Tag Archive: Donald Trump


“First of all, a campaign is a marathon, you know that. I don’t think he (Biden) was up for a marathon. I think he would have been worn down already in the campaign by this time if he had to be out there everyday.

“Plus, let’s be honest: He’s a bit of a gaffe machine. He’d be saying all sorts of different things.” — Liberal Political Pundit Bill Maher

Can Joe Biden take “The 5th” the clear way to the presidency?

Does he benefit that his name is not Donald Trump?

Can he simply follow Napoleon’s axiom: “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself”?

This is the year in which Covid giveth and Covid taketh.

The infectious disease has greatly reduced Joe Biden contacts with the media and the voters. And with the reduction of these contacts, the potential for embarrassing gaffes goes down as well.

Almost DailyBrett has adhered to two political truisms during his career: The first is you can’t beat someone with no one.

The second is the race for the Presidency is a choice, not a referendum. It always has been, it always will be.

The two truisms are complementary. For example, the 1980 challenger (e.g., Ronald Reagan) stepped up on the debate stage and said, “There you go again” to unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter.

After the debate, David Broder of the Washington Post wrote: Carter had “accomplished almost every objective except the most important one: The destruction of Reagan’s credibility as a President.”

Some chief executives adopted Rose Garden strategies with no debates, attempting to ignore the challenger and run out the clock. Richard Nixon won the 1972  battle against George McGovern, but ultimately lost the war with Watergate two years later.

What happens when the challenger adopts a Del-a-Where Bunker Strategy (DBS)? Can Joe Biden go underground for four months, leaving all the warm-and-fuzzy partisan activist media to unleash their 24-7-365 fury on Donald Trump?

The basement strategy may sound tempting to Biden’s always nervous handlers, but he still has to emerge from his subterranean refuge to announce his choice for a vice president, a bleeding heartbeat away from the presidency. He also must deliver his Democratic Convention acceptance speech behind the safety of the warm-and-fuzzy teleprompter.

And he has to debate Donald Trump at least three times.

The first two can be carefully calibrated and controlled. The debates bring the greatest risk, turning a preferred referendum into a contentious choice with equal amounts of public attention on both the incumbent and the challenger.

Playing The Expectations Game

 “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” — White dude Biden to black radio show host Charlamagne Tha God

“To have that mindset, you must have the attitude that we, Black Americans, we own you. We can take you for granted. … That to me shows you that Black Americans are an appendage of a party. That’s the biggest turnoff I’ve heard from a politician in a long time.” — Black Entertainment Television (BET) Founder Robert Johnson

As the debates approach and expectations need to be managed the question becomes: How far can Democratic operatives talk down Joe Biden’s debating prospects without denigrating the former vice president?

And … How far can Democratic operatives talk up Donald Trump’s extensive stage presence and television experience (e.g., “The Apprentice”) without praising the president?

Do they acknowledge as Bill Maher said that Joe Biden is “a bit of a gaffe machine”? Okay, maybe more than “a bit.”

Even though Biden is sitting on a double-digit lead nationally and mostly within-the-margin of error (MOE) edges in battleground states (i.e., Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania), his support is predicated more on not being Donald Trump than on being Joe Biden.

Trump supporters by a 2/1 margin are more enthusiastic about the president. Biden backers are the mirror opposite; they are not enthusiastic about their guy, but detest and loathe (being kind here) Trump.

And there lies the temptation for the Biden team to glide toward the presidency, limiting appearance and interviews.

You can’t utter a gaffe if you don’t say anything.

Didn’t President Hillary Clinton adopt a similar strategy?

Who did she run against?

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/504617-bet-founder-bidens-you-aint-black-remark-biggest-turnoff-from-a-politician-in

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-says-biden-sidelined-by-coronavirus-rules-helped-shut-down-gaffe-machine

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-widens-lead-over-trump-republicans-enthusiastic-but-fear-motivates-dems

Silence is deafening. “Activists” are winning. Crime is paying.

And the “Pioneer Mother” became collateral damage in America’s Cultural Revolution.

She was one of the targets of America’s “Cancel Culture.” Today, she is out of sight in “safe storage.”

Will she ever see the light of day again, anywhere on the University of Oregon campus?

The six-foot tall bronze statue by Alexander Phimister Proctor was a 1932 gift to the university. She peacefully sat for almost eight decades in one of the most tranquil and beautiful parts of the UO campus.

That was the case until Saturday night, June 13.

That’s when mob rulers with sledge hammers arrived. The Pioneer Mother and her bronze colleague, the Pioneer, were toppled to the ground in wanton acts of vandalism as security slept and the campus administration cowered.

Now that violent protesters have leveled both statues, the university administration is faced with a decision: Should the statues be eventually restored on campus while a legitimate debate about their appropriateness is conducted or should the statues be permanently closed and moved away forever?

And who is the winner? What precedent is being established? What’s next for the destructive power of the sledge hammer?

We all know that history is the loser. Oregon came into the union on Feb. 14, 1859 as a free state. Oregon did not participate in slavery. There are no Confederate statues to be found in Oregon.

Almost DailyBrett is taking the “over” on the over/under scale as to whether the administration will simply express sympathy to the sentiments of the mob. They will rationalize the action was not misogynist because the Pioneer bit the dust as well.

Still your author must ask: ‘What did the Pioneer Mother do to anyone?’ 

Did she trample on Native Americans? Did she utter racist statements? Did she fly the Stars and Bars? Did she support Donald Trump?

As a University of Oregon alum (M.A. in 2012), a football season ticket holder, a Duck Athletic Fund member for three decades, and a resident of Eugene, your author is shocked — but not surprised — by the lack of local outcry by our politically sensitive community.

A few have contended the Pioneer Mother and the Pioneer collectively did not tell the agonizing story of the Native Americans at the time of the settlers. Fair enough. Isn’t the answer a respectful statue or memorial that salutes the contributions and tribulations of the first Oregonians?

Wouldn’t a compromise include representations of both the pioneers and the Native Americans? Isn’t dragging off the-never-to-be-seen-again Pioneer Mother and the Pioneer into “safe storage” a surrender to those who have no interest in history and no sense of decency?

For University of Oregon Michael H. Schill and his staff, they live and administer in perpetual quivering fear of the university’s faculty and students, both returning in the fall.

Which is a more difficult sell: Explaining why the Pioneer Mother and the Pioneer were restored while a debate ensues? Or simply bidding adieu to the Pioneer Mother and the Pioneer?

Oh … and let’s not forget to ask: Will the perpetrators ever be brought to justice?

At least we don’t have to argue about the “Civil War” anymore.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/15/statues-knocked-down-university-oregon

https://www.registerguard.com/news/20200613/activists-topple-pioneer-statues-on-university-of-oregon-campus

https://www.registerguard.com/news/20200615/schill-pioneer-statues-wonrsquot-return-to-previous-pedestals-on-university-of-oregon-campus

Almost DailyBrett must ask: Can public trust in the Journalism “profession” plummet any further?

Have the inmates finally taken over the elite asylums?

Is it finally time — actually past time — for professional accreditation of journalists, and to require compliance with a defined set of media standards for fairness, balance and objectivity?

Physicians must secure their doctorates in medicine, plus four years of residency. Lawyers are confronted with the Bar Exam upon the completion of law school. Accounting majors are faced with the CPA exam. Virtually anyone who wants to succeed in business needs to earn an MBA, preferably from a top school (i.e., USC, Oregon, Harvard, Wharton … ).

What then are present-day standards and best practices for objectivity, accuracy and fairness for future Journalists?

Some will point to a curricula of university-taught devotion to activism, and intolerance to any-and-all dissenting views? That’s what most in university ivory tower J-schools may think, but they are wrong. They have been off-base for decades.

What about credentials? Ever wonder why reporters, editors, correspondents are less respected more than ever by the American public? To suggest that journalists rank in the same league with used-car salesmen actually besmirches the good name of … used car salesmen.

The obvious answer lies with the question of professionalism or more to the point, the glaring lack of media professionalism. Who needs ethos or logos, when your reporting is your personal pathos? You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.

The question of media accreditation — not talking about the mere issuance of credentials — is a perennial topic. Even mentioning the subject is the equivalent of a crucifix to a vampire for kicking-and-screaming reporters, editors, anchors and correspondents.

How much lower can public opinion of Journalism plummet when it comes to trust … or more to the point … lack of trust in the media? The profession’s approval rating is lower than … (gasp) the reviled, Donald Trump.

The Devil In The Details

Some may blame all of the media’s plunging public esteem all on Trump, the one-and-the-same who labeled journalists as “Enemies of the People.”

Some may say, he went too far with his comments and instinctively worry about chilling effects on the First Amendment. Trump can read public opinion surveys as well as anyone else and can easily conclude … the public is clearly dissatisfied with the media. They are an easy target, and attacking them obviously fires up his base of Independents and Republicans.

Heck, only one-third of Democrats trust most of the digital and/or conventional content they see from the media according to a Knight Foundation survey.  Independents, 13 percent. Republicans? Only three percent.

Maybe more telling is that one-quarter of all independents do not trust any of the content emanating from today’s media, actually higher than the 21 percent of Republicans who have zero trust in media reports.

The media is failing big time when it comes to trust. The numbers tell an undeniable quantitative story.

Truth be known, the slide in public esteem and trust began shortly after the glorified days of Woodward & Bernstein in the mid-1970s, and accelerated since then the race to the bottom. The arrival of digital media and the corresponding decline of print journalism only changed the business models, but not the down-to-the-right trajectory for the “profession.”

How does Journalism restore public trust in the news and information it provides?

Isn’t the Fourth Estate supposed to be the watchdogs of our Democracy? Who watches the watchdogs?

If there are going to be media accreditation, similar to public relations practitioners by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), who can objectively — there goes that word again — assume this task?

If the proverbial media fox is guarding the Journalism hen house — sets the standards for accreditation and best practices — how can the public trust the results let alone believe again in those who are supposed to provide with fair-and-balanced news and information?

The devil is in the details, but Almost DailyBrett believes that independent members need to be part of the process, similar to Boards of Directors for publicly traded companies.

There are some in the “profession” who will say the First Amendment “as we know it” will be threatened, if they are compelled to be tolerant, fair, balanced and objective to all points of view, not just the ones that advocate for redistribution Socialist Justice.

Almost DailyBrett is confident the First Amendment will live on, if journalists are accredited and conform to best practices of fairness, balance and objectivity.

The mission should be restoration of public trust in the media — and with it — the resurrection of the troubled profession.

There is a way. The question remains: Is there a ‘will.’

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/should-reporters-register-as-lobbyists/

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trust-in-media-down.php

Indicators of news media trust

“This is someone (President of the United States) whose grasp of science is at the third-grade level.” – New York Times science and health “beat” reporter Donald McNeil, Jr. during his May 12 CNN interview. He also called on the CDC’s Dr. Robert Redfield to resign.

“Donald McNeil went too far in expressing his personal views . His editors have discussed the issue with him to reiterate that his job is to report the facts and to not offer his own opinions.” — New York Times management rebuking McNeil

Reporters should not be part of the story, let alone be the story.

The acceleration of the decline in public esteem in elite media is not solely attributable to the Fourth Estate’s collective hatred of the president, and ensuing pack mentality that ensures that any reporter, correspondent, anchor can never be seen as being even a tiny bit sympathetic to Donald Trump.

It was the same pack mentality that unofficially declared any positive discussion of Trump’s 2016 electoral chances (exception: FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten) was strictly verboten in print, digital format and broadcast. In effect, the media became a major part of the story and may have unintentionally suppressed Hillary Clinton’s GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, thus aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s narrow upset victory.

Almost DailyBrett noticed a disturbing trend years ago, even before Trump’s Apprentice days: Reporters interviewing reporters.

Wait. Aren’t reporters supposed to be covering news makers, the important achievers in our society? As a member of the great unwashed, your author wants to hear from Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx when it comes to virology, not Donald McNeil, Jr., who graduated summa cum laude from Cal Berkeley with an undergraduate degree in …  rhetoric.

And yet instead of a credentialed medical expert, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was interviewing McNeil about the Covid-19 outbreak and America’s response.

On what basis of fact does McNeil conclude that President Trump’s grasp of science is at the “third grade level,” “sycophant” Vice President Mike Pence should not be serving as the chair of the Corona Virus Task Force, and CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield (MD, Georgetown University, 1977) should resign.

Should we all be wearing masks even outdoors, Dr. McNeil?

It’s a rare day when Almost DailyBrett totally agrees with the editors at the New York Times, but McNeil expressed his obviously biased political views and did not even attempt for even a nanosecond to report any facts. The rebuke from the New York Times was essentially a slap on the wrist.

