Wednesday, June 28, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Over the past few months, Michael Goodwin’s been mentioned often whereas he’s one of the few newspaper people who’ve gained a grasp of how the POTUS plays the media. But even Goodwin doesn’t yet understand completely, as can be seen in his column @nypost.com yesterday.

At the outset, Goodwin refers to what he calls the “unprecedented meltdown of much of the media,” wherein “standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.”

After explaining that Trump, “like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair, and that’s not what he’s getting," Goodwin addresses the recent CNN presidential attack and retraction.

Goodwin believes, as does this writer, that all-consuming media attempts to destroy the president “are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.” Particularly CNN which is “suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.”

“The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.

“That’s how CNN sold itself for years — boring but trustworthy. Now it’s boring and untrustworthy.”

After presenting the CNN overview, Goodwin gets specific, citing the networks “apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.”

And then, touching on evidence of how the POTUS actually manipulates media outlets, Goodwin still doesn’t quite appreciate the methodology, as he writes: “Russia, Russia, Russia is a fixation for all the networks, with a new study by the Media Research Center showing 55 percent of Trump coverage on nightly broadcasts was related to the Russia investigation.

“That adds up to 353 minutes of airtime since May 17, compared to 47 minutes on Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate pact, 29 minutes on the fight against terrorism and 17 minutes on the efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, according to the Daily Caller’s summary of the study. It said tax reform got a mere 47 seconds of coverage.”

And it’s those numbers that tell the story. Whereas while the coverage converges on meaningless red-herrings or trivial presidential tweets, the POTUS’s administration is working diligently on important matters uninterrupted by hordes of reporters otherwise occupied by Trump’s diversions.  

Rush provided an amusing, vividly appropriate analogy regarding Trump’s handling of the media, writing today: “Have you ever had a pet cat and one of these red laser pointers? You point it at the floor, and the cat tries to catch it. You point it up against the sofa, cat runs into the sofa. You point it against the wall, cat runs into the wall. I think that's what the Trump administration is doing with many in the media.” 

However, had the media been paying attention they’d have found out that, according to FoxNews.com: “Illegal immigrant crossings at America's southern border have dropped 64 percent over the same timespan in 2016.

“On June 10th, Clayton Morris reported on "Fox & Friends" that President Trump's "tough talk" seems to have been enough to slow the flow of illegals coming in from Mexico.”

And most importantly, although the media may not be aware of the POTUS’s accomplishments, the voters who put him in office certainly are.

At the same time, Sarah Palin too is making her own advances on a major media outlet, the New York Times, and seems to have a very good chance of prevailing.

Samuel Chamberlain wrote today @FoxNews.com: “Former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the New York Times Tuesday over an editorial that tied her to the January 2011 shooting of an Arizona congresswoman.

Palin's attorneys claim the paper defamed her in a June 14 editorial, attributed to The Times' editorial board whom “initially linked Palin's rhetoric to a shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.”

“The paper posted a correction the next day admitting that "no such link was established."

The editorial, titled "America's Lethal Politics," also claimed, incorrectly, that a now-infamous ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs[sic]." The Times also corrected that statement, admitting that the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

“Palin is being represented by Kenneth Turkel, Shane Vogt and S. Preston Ricardo in the suit. Turkel and Vogt were part of the team that secured Hulk Hogan a $115 million award at trial from Gawker Media Group. Gawker appealed, but the two sides eventually settled for $31 million and Gawker and its founder, Nick Denton, were forced to file for bankruptcy.”

While Palin is seeking damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, in another FoxNews.com article this morning, Alan Dershowitz approached the growing trend toward instituting lawsuits from another direction.  

Dershowitz tried to make the point that the many attempts in the political arena to criminalize differences equates to treading in “dangerous territory.” 

Using the current Sanders case as an example he wrote: “So now the shoe is on the other foot. A Trump surrogate has gotten the FBI to open an investigation of Jane and Bernie Sanders for alleged bank fraud. The couple has lawyered up, as is their right. The allegations seem more civil than criminal but the Trump surrogate is demanding that criminal charges be brought.

“Welcome to the world of tit-for-tat criminalization of political differences.”

From there Dershowitz provided several examples of the various legalities involved, leading to his conclusion that: “Criminal prosecution should be a neutral sanction of last resort, rather than a primary partisan weapon used to target political opponents.”

What was of significant interest, however, was a comment posted by a reader claiming to be an “investigator” who certainly seemed quite conversant in the subject himself, as follows:

DonVero AD wrote: “Regardless of how this came to fruition, a criminal act is alleged. Having spent several years investigating BF&E cases (Bank Fraud and Embezzlement), in the FBI Washington Field Office, I can assure you that if the evidence is sufficient to convict her of the charges, it will be a criminal violation. Keep in mind that the bank, and it's shareholders, lost $10 million in this deal. They are the victims. Banks don't lend money to institutions who truthfully confess they are on the verge of bankruptcy. Lying to the bank to get the loan is a felony. Using a political office to enable the scheme is also a felony.”

All of which serves to illustrate the need for politicians and media outlets in particular, to gain greater knowledge of technological advances in information gathering and communication. Whereas, its become glaringly obvious that voters are well aware of what transpires around them as they employ alternative means of obtaining information. And so does the POTUS. 
   
That’s it for today folks.

Adios

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment