The Prosecutor and the Lunatic.....

 

           In a reality not far away about 60 Million US television viewers saw Kamala Harris and Donald Trump show their stuff.

        If it wasn't earnestly serious, it would be the stuff of comedy, the best of sketch comedy in this part of the milky way. 

    Given that performance, the extraordinary number of lies, the chain of thought that ran like like a wart hog roller skating on marbles, and the beating he took of the righteous, in your face "they call you a disgrace" variety, why any thinking, discerning person would trust him again is beyond even the most sympathetic analyst this side of forever. 

    You can be the most partisan Republican, the farthest right positioned conservative, the angriest anti Democrat, a rich/or poor, old white man scared of the communist dust that gathers in your closet and still not justify voting for the deposed despot. As Republican grandees warned in 2016, he is unfit for public service and not to be trusted. This time around there are some 200 Republicans of the highest calibre, who worked for him who say the man is a danger to the world.

    He demonstrated that he is not of sound mind.

    I know there is no reaching the woman in the Trump and Jesus T-shirt saying that Joe Biden is dead, or the crowd that thinks Democrats eat babies, or that curious breed of evangelistic, they call themselves Christians, who believe that a convicted rapist, felon, swindler, is the kind of person to usher in an age when their "religion" will convert the US into the new heaven.

    I give the Donald a full thumbs up thanks for launching some of the best dog reaction videos in history and the absolute beauty of the women, Taylor Swift included, who have posted lovely and dramatic photos of themself with their beloved cat or cats. My favorites are the dogs barking or seeking a hiding spot as his Lord Narcissus blubbers on screen.

    Mom used to say if you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing.

I'll quote mom, I think she would say Donald is the best "blow hard" in the world. 

Mustering up the nicest thing I can say, I'll quote my Dad, he'd say Donald is a world class "bull shit artist."

    Millions of Americans are beginning to realize he is and has always been a fraud.

        I moderated many debates and as we entered the age when candidates answered your question with a response to their own unspoken and coached question, I'd press back, even noting when they refused to answer the question posed. ABC did a nice job of putting the question on the screen as both VP Harris and Miracle Don rarely responded to what was asked. Such evasion and obfuscation is sadly accepted as part of the performative game. 

        The moderators did a noble job of fact checking and challenging as the debate went on. With Trump, who only lies when his mouth is open, it is a near impossible task. He like many of his posse have trouble with truth, even reality.

        It's not over. Harris was competent, in command, successfully whooped Donald with prosecutorial and debate skills and showed that she can and will govern for all and promised not be a divider. Is that enough? Stay tuned.

        See you down the trail.

OLD-HIP-AND NOT SO-PLUS LEAVE GEORGE ALONE

GENERATIONAL

     This is a shirt with a lot of history.  It's a genuine Lyle Tuttle, purchased by Lana in 1970. It's been handed down first to our eldest daughter, then to her sister and has now come back to Lana.

    Tuttle is the famous San Francisco tattoo artist who's own body is the basis for the shirt.

     Lana wore the shirt the other day and I was stunned to see it again. I'm amazed at what great shape it's in after about 45 years! In passing it on to Kristin and Katherine she asked them to care for it. Obviously they listened. 

     The free spirited, colorful, expressive and even a little kooky time of the late 60's and 70's looks great these days and produces a joyful mirth.  And it should not be left unsaid that it's cool how Lana can still rock the shirt! 

      Yeah, we live in California. 

GEORGE AND THE CLINTONS

     Most of the "furor" over George Stephanopoulos and his contribution to the Clinton foundation is more about snark, "gotcha" and buzz than substance.

     First, the ABC Anchor should have acknowledged his contribution, only because he's in a position to be reporting about it. Same would be true if he, or another journalist, were to contribute to the American Heart Association, or Doctors Without Borders, etc. Journalists should not be banished from making charitable contributions simply because of their prominence or likelihood of covering a topic.

     (A Sidebar-I did not vote in primary elections when I was a working reporter, because I did not want to declare a party preference. How I voted in general elections was my own business, same as everyone else. I contributed to charities and if ever the group came up I would add a line in my broadcast- for example, "full disclosure. I contributed to United Way.")

    George did nothing wrong by making the contribution.

He used to work for Bill Clinton and, as he says, believes in some of the issues the Clinton Foundation embraces-aids, deforestation and others. The foundation is not funding Hillary's presidential campaign and Stephanopoulos wouldn't need to gain inside favor any way. 

      The Clinton Foundation is a kind of "boogie man" now and that is especially so with the right wing. Still, there are serious questions about the relationship between Bill's foundation and Hillary and between Bill and Hillary going forward.  What about his agenda's and initiatives should she be in the White House? How will that work?  There are issues about what was expected in return for some of the "gives" when she was Secretary of State. But those are issues related to the former President, his Foundation and Mrs. Clinton.

      Politico's Jack Shafer seems to be on the spear point of being indignant about Stephanopoulos. Shafer is a "pot stirrer." Some times he's right and sometimes he's just a hype merchant looking for the new media currency of buzz and trending. Shafer himself said it when he wrote

"As long as you can do the work, the journalism profession doesn't care if your last port of call was a federal penitentiary."  That says a lot about Shafer and his sensitivities, shared by many who call themselves journalists. Believe me, standards today are much different than they used to be.  

      There is an attitude today that if someone is hit and bleeding, the pack moves in for a kill. That's what this hype is all about. 

       Full disclosure; I'm not a Stephanopoulos fan and thought his hire by ABC was ill advised, but he has worked hard and done a good job to earn his spurs as a real journalist. He is not one of those "party cheerleaders" you see elsewhere.  Yes he should have told us he contributed, but that is no big deal, especially in a world where Pulitzer winner Seymour Hersh has reported the Obama administration engaged in deception about the Bin Laden killing. There are other real stories that need attention and exploration. This is more about modern media entertaining itself or vendetta.

     

OLD BOY SELFIE

    Now, how's this selfie thing supposed to work? Where are you supposed to look?

     See you down the trail.

CONNECTIVITY AND LIFE INTERNETTED

LIVING BENEATH THE MOON

    Shooting the moon, the recent blood moon, gave me a chance to tweak around with a new camera.

WEBS

  Spider webs are forever fascinating.

THE HUMAN WEB
NEW CONNECTIVITY'S

    It would have been nice to know this woman's father.

   Jim Hayes was a beloved journalism professor who mentored an impressive retinue of high calibre users of words.

    Dayle Hayes paraphrased the Norman Maclean novel A River Runs Through It in remembering her father when she said, "There is no clear line between religion and words." She said in her father's life words were religion.

    Dayle opened ADVANCING INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION-JIM HAYES SYMPOSIUM at Cal Poly.  The impressive  presentations that followed underscored the legacy her father seeded in practitioners as well as the confounding issues that challenge 21st Century journalism and communication.

     Presenters included Peter King Director Public Affairs, University of California and former LA Times reporter, editor and columnist.  David Kerley ABC News Correspondent, Judy Muller professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism, NPR Commentator and former ABC Correspondent, Robert Logan of the US National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, Kevin Riggs former television newsman and now a senior vice president of Randle Communications, Patrick Linn professor of Philosophy and Director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences group, an author and expert on artificial intelligence and robotics, and Karen Miller Pensiero editor of Newsroom Standards for the Wall Street Journal.

     Pensiero's Keynote affirmed the need for ethics and core values even as journalism and communication morph into new methods of gathering and distribution. She eschewed the idea that social media is self correcting. 
     Pensiero observed that news group "brands" must now co-exist with  the "franchises" of some of their own employees. She was responding to my inquiry about Ezra Klein leaving the Washington Post for Vox Media, the Wall Street Journal's own Walter Mossberg departing for his new Re/Code and Nate Silver's taking of his 535 franchise from the New York Times to ESPN and his own private label. "I see no end to it," she said noting it is part of the new world.

    Judy Muller played the iconic clip of Walter Cronkite choking back a tear as he announced the death of President Kennedy. She said that was "emotionalism" in journalism in a 1960's world. By contrast she played clips of Anderson Cooper  angrily going off on Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu for political back patting as victims of a Gulf storm continued to suffer and as bodies laid on streets. She played a clip of CNN's Jake Tapper being emotional as he covered disorder in Ferguson. I asked her to reflect on the differences of Tapper's emotionalism to Tom Pettit's coverage and that of others during the 1960's civil rights disturbances. She said she thought if they could have used the same live technology they too may have been more emotional.  

      It's my view the jury is out on that assessment. Everything was different then and those who practiced journalism saw themselves as distillers and handlers of information. Our emotions were not to be a part of the coverage and in fact the entire process was a series of filters.But Muller is correct, emotionalism and commentary are a part of the current delivery, like it or not. Her suggestion for Media Literacy training for students is a wise idea.

 

     In this time of Ebola and media inspired fear, Logan's presentation dealing with weighing best evidence and providing contextualization was a healthy antidote.

     Based on the accounts given by presenters, Hayes must have been an extraordinary "teacher/editor." The audience included alumna and alumni, professionals, a few retirees and students, though the information has value to all who use any form of media.

      Ethicist and Artificial Intelligence expert Dr. Patrick Lin, blew a few minds when he put three news briefs on the screen. Each had been written by a robot. It was part of his discussion of Algorithmic Curation, the affect of data mining and organization that you may see in your own life. Here's what I mean. Research a new camera for example and suddenly web sites you visit feature camera ads. Lin said present generation algorithmic writing programs are very effective at correlation but bad at determining causation. Correlation is not causation. An example he cited makes the point. Traffic fatalities decrease when there is an increase in the import of lemons from Mexico. Artificial Intelligence can spot a correlation, but can't make the judgement there is no connection.  

      Lin made good points in noting that values change with time and we seem to be witnessing what he called a "democratization of news." He concluded that ethics is a competitive advantage.

       With more demands placed on journalists-the need to tweet, blog, shoot video, edit and report at the same time, with demanding editors and a hungry news machine to feed-it is reassuring to know the values taught by a fellow who must have been a helluva good professor have been enshrined in what I hope will be an annual symposium on integrity. The world needs it.

       See you down the trail