Your author believes that if McNeil was to appear on one of the many ubiquitous reporters interviewing reporters shows, he should stick to his coverage based upon facts learned. Now that he has called for Redfield to resign from his leadership at the Centers for Disease Control, how can McNeil cover the agency fairly?

McNeil is now jaded and exposed. He needs to be taken off the beat. He is not impartial. All of his subsequent copy is now and forever suspect. The fault is McNeil’s, and McNeil’s alone.

The next time McNeil editorializing occurs (Almost DailyBrett is taking the “over”), the blame will be directed to the management of the New York Times.

Taking A Vow Of Poverty

“It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.” — CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite, Feb. 27, 1968

Your author remembers J-School back in the Stone Age (1975-1978).

We learned how to gather facts and report the news professionally, fairly and objectively with the views of both sides represented regardless of our personal expression.

As we all took a vow of poverty, our opinions were irrelevant and most of all … should not enter into our copy or scripts.

What mattered were the ex-cathedra statements and fallacies of our elected leaders. We were there to cover them … not to preach, pontificate or bloviate. Right, Jim Acosta of CNN?

And there it is, Washington Week In Review on PBS with panelists enlisted from more than 100 reporters (curiously none from cable market leader, Fox News). Each Friday night, if you didn’t have anything better to do, reporters kibbutz and provide you with their hallowed personal opinions. The “interpretation” disease is now widespread and mutating.

One commenter pointed to Almost DailyBrett’s admiration of the professionalism and demand for both sides of any story to be covered by revered former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite. It was the very same Cronkite, who based upon years of coverage including on the ground in Southeast Asia declared the Vietnam War as a “stalemate.

Wasn’t Cronkite offering his opinion?

He was making a conclusion based on the on-the-ground facts immediately following the Tet Offensive, which made it clear the Communists had grabbed the upper hand in Vietnam. Declaring the Vietnam War as a “stalemate” was actually a mild description. America lost the war. The end came with helicopters on the roof of the collapsing American embassy in Saigon in 1975.

Isn’t Cronkite’s Vietnam declaration the same as McNeil’s opinion making?

Incorporating Cronkite and McNeil in the same sentence, besmirches the good name of 1972’s “Most Trusted Man In America.”

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/12/donald-g-mcneil-jr-senate-hearing-coronavirus-sot-amanpour-vpx.cnn

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/panelists

https://www.usnews.com/news/ken-walshs-washington/articles/2018-02-27/50-years-ago-walter-cronkite-changed-a-nation

CNN’s “lower-third” chyrons have rendered the Democratic National Committee … redundant.

Nielsen’s third-place out of the top three cable news networks CNN can’t resist mudslinging against Donald Trump with the most incendiary words this side of Pravda. 

“Angry”

“Mistakes”

“Melts Down”

“Ignored”

“Propaganda Session”

During Trump’s spirited defense of his administration’s record on the response to the Corona Virus Monday, CNN quickly flashed chyrons to undercut the words of the President of the United States of America.

Has CNN replaced the thoughtful journalism it used to practice with unvarnished propaganda of its own … against in its view a loathed, despised and hated president?

The answer is obvious.

CNN in its desperate attempts to improve upon its perpetual third-place Nielsen rating — dropped the straight journalistic tradition of Bernard Shaw — and raised the level of scorched earth partisanship to an art form.

One of the causes for CNN’s ratings nadir is there are no reasons anymore for moderate-to-conservative independents and Republicans to watch the once admired network.

“Press Pandemic”

“The surest way to undermine the credibility of the White House press corps is to behave like the political opposition. Don’t give speeches from the White House briefing room.” — ABC White House correspondent Jonathan Karl on his CNN colleague Jim Acosta, “Front Row At The Trump Show”

“Every question from Acosta is an effort to score political points rather than elicit information. It is a press pandemic that continues to rage without relief.” — George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley

The grandstanding of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, including “mansplaining” medicine to Dr. Deborah Birx, has drawn scorn for months, if not years, to literally no effect.

The nightly incendiary commentary lineup of CNN’s prime-time lineup of partisan polemics — Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Jake Tapper — has left CNN’s once-revered news division in the dust. When the choice came down to objectivity vs. partisan politics, CNN has made and compounded its unfortunate decision.

And now attention is being given to the subliminal codes being sent to CNN’s maybe still impressionable audience through the use of exploitative chyrons, electronically generated captions superimposed on television screens. The lack of any semblance of trust in CNN has resulted in today’s careful monitoring of these lower-third devices.

Similar to the mesmerizing stock tickers flowing beneath the talking sell-side analyst heads on market news CNBC, the CNN chyrons compete for the attention of its viewing audience against the news and information being provided by President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and the balance of the White House Corona Virus task force.

Nixon-Agnew speechwriter turned New York Times columnist William Safire (1929-2009), looking down from heaven, never imagined a respectable national network would use the same words of politics to “confound, obscure and occasionally to inspire.” 

Is CNN a “nattering nabob of negativism?”

CNN is basically telling viewers, ‘We know better. We decide what is true and what is false. And to make sure you are not believing the president … and more importantly, you vote against him in November, our chyrons are dog whistles to hopefully influence a still impressionable electorate.’

Almost DailyBrett must ask: Isn’t that the definition of shameless unapologetic partisan media?

CNN mavens and their defenders at university journalism schools will engage in WhatAboutism as in what about the lower-third of Fox News screens? While your at it CNN, what about the MSNBC chyrons?

As mom once told you: “Two wrongs don’t make a right” … let alone three wrongs.

Divided America desperately needs a truly professional all-news network, which is dedicated to ascertaining both sides of a given story. CNN used to hold that distinction, but alas those days are gone..

Is a return to Walter Cronkite objectivity too much to ask?

https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-chyrons-trump-coronavirus-briefing-2020-4

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/jonathan-karl-vs-jim-acosta/?

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/what-about-whataboutism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/america-loses-trust-in-media-at-the-worst-time/

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

Deborah L. Birx, M.D.

Does the Grip and Grin come before or after the Dog and Pony Show?

In the 2020/2021 “New Normal” will we even plan … let lone participate … in the Grip and Grin?

Will the Dog and Pony Show (e.g., presentation, briefing), more times than naught, be forever transformed into a video conference?

How does one shake hands via digital video? Isn’t physical proximity, necessary?

Almost DailyBrett knows from years of experience that oodles of events — from weddings to political fundraisers — include receiving lines.

The guest(s) of honor is/are required to assume a mannequin stance, participate in small talk, sport an artificial grin and most of all, shake hands.

Will the Corona Virus/COVID 19 (let alone the next little pandemic bugger) put an end to the unhealthy practice of shaking hands? Will germaphobes and/or hypochondriacs figuratively spike the ball in the back of the end zone?

Your author has always been somewhat envious of the evil-and-reclusive shipping magnate Karl Stromberg (Curd Jürgens) in the best Roger Moore movie as James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me.

James Bond was informed in advance that Herr Stromberg did not shake hands, and yet Mr. Shaken-and-Not Stirred stuck out his paw upon meeting the villain … and sheepishly was forced to withdraw.

What if the custom of handshaking is withdrawn … for good? The same would apply to high fives to kissing on both cheeks as is the custom here (the former) in other cultures (the latter)?

What if we greeted each other verbally and waved (the elbow pounding greeting doesn’t fly)? Don’t military types salute each other? There are ways to show respect without the Grip and Grin.

The End of Shaking Hands Judgments

“A grip and grin should be sincere. If not, then what is the purpose?” — Almost DailyBrett, Grip and Grin Controversy

As a dude, Almost DailyBrett knows that males make judgments based upon the strength (or lack thereof) of the handshake of other hombres. A wimpy handshake many times elicits a corresponding rolling of the eyes, and immediate negative impression.

Is that fair? Can you tell a book by its cover? Can you judge the character of a man by his handshake grip?

Almost DailyBrett wrote a decade ago about the custom of handshaking (e.g., Sir Walter Raleigh in the 16th Century). Five centuries of gripping and grinning constitutes an accepted and widespread practice, but does mean we can’t change?

Your author wrote before about the awkward situation of not shaking the hand of someone, who is an adversary, enemy or someone you loathe, despise or even hate (hate to use the word, “hate”).

For example, The Donald didn’t shake Nancy’s hand at the obligatory State-of-the-Union (SOTU) speech. She in turn tore up his speech. What if there was zero expectation of a handshake, would the text of the SOTU address still be in one piece?

Maybe the political theater was orchestrated in the first place? Trump never intended to shake Madam Speaker’s hand, and Nancy fully intended to rip up his speech to fire up her troops.

For folks, who do not hold the highest offices in the country, there still is the judgment call that comes from the must-I-shake-the-bastard’s-hand vs. can-I-refuse-to-shake-the-bastard’s-hand decision?

As confessed 10 years ago and repeated now, your mortal and fallible Almost DailyBrett author in virtually all cases has embraced the reptilian hand of an adversary, but there comes a time … when you cannot or will not shake the bastard’s hand.

You may not be proud, but you are not ashamed. You stood up for yourself.

For the most part, Almost DailyBrett refrains from ex-cathedra statements, but will do so in this case:

With COVID-19, germaphobes and hypochondriacs will be empowered more than ever, and therefore even less enthusiastic about the practice of shaking hands.

Even with the corona virus pandemic, it will still be difficult to brake a 500-year grip-and-grin tradition.

That doesn’t mean that society shouldn’t seek a more sanitary way to greet family, friends, colleagues, adversaries … and even, enemies.

 

Getting to grips with germaphobia

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/grip-and-grin-controversy/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/tearing-up-the-speech-paying-the-pr-price/

 

 

“They (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB …) want to get back. They’ve got to get back. We want to get back soon, very soon. We have to re-open our country again.” — President Donald Trump after a Saturday conference call with the major sport commissioners

The “easy” part was declaring a State of Emergency, and shutting down America.

The decision was difficult, but once made it was relatively easy to implement

At some point — not now — comes the hard part: Re-opening the stadiums, arenas, music halls, stock exchanges, restaurants, stores, businesses, corporations …

What? When? Where? Who? Why? and most of all, How?

How are we going to re-open America?

Will we simply lift the State of Emergency, and pick up where we left off? Don’t think so.

Will we wait until everyone is tested for COVID-19 antibodies?

Will we hang on until everyone has been vaccinated? 2021? 2022? …

How will we demand proof of vaccine or antibody testing without violating federal health privacy guidelines (e.g., HIPAA), and personal liberties?

Will we continue to quarantine the high-risk population, Baby Boomers and older?

Will the ‘All-Clear’ signal be given to X-Gens, Millennials and younger?

How does that square with equal protection guidelines of the 14th Amendment?

What criteria will we use? Can we accept that unanimity is impossible; there will always be those who disagree (particularly those with political agendas in an election year)?

Will there ever be an absolute “coast is clear” signal? You can be absolutely sure that opinions will vary, count on it.

And there will be attorneys too, in particular for this Almost DailyBrett author: Plaintiff attorneys … tan, rested and ready to sue anyone and everyone with deep pockets (e.g., NFL franchises).

The Complex PR Puzzle Facing Re-Opening Decisions

No matter how many public officials are consulted. No matter how many health experts provide advice. No matter, no matter, no matter ... somebody has to be first to re-open the doors, the turn-styles, the restaurant tables for overpriced seared sea bass with risotto.

Let’s say we don’t re-open until 2021 (e.g., Tokyo Olympics, UEFA Euro 2021 … ), there still will be a line in the sand. People will no longer maintain six-foot buffer zones. Most likely they will no longer wear face masks, except for football players and hockey goalies.

Can college and NFL football players block and tackle each other? Otherwise, what is the point?

Can fans, patrons return to packed-in-as-sardine stadiums? What if they are scared (Will their tickets be refunded)? What if they actually go to the game, concert, restaurant, store, shop … and get sick? Will they sue? How many? And for how much will they litigate?

An NFL team has the legal muscle and deep pockets to defend itself, but what about a mid-range college athletic department?

Your author is not an attorney, but is there an assumed liability that comes with handing over your ticket with the QR code face up?

Almost DailyBrett contends strongly that public relations practitioners should urge not only communication, but over-communicating.

There will be an acute need for earned media (e.g., digital and conventional media interviews) employing team owners, university presidents, chief executive officers and of course, health experts.

Ditto for paid media (e.g., advertising) with strong messages about getting back to work, and going to the game … safely.

And most of all every organization will be required to launch owned media campaigns (e.g., websites, blog posts, social media, signage, PowerPoint presentations, brochures and takeaways).

The more people are informed about the calculated risks they may take in waiting for the first guitar riff or standing up for the kickoff … the better for them and for the resumption of our economy and our way of life.

Bill Gates was amazingly prescient about the threat of microbial pandemics in his now famous 2015 TED Talk, which served as the forerunner for the crisis of the ten-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter Corona Virus.

Considering the wonderful work of Bill and Melinda Gates, donating a record $50 billion to their namesake foundation for health and education and to combat third world poverty, maybe he could serve as a major thought leader in negotiating the hard part, getting us back to work, into the stadiums, and back on campus.

Didn’t someone piously state that billionaires should not exist?

Ahh … the subject of another Almost DailyBrett post.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28995399/sources-trump-says-nfl-start

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/who-we-are/general-information/foundation-factsheet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forget about it.

Esteem for America Media? Downward to the Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cessation of Presidential Corona Virus Broadcasts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will we have created an even bigger monster?

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

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

https://www.edelman.com/trustbarometer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a public relations and mass communications standpoint, we need to leave the past — most of all recriminations — to the mass media. Let them focus on the fact that we again slept at dawn.

Hint: They were sleeping as well.

We need to envision and more importantly, credibly and practically project better times in the future. We need to balance our justified health concerns with our economic hopes.

Will we have a national resurrection by Easter Sunday, April 12? Maybe? Most likely, not?

If not, the media will happily tell us how our loving optimist-in-chief somehow failed in the face of continued darkness.

And yet his approval rating continues to rise, and his score for handling the corona virus reaches 60 percent thumbs up against 38 percent thumbs down.

As Teddy Roosevelt (pardon the paraphrase from heaven, POTUS #26) told us in his famous 1910 speech to the students at Paris’ Sorbonne, it’s not Gloomy Gus or Negative Nancy who counts, or how the strong man or woman stumbles or how she or he could have done better.

The credit belongs to those who are in the arena.

We need more of those, who dare to suggest with credibility that yes life will get better. We are not eternally condemned to the boredom of our living rooms.

Some day we will standing in line for the barista, waiting for our beer or wine, actually ordering our food to a table in a restaurant … our hearts thumping with thousands of others, anticipating the first guitar riff or standing up for the kickoff.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a Fox News “virtual town hall” event on the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak with members of the coronavirus task force in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., March 24, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

It takes courage to stand up in front of this wall of negativity and suggest that life may be better sooner … much sooner … as opposed to later.

It takes moxy to purchase shares of best-in-breed stocks (i.e., Apple, Microsoft, Nike, NVIDIA, McDonalds, Starbucks …) as the markets refuse for weeks to stretch two or more positive trading days in a row. Volatility will eventually be tamed, most likely not now.

It takes compassion to swipe our credit card at our local coffee place, order books online from our regional bookseller, call for take out at our favorite Italian place. With our economic freedom maintained, we can choose who and how much to support.

They have been there for us. Isn’t time for us to be there for them?

It’s so easy to hunker down and to shut down for the “common good.” It’s harder to dream again, and to express hope.

We Need Good News

“Hope is believing good will come, even in bad times. 

“Hope is knowing that this too shall pass.

“Hope is knowing no matter how afraid we are, our higher power will be with us.

“Hope is knowing that we never have to be alone again. It’s knowing that “Time Is On Our Side.’

“Hope is giving up control. Hope is knowing we didn’t have control in the first place.” — Rolling Stones lead guitarist Ronnie Wood.

Almost DailyBrett believes there are more than a few, who have major problems with the United States and its world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP) at $21.99 trillion (prior to the impact of the Corona virus, COVID-19).

To them the USA needs to redistribute the pie, not expand it to offer more pieces for everyone.

The word “balance” seemingly does not exist in ivory towers on campuses, the deep state or in some media empires.

Until recently, climate change dominated. “How dare” anyone suggest thoughtful consideration of those who work and thrive in our world-best economy?

And now the little corona virus bugger has replaced the planet — at least for now — as the single most priority. Forget about producing products we use or compensating our employees. Allocating $25 million for the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in DC is just so vital to beating this global epidemic.

As we debate looking for the positive versus being Gloomy Gus or Debbie Downer, we know two things for certain:

Teddy Roosevelt is forever enshrined on Mt. Rushmore.

No one will ever build statues to critics, including Negative Nancy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/id-love-to-have-it-open-by-easter-trump-hopeful-economy-will-be-revived-in-coming-weeks/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=19820067

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/298313/president-trump-job-approval-rating.aspx

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not This “Particular Woman”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: