Tag Archive: Harvard University


“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?

Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America in 1972 in an era when the media informed the public. Today, the likes of Maddow on MSNBC and Sean Hannity on Fox News essentially affirm philosophies of entrenched political populations segments. Ditto for social 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/

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

“Inspired by (Thomas) Jefferson, Americans expect higher education to boost the chances of disadvantaged people, but it seems to be failing in that task – and in some of the other jobs its customers want it to do.” – The Economist, Excellence v Equitythomasjefferson

“Higher education has two sets of customers: students and the government. Students want all sorts of things from it – to make friends, sharpen their minds and get away from home. But most of all they want it to improve their economic prospects – The Economist, Excellence v Equity

There goes that word again, “Customers.”

Does that mean that colleges and universities provide a vital service, and students and their families pay dearly (e.g., $1.2 trillion in cumulative student loan debt) for that end-product?

Wait a minute. Does that mean … (gasp) that students are our customers?

Let’s take that question a step further: Does the old adage the “customer” is always right apply on campus as well?

Gee, you could have fooled me … easily.

Lost count how many times being asked, if I work out at the college recreation center with … actual students (our customers)? The answer is … “yes.” Never really gave it a thought before, or pondered if this activity was even worthy of a question.

Some in the hallowed halls of academia may not want to hear this, but colleges and universities are in effect businesses providing services and deliverables to … customers, and that includes undergraduates.

Take Nordstrom as an example. The high-end department store chain is known for legendary customer service. The corporation employs skilled retail service professionals in suits, who are working the shoe department, and dressed to the nines saleswomen, who are serving customers at the cosmetics counter. Nordstrom includes spas and nice restaurants to make their lucrative customers feel as comfortable as possible.

A shopper looks over a shoe display as others walk past in the women's shoe department of the downtown Seattle Nordstrom store, Wednesday, May 17, 2006. Nordstrom Inc. releases first-quarter earnings. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

A shopper looks over a shoe display as others walk past in the women’s shoe department of the downtown Seattle Nordstrom store, Wednesday, May 17, 2006. Nordstrom Inc. releases first-quarter earnings. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Need to return a purchase? Absolutely no problem whatsoever.

In direct contrast to Nordstrom, the best-and-the brightest are NOT on the front lines teaching undergraduates.

And who is teaching the vast majority of undergraduates? Tenured professors?

Are you serious?

The answer more times than not is “non-tenure track” instructors for low pay on short contracts.

What this means is that students through loans and/or families digging ever deeper into their wallets are paying top dollar for their children to be taught mostly by the “jayvee team.”

Before you write a snarky response, please understand that the author of Almost DailyBrett served as a lowly paid, on-contract graduate teaching fellow or non-tenured instructor for almost three years. As such, your author knows first-hand that these instructors are doing their level best to carry the load.

God bless each and every one of them.

Forschung Über Alles?

“The call for effectiveness in the use of resources will be perceived by many inside the university world as the best current definition of evil.” – Former President of the University of California Clark Kerr

(Universities) “have the characteristics of a workers co-op. They expand slowly, they are not especially focused on those they serve, and they run for the comfort of the faculty.” – Former Harvard President Larry SummersSummers

And who do universities serve, Mr. Summers?

The answer points to those who require research (die Forschung) and education (die Bildung) in that order. As the stately The Economist declared point-blank: “Universities are paid on the basis of research (excellence), not educational, output (equity).”

Last year, 19-of-the-top 20 global entities that produced the most cited research papers came from American universities. As a world we are better for this as a large percentage of the breakthroughs in software and hardware technology, medical science, biotechnology, business systems and digital native communications come from ideas explored and nurtured on college and university campuses.

The Economist reported that since tenured faculty are promoted and paid on the basis on their research, there is pressure for them to curtail, if not give up teaching. And that leaves teaching to the jayvee team.teachingassistant

Yes, it is true that a college undergraduate degree produces on the average a 15 percent rate of return. Those with B.A. degrees earn on average, $68,000 per year; those with A.A. degrees, $48,000 per anum; and high school degrees, $38,000. These monetary gulfs are magnified when multiplied by 40-year careers and the fact that college graduates have discretionary income to invest in bullish markets.

The rate of return is there, but are undergraduates — our customers — receiving the best education possible for them to prosper in a professional environment and effectively compete, if more often than not, they are being taught by contract instructors and teaching assistants?

Is this right?

Is this the best way to run a business?

Is this the best way to serve your customers?

Nordstrom would probably emphatically disagree with this approach. Almost DailyBrett wonders out loud whether the educational establishment is content with the status quo. By all indications there is no inclination to rock the proverbial boat, even on behalf of customers, the majority of whom happen to be undergraduates.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21646985-american-model-higher-education-spreading-it-good-producing-excellence

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/03/10/the-average-student-debt-load-in-d-c-is-a-whopping-40885/

http://larrysummers.com/press-contacts/biography/

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

 

 

%d bloggers like this: