referred to Bristol, Connecticut, the home of ESPN, as a “God forsaken place.”

And now ESPN, based in that same God forsaken place, is rehiring Olbermann? Go figure.

The litany of incidents partially listed above would make even Charlie Sheen blush.

Can public relations counsel influence Keith Olbermann?

Could effective PR help Lindsay Lohan?

There comes a time when the die is cast. Keith Olbermann can’t control Keith Olbermann. What makes anyone think that anyone else can control Keith Olbermann?

Am I rooting against Keith Olbermann? No. Would I hire Keith Olbermann? Hell, no. Will I be surprised to learn about the next in a long line of Olbermann suspensions, firings and tantrums? Of course not.

I just hope that he gets the professional help he so desperately needs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/07/17/espn-keith-olbermann-msnbc-sportscenter-/2524945/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/official-olbermann-returns-espn-late-night-talk-article-1.1401205

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/cockroaches-survive-nuclear-explosion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_Rivera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs

“…They (traditional networks, CNN, NYT etc.) would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor (Romney). They’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”

I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that (allegations of marital infidelity).”  – Newt Gingrich in his heated exchange with CNN Moderator John King, Jan. 19, 2012.

newt

Even though Newt Gingrich has a propensity for being a loose cannon, I know that his opening response in Thursday night’s debate resonated with conservatives across the fruited plain. He may even win the South Carolina Republican presidential primary tonight at least in part as a result of his exchange with the CNN moderator.

And it reminded me of the double-standard in American politics.

If you a press secretary for a Democrat governor, senator or House member, you wake up each morning knowing that you have one unchanging and unyielding political enemy, the Republicans.

If you are a press secretary for a Republican governor, senator or House member, you wake up each morning knowing that you have two unchanging and unyielding political enemies, the Democrats and the news media.

In my case, I served as the press director of the Deukmejian Campaign Committee in 1982; the assistant press secretary to former California Governor George Deukmejian from 1983-85; the deputy press secretary from 1985-87; and the governor’s press secretary from 1987-89. I knew the double standard back then as a press secretary to a Republican chief executive, and I know it now…Your job as a political spokesperson and message crafter is doubly tough if you work on the GOP side of the aisle.

There are current and former members of the Fourth Estate upon reading these words, who will vehemently disagree with me and try to dismiss my contention as partisan sour grapes. Then there were the people cheering Newt and nodding their heads affirmatively in Charleston, S.C. on Thursday night.

The following night, Bill O’Reilly in his “Talking Points” said that American media is “invested” in liberal politics, pointing to a 2008 Pew Research study that revealed that Americans believe the media supported Barack Obama over John McCain by a 70 percent to 9 percent margin. Surveys of reporters themselves revealed only 8 percent identify themselves as conservative (surprised it was that high).

Some may immediately dismiss this analysis because it emanates from Fox News, which is just the point. Where are conservatives going to get a fair and balanced hearing? MSNBC? The same network that asked Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow to provide their “impartial” commentary of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary? Was Mikhail Gorbachev booked that night? Maybe, we could turn to NBC News where Brian Williams could ask Chelsea Clinton for her opinion? Is it too late for Dan Rather to make a comeback? I could go on, but I believe you have the point.

rathergate

A very sore subject between Governor Deukmejian’s office and the LA Times, the largest newspaper in California, concerned the impartiality of the newspaper’s poll conducted by Irwin A. “Bud” Lewis.

There was no secret that the Times wanted former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley elected governor in 1982 and 1986. And for some inexplicable reason the Bud Lewis poll would reliably and consistently reveal that Bradley was faring better against Deukmejian than the other public opinion polls. Was the LA Times poll meant to reflect public opinion or to actually drive public opinion, and help Bradley raise needed campaign cash?

Sorry even a generation later, even though I offer no smoking gun, nobody can convince me that the LA Times was not engaging in Enron-style cooking of the numbers to benefit the anointed one. By the way, we won the closest gubernatorial election in 1982, and achieved the biggest landslide in California’s political history, beating Bradley by a 61-37 percent margin in 1986.

Today, when I see polls being conducted for the New York Times-CBS News or ABC News-Washington Post, I immediately think of the official sponsor and not the results. If these polls can be slanted just a sliver, just a smidge to give more hope, more comfort and build morale for those that mirror their editorial policies, well I guess that is the way it is. Isn’t the role of the media to comfort the afflicted (the liberals) and afflict the comfortable (the conservatives)?

Conservative cries about the double standard are not new and neither are the elitist media responses. The ivory-tower crowd in New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles will dismiss these assertions by pointing back to Spiro Agnew’s statement (written by speech writer and later NY Times op-ed writer William Safire) about the “Nattering nabobs of negativism.” The strategy then and the strategy now is to discredit the message, regardless of its credibility, by tying it to one of the most disdained figures in American history.

For conservatives, they still remember Dan Rather’s live cat fight with then Vice President George H.W. Bush. They remember “Rathergate” and the totally discredited 60 Minutes attack on President George W. Bush’s National Guard service. And now they have John King using the opening question to shame Newt Gingrich. Come on John, couldn’t you have waited until the middle of the debate before springing the infidelity question?

My words will never convince those who refuse to be convinced, but then I weigh the impressive ratings success of Fox News. Is it because the network is indeed “fair and balanced?” Or is it because conservatives have long last found a place where their views and values have at least a snowball’s chance of being fairly presented. Sorry Keith Olbermann, you will never be considered to be fair and balanced…and in fact, I don’t think the word “balanced” will ever apply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9026857/US-election-2012-Newt-Gingrichs-fiery-exchange-with-CNNs-John-King-transcript-in-full.html

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/la-histpoll,0,5275501.htmlstory

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Nabobs_natter_about_the_passing_of_William_Safire_1929-2009.html

Johannes Gutenberg got into a fight with Gordon Moore … and lost.

Considering that the lifetimes of these two innovators, visionaries, inventors are separated by more than five centuries, Gutenberg’s loss is obviously figurative — but a defeat nonetheless.

gutenberg

As anyone even remotely familiar with the history of Journalism knows, Gutenberg is regarded as the first European to use moveable type in 1439 and is credited with the invention of the printing press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

Conversely, Moore, one of the founders of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), is universally hailed in the technology world for “Moore’s Law.” In its simplest form, Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors that can be placed a piece of silicon real estate doubles every 18 months. This “law” has been 100 percent accurate since its inception in 1965 and in some respects has been even conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore

Why are these two luminaries from completely different backgrounds and eras joined at the hip when it comes to a discussion of Journalism? The answer is that Gutenberg represents Journalism’s past and Moore, the industry’s future.

Gutenberg’s printing press led to dawn of modern Journalism and even the anachronistic labeling of the profession, known simply (and most likely, always) as “The Press.” Over time, printing presses enveloped the world, morning and evening papers were produced, delivered to doorsteps by an army of news carriers in dilapidated cars, Sting Ray bicycles or sold at downtown newsstands.

This high-cost (in many cases monopolistic) business model worked for decades and led to the development of some of the most famous mastheads on the planet. Even the Gray Lady each day offers, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

What happens when the day inevitably arrives that all the news (or at least the lion’s share) is no longer printed? That’s where Moore’s Law enters the equation.

moore

Moore’s Law essentially says that complexity and functionality increases every year-and-one-half. The tyranny and the serendipity of his theory is that each succeeding generation of devices — let alone breakthrough applications — are better, faster, smaller and consume less power.

As a result, the mainframe computer spelled the end to the IBM Selectric with its novel correcting tape. Mini-computers retired the mainframe. PCs and servers vanquished mini-computers. And the PCs started talking to each via millions of miles of fibre-optic networks or even wirelessly. And now Internet content (e.g. news, information, voice, data, video) is being delivered to tablets, cell phones and digital readers. What is the next Killer App? It’s out there.

Clay Shirky, 46, who teaches New Media at NYU, in his Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable takes issue with the kickers and screamers, trying desperately to cling onto a traditional newspaper business model that no-longer works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky

“Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know, ‘If the old model is broken, what will work its place?’ To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the Internet just broke.”

Essentially Shirky is saying that those who are refusing to confront the digital facts of life are, “demanding to be lied to. There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.”

If you apply Shirky’s commentary to those still clinging to the tried-and-true print journalism business model, you would say they are have already passed denial and are situated somewhere between anger and bargaining with depression and acceptance still to come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross

Some of the bargainers will even point to Rupert Murdoch’s $5 billion purchase of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones news service in 2007 as an example that validates that the old business model lives on. Looking more closely, even this acquisition confirms that digital ones and zeroes are changing Journalism forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

murdoch

Murdoch bought the globe’s largest newspaper, the industry’s most valued brand and with it, a record 1-million-plus paid Internet subscribers. He also acquired the publication most closely connected with the 95 million Americans constituting the “Investor Class” (and millions more international investors). The impressive growth in day traders and retail investors largely resulted from the invention of the Internet, the availability of online digital investing tools and the dot.com euphoria. Murdoch bought a brand. He bought an Internet savvy audience. And he tapped into the Investor class. He did not buy a printing press and an antiquated business model.

“Society doesn’t need newspapers,” Shirky concluded. “What we need is Journalism…When we shift our attention from ‘save newspapers’ to ‘save society,’ the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.” And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.”

So what works today? If you look at Journalism through a supply-and-demand prism, you can safely conclude that the demand for fair, complete and objective information is there and quite possibly has never been greater. The question comes down on one of supply; exactly how will this supply be provided to the public?

One answer comes in the form of 24-7-365 news networks, such as CNN, Fox News, BBC and others that can instantaneously cover any flash point in the world.  There is no such thing as the first edition “going to bed at 11 pm.” Another related response comes in the form of specialized around-the-clock broadcast networks, such as CNBC for global financial news, ESPN for sports, E for the Entertainment business, VH1 for music and the list is almost endless.

Some contended that the golden age of radio ended with the proliferation of television in the 1950s and 1960s. Whatever happened to these social critics? Radio is enjoying a renaissance, particularly when you consider that sociological impact of longer commute patterns and the almost kinship between motorists/public transportation riders and their “drive-time” companions.

The Internet has served as the backdrop for a growing array of bloggers, some of them written by very serious journalists weighing-in conclusively on politics, government, business, sports, entertainment and the environment. Their names are famous within their appointed disciplines such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, RedState, The TMZ, Gizmodo, RealClearPolitics, TechCrunch and the Silicon Valley Watcher.

Social media is still in its infancy as LinkedIn debuted in 2003, Facebook, 2004 and Twitter, 2006. Imitators or pioneers with brand new approaches and business plans will inevitably follow. The net result is that the average citizen has an unprecedented ability to self publish. If you don’t believe this contention, then just ask Dan Rather who “retired” as a result of bloggers and the 2004 Rathergate controversy.

The future of Journalism does not just rely on machines that are either plugged into a wall or are battery-powered handheld devices, albeit the trend toward receiving our content electronically – radio, television, PC, hand-held – grows with every passing day.

Satisfying the insatiable and growing public demand for news and information lies with professionals who in the words of another NYU Professor, Jay Rosen, have the authority to say, “I’m there, you’re not, let me tell you about it.”

The “I’m there” reporter can be stationed next to the flood-lit portico at the White House, against the backdrop of St. Basil’s Cathedral in Red Square, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, at centre court at Wimbledon or an average citizen holding a video camera as a BART officer is shooting Oscar Grant on New Year’s night at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, California.Train Station Shooting

As a result of the effects of Moore’s Law, and not Gutenberg’s printing press, we can all be there. Potentially we can all tell the story. Knowledge is power, and we need this power to go about our daily lives and to be better informed and more productive citizens.

Regardless of the business model, the principles outlined by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in “Elements of Journalism” still apply. The public needs and expects reports that are dependable, verifiable, measurable and transparent. “Journalism is story telling with a purpose.”

Whether that purposeful story is told via an outdated printing press or via social media is really irrelevant, except to those desperately clinging to the old way of doing business. What is more important is fulfilling the public’s need for accurate information, being there and transmitting the news…most likely by means of 21st Century innovation and a new business model.

The Rise of Malcontent CPOS

Just found out that I personify a new acronym.

Yep, I am a card-carrying member of the “CPOS” club or “cell-phone onlys” that is confounding political pollsters and most likely telemarketers as well.

On top of that, I am also a dedicated member of the-why-do-I-need-a-daily-newspaper-dropped-at-my-doorstep-by-some-sleep-deprived-dude-driving-around-burning-fossil-fuels-before-the-birds-wake-up-in-a-derelict-car club. The publishers of daily newspapers don’t want to hear this, but the Internet is just fine. Ditto for HDTV with Fox News, CNN, CNBC, ESPN, ESPN2, Comcast…I have more than my fair share of information, quite frankly more than my brain can accommodate in a give nanosecond.

The existence of CPOS was the subject of an Economist piece http://www.economist.com/node/17202427 that reported that cell-phone onlys were not adequately represented in surveys conducted by political pollsters, casting doubt on the validity of their results.

“The immediate problem is the rapid growth in the number of people who have only a mobile phone, and are thus excluded from surveys conducted by landline (how primitive),” The Economist reported. “About a quarter of Americans are now ‘cellphone onlys’ (CPOS) in the industry jargon and this poses both practical and statistical difficulties.”

Namely, we are less likely to answer our phones (yep, voice mail, caller ID and vibrating phones are good things), less likely to participate in surveys (check) and we often retain our telephone numbers when we move from state-to-state making it harder to know where we actually reside. And the problem that pollsters and telemarketers have with this scenario is exactly what?

Bringing a small grin to my face is the knowledge that automated services (“robocalls”) are prohibited from calling mobile phones by law, and so pollsters (and by extension telemarketers and non-profits) have to hire real people to call people with cell phones at an additional expense. Or pollsters could just not call CPOS, figure that these malcontents are 10 percent of the sample and “rinse” the results to compensate for our presence.

The Economist said that CPOS are “younger, less white, and poorer than the average American. They are also more likely to vote Democratic.” Gee, that really describes me to a tee.

Unmentioned by the Economist is that the recession has prompted literally millions of Americans to question some of their expenses. Why do we need a landline when we are already shelling out for a cell phone, and we may even have family members on our plan…resulting in additional lines? Personally, I am already paying for three cell phones. Why do I need a landline?

The same is true for a daily newspaper. That may sound contrary to the natural whims of a news junkie, who is competing for a master’s degree in Journalism. The bottom line is that I was waking up each morning, grabbing the paper, throwing it on the counter, heading to the computer, checking my e-mails, looking at the stock ticker, scanning the overnight box scores and heading off to work.

And when I came back in the evening? There was the newspaper, now a day old. And who was getting the most benefit? My alley cat, Percy. Guess, I don’t need to tell you how much he appreciated the classified section.

%d bloggers like this: