In the weeds....

we need a little more light

     After four nights of "debates" some thoughts emerge.

• By next summer when the Trump campaign and the Democrat candidate's organization meet to discuss a debate format they should agree to avoid inviting any networks to the planning discussions.

      The Fox "Town Halls," the MSNBC Nights of Ten and the CNN Debate are not working nor are they helpful. The Fox sessions have been the most revealing. The CNN outing was  particularly goofy.

      The CNN questioners came off as more interested in provoking confrontation and argument rather than exploring issues and leadership qualities. The questions were contrived and off the point. They may think setting up "battles" and provoking challenges will hold audience, but they do little of value. And sadly most of the candidates took the bait. We are a culture showing signs of intellectual decline. 

       

• Most of the questions were framed about issues that exceed Presidential mandate or control. 
• Health care for example is the province of the legislative branch. A President may help shape his or her party's position, but the House and the Senate write the law and the President approves or not. LBJ exercised some influence over Medicare but he was a powerful legislative force, the likes of which no longer exist. Obamacare was the work of the House and Senate. Getting into minutia is meaningless, but it gives the candidates a chance to argue with each other.
• Ditto immigration policy. A President's view is not unimportant, but any meaningful immigration reform will come from Capitol Hill. Does the candidate have an idea about how to fix the problem? Hear it and move on, the specifics, the details will be something other than what any of the candidates say.
• US voters like to probe and poke Presidential candidates, but often a President's major action is in reaction, to legislation more more likely to events at home and abroad. It's good to know the measure of a candidate's mettle, but there's been more peripheral and contrived controversy in what we've seen so far. It's resembled a cattle call.

the democrat road show

    The Democrats have shown they have a wide range of candidate philosophy, from moderate right to progressive.

     Who speaks to and for voting constituencies that will control the election outcome? The long political season will help to shake it out.  

       

    Joe Biden is the target now. With his decades of service his long record is being picked apart by Harris, Gillibrand  Booker, De Blasio, and others. He has what they don't, poll numbers. As the Front runner he's a target, but that's lame politics and dangerous. 
     What debaters say now could make it a challenge to take back and/or support the eventual candidate. Taking each other apart is off target, off message, damaging, and not helpful. It is a silly sport.
       All of the Demos want improvement in the health care system and want to stop Trump's destruction of what is left of the Affordable Care Act. They argue about how to do it. A legislative process will deliver the specifics, but viewers are being given a chance to see the wide range of Democratic thinking and that maybe helpful, to a point. 
      Elizabeth Warren keeps telling us she has a plan. They all should and it would be more helpful to hear those plans than the kind of wonky food fight we've seen so far. More intelligent and less confrontationally contrived questions would help.
     

a long way up

    I heard a long time Washington insider, a veteran of Capitol Hill, campaigns and the media say if there was truly a leader of the Democrat Party, she or he would get all of the candidates in the same room and remind them the person to defeat is Donald Trump and the message should be to the public, not to play act in some silly charade game like the TV debates have been.

     Two long shots have sounded wise and for the most part stayed out of the tit for tat food fight.  Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg have appeared to be thoughtful and less combative, though Gabbard hit Harris hard on Health Care.

Interestingly, they are both military veterans and have been tested by more than political bull shit. 

    

     If I were advising a candidate I'd tell them their core audience should be working women with children and the overlay would be 18 to 45 year old working people. The outer core of voter would be women 45 plus. 

     Those groups are both urban and rural.  I may be entirely wrong. I've been covering politics since 1964 and my hunches have been both spot on and dead wrong. My gut tells me women voters are the jackpot in 2020. And, according to the Sevareid rule, I reserve the right to change my mind. 

     See you down the trail. 

Reaction Time and The Dream

      It's subjective and no one knows, but I think if Martin Luther King Jr were alive, his primary focus would be economic disparity. He raised the issue of poverty and since his death the gap has widened. The rich have gotten richer and the middle class is crumbling. Like prophets he spoke truth to power. As Aristotle noted, inequality leads to instability. Instability looms and the rich are deaf.

curiosity

      For the record, I was never appointed a special consultant to the UN. I found this telegram as I sorted through old files. I had forgotten about it. I remember it showing up at my residence when I was at college. I chuckled about it but never learned its source. For almost 50 years I thought it was the prank of my fraternity brother known as "Cool Breeze." John Schleeter was a true political junkie and a jokester. As recently as this fall John denies he sent it, or produced it . The Mystery remains.

in a time of social media that means....

       The recent skirmishes over a Buzz Feed report that Robert Mueller broke his stone silence to refute and the flap over a viral video from the weekend are testament to how we should miss "the good old days," those would be the good old days when the news media was in the hands of men and women who were experienced and were professional.

       Back in the day before social media and smart phones, adults attended to the aggregation, editing and distribution of "news."  Yes mistakes were made, but they were rare and they were always corrected. Now with millions of phones and media feeds and instant comment and reaction there is a lot of garbage in the flow. And we don't seem to be very smart about what to believe and why. 

      What about the source? What about the intent? Is it real? How many sources do you have? In the pre digital world those kind of issues were important. Now, I can post a video or tweet something and it's out there and being reacted to without any qualifications, validations or certifications. It's not just individuals, it is also organizations who act so carelessly.

       When I saw the video of the so called confrontation in Washington I thought it was dubious, but I was amazed at the conflagration that surrounded it. Over reaction prompted more overreaction and the decibel level of America escalated again.

       It's bad enough we have partisan so called "news" networks operating, now we have a multitude of other voices adding to the hysteria. My advice-trust no one. Make them prove they are right before you buy in. Don't react to the first thing you see or hear, think about it. Look for other sources, weight what others think or say or interpret. As unlikely as it is, I paraphrase former President Reagan-watch it, read it but "Verify."  

      And as for news sources--if the bulk of their content, broadcast, print or on line, is commentary and analysis and personality-be very, very skeptical.  For example, compare Fox News and MSNBC to the BBC. 

      

a playwright in the field

    Actor, producer, director and playwright Tom Alvarez is a long time friend. He and his creative partner have written and staged Calder, The Musical. It seemed only appropriate that he pay respect to the nearest Calder, here on the central coast.

     Halter Ranch Winery in the Paso Robles appellation provided Tom a close up visit.

       Tom also got a close up look at the sun dropping at a western chunk of the US, in this case a little spot in Cambria known fondly as Griffin Park, because it is 110 steps from the Griffin's front door. 

       See you down the trail

FACEBOOK- CRIME, MANIPULATION and FREEDOM

     Facebook has big problems. It is an existential crisis and it has spin off tentacles that reach to the very core of the US culture and into the private life of millions around the planet.
    The US Federal Trade Commission and some 6 congressional committees are investigating how 50 Million users had their personal data breached in an act connected to the king of deceit and hustle, president sleaze.
     Since news of the trump minions stealing data Facebook has lost nearly $50 Billion in market cap. That is the largest two day drop ever.  
      The data harvesting was done by Cambridge Analytica and their CEO has been suspended.
       While Facebook stumbles forward, Google is investing $300 Million in what it's calling the Google News Initiative, designed to support media by boosting real journalism and fighting misinformation. This is significant. 
       Facebook is full of fake news, was used by Russian efforts to affect the 2016 Presidential election and was used famously by Brad Parscale. He talked openly about swinging key and decisive Pennsylvania and Michigan voters for trump by feeding them tailor made information on Facebook. Now Parscale heads up the trump 2020 election. Are you picking up any cues here? Are you the least bit worried about the future-your future, and especially if you are a Facebook devotee?

       Google's promise of $300 Million to combat news fraud
comes as real and serious US and foreign journalists  begin to work on something called "Algorithmic Accountability."
        Two quick notes-sadly most people get their information from social media---old time media with gate keepers and fact checkers is loosing ground to the digital generation that is fast and cute. And most people are lazy about their information intake-too often relying on limited sources-going only for headlines and not substance-and often getting it from sources that feed their own bias or mind set. It is true for online media, but Fox News and MSNBC are prime examples of "silo" information and viewers on cable. We note too, fewer people are paying attention to television and most of those who do are older.
       But all generations are caught in this snare of algorithms.
It is computer intelligence and big data making decisions and doing so tenaciously and rapidly, beyond the control of you, or me or any human system. Algorithmic Accountability is a very important topic and story.
       After you research a topic you start getting ads on your computer about that-algorithms at work. Cambridge Analytica steals your personal data for the trump gang and heaven only knows what kind of bilge dredge you will get from the Parscale team or who ever else the trump gang may sell the information to. You also worry about the fact once your data is breached almost anyone can get to it and use it, including those pictures of your children or grand children or your private communication about your diagnosis, or your comments about despised cousin Gertie and etc. Mark Zuckerberg made millions while you shared your life and all your personal data on his little platform and you've been screwed. First by him, but then by the Russians, and the trumps, and the swindlers and the hustlers who can manage slick computers and algorithms.

more than annoyance

      But algorithmic manipulation raises questions about our future freedoms. Reporters have learned that since 2012 the New Orleans police department has used "predictive policing" in a pro bono relationship with Palantir Technologies.  Do you remember the film Minority Report, where Tom Cruse used that swipe technology to arrest people before they did something the computer predicted? That is predictive policing and it certainly raises important legal questions-not the least of which--Is the data any good-or right, and what happens to due process and rules of evidence?  
     Palantir tried to get into the Chicago PD, but they already had an algorithmic program of predictive policing developed by a university. Doesn't the concept of predictive policing sound as though it needs sober human oversight?There is no doubt that data analysis can help police determine high crime areas and likelihood of occurrence. Studying history does in fact help us decipher the future. However, as a free people who value liberties, we need to know what is going on when people begin to point artificial and machine intelligence in certain directions. And when machines function more rapidly and on a broader scale than our human minds, we need to make sure laws are firm and enforced. We've already experienced algorithmic abuse.

      Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea of Facebook back in college and created a world changing company. A personal note. I've never joined Facebook for a number of reasons but among them is this. Everything that Facebook has to make it valuable belongs to you. It is your information, photographs, writing, comments, your life and unbeknownst to you all of the underpinning data of your life. You willingly give that up and get nothing back for it, while Zuckerberg and company have become billionaires by selling your information. I said in the beginning if Facebook wanted to be right about things they would be like REI or another cooperative. You as a user could get value for the activity you generate and share. The more you used it, the more value you got back, either as stock, cash or some kind of cash value like coupons. 
     Friends have told me, "well, we get a medium or a platform, a network and connectivity." There is no such thing as a free lunch.
      We don't know what will happen to Facebook, or Zuckerberg and company. Nor do we know how the theft of of personal data for the trump gang will play into those investigations.  We don't know what Google's efforts will bring in their attempt to make social media more responsible or what the journalistic efforts at algorithmic accountability will yield. But I offer up a time worn journalistic wisdom. It was true way back when and it will be true to tomorrow, "follow the money!"  When you follow the money you always have a good story and more often than not, you find crime.
       And so we have again, Facebook has been an accomplice, at least. The US Presidential election, the national culture and you have been victimized. The story is not over.

        See you down the trail.

SPAWNING & PRESIDENTIAL YAWNING

POST DEBATE BILGE

     We might be better off if we ignored all of the post debate analysis from the pundits and so called experts and simply held conversations with friends, family and associates, even those, maybe especially those, who hold an opposing view.

      Most of us don't need a television talking head to think for us. The traditional networks do a quick wrap up and analysis and then get back to their precious money making prime time schedule. But the cable nets and the bloggers go until the sun comes up. In this age of partisan networks there is more heat and gas than light and understanding.

     What do we gain?  It fills time and sells commercials, so the cable nets are not likely to change.  We can simply turn it off.

      For most of my life I watched it all, and for many years had multiple television sets in my office so I had as many as 5 or 6 sources of information simultaneously.  Since it is all spin, interpretation, and bombast, with very little genuine insight, what's the point? Unless for sport. 

      And you have probably noticed how the election media

is obsessed with polls, the horse race aspect, and seem to think it is all about how it plays on television and in the media. The media is A) self absorbed, B) does play a significant role but as I said first is C) self absorbed.  Again I am reminded we can switch it off.  Which is exactly what Lana suggested I do after ripping up and down the remote to monitor Fox, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, ABC and back.

       Do any of you suspend your own thoughts until one of the television yackers tell you what you just saw?

KOKANEE SALMON

    Kokanee Salmon were spawning in this mountain stream west of Lake Tahoe between Camp Richardson and Mount Tallac.

    They travel to lay their eggs and then expire.  They become more red as they mature.  

 

        See you down the trail.

TRANSPARENCY & NAKED LADIES

WHICH MEDIA CAN YOU TRUST

     If you consider yourself well informed, interested and a user of any form of news media link here to James Asher's piece on Washington journalism.

        Asher is the Bureau Chief of the McClatchy newspaper chain.  Their record of hard nosed and investigative reporting is impressive, despite being in smaller and mid sized markets. Asher deals with a dirty secret of Washington reporting.  

        In other postings you may have noted I find a lot that is wrong with contemporary reporting-print and broadcast.  Standards have declined. So much clap trap is packaged and presented as news when it is promotional hype, celebrity gossip, spin, opinion and shallow content.  

       I started in a large city news room where  the standard was at least two sources to confirm something before we went with it.  We were drilled, and edited, to keep opinion and speculation out of the copy.  We established ground rules with sources.  Later when I directed news teams I insisted that before we used an anonymous source, I knew and vetted the source and in some cases insisted they sign a statement to be used only if it came down to our reporter being jailed for contempt or the company being sued in an action where our counsel thought disclosure of the source would be a good defense tool, but only as a last resort in seeking a dismissal, summary judgement or negotiated settlement. It was a tool for a rare and last stop decision. One must operate  within codes of conduct and cannons of behavior.  The Dirty Secret that Asher writes of is offensive to how journalism should be practiced. One more instance of a slide toward the swamp.

       Many dispute the value of journalism and, sadly, it is hard to defend so much of what we have today, including the partisan FOX News, and MSNBC. However this nation is best served by a non partisan, non ideological journalism that asks hard questions of everyone, demands honesty of everyone, verifys information scrupulously, and does it in a transparent and honorable way, according to canons and codes of conduct.  Anything else is rotten.

    Asher nails the rot that is rampant in Washington journalism. Let me know what you think.

      

DAY FILE

NAKED LADIES
That is what they call these beautiful wild flowers
that just pop up this time of year.

You just never know where a naked lady may show up.
Wow!
See you down the trail.

A SEA OF EXPERTS

WATCHING IT PLAY

    The ruling by the Supremes put all news organizations through the drill.  I was fascinated by watching how it was covered.  

    The challenge was an old one-get the essence, then get the info out of the court room and to the viewers or online readers or listeners.  It was a kind of fire bucket brigade.  The first of the info was handed along, while reporters and analysts in the Supreme Court building continued to listen to Chief Justice Roberts, gather the actual ruling, opinions, copy them, get them to the news headquarters and to the field correspondents waiting outside. It was a massive operation, like a 100 yard dash with copy machines and text books while deciphering a code.

   I've covered court rulings and appreciate the logistics of getting the story right, and getting it on and in a competitive environment. All news groups want to be first. 

   While there is no shortage of talking heads and experts, the smoothest and most concise of the morning was Ted Ruger, constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who provided succinct and helpful analysis on CBS.  As a former anchorman, that is the kind of analyst I would like to have along side. Scott Pelley, who handled it nicely, benefited from Ruger's polish.

    The next chapter is to now watch the spin, the spinners, the straight networks and newspapers and the partisan media like Fox and MSNBC and all of the yacking heads who'll try to make you think their perspective is the only correct one. 

     And we can't forget the candidates.  There is a presidential election into which all of this will factor.  Do you know how that will play out?   Well, Someone on one of the networks or blogs will try to convince you, he or she does. Let the game's begin. 

DAY FILE

RANDOM SCENES
eclectic and well, random

This is the kind of "hot" issue I now prefer to deal with.

See you down the trail

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER

KEEPING THE CUSTOMERS SATISFIED

THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT

The View from Here

      Hall of Fame and legendary radio news man Fred Heckman was my news director as I was breaking into a major metropolitan news scene.

      "If Democrats and Republicans are both bitching about you, if liberals think you're a conservative and conservatives think you're a liberal then you're doing a good job. We are an equal opportunity offender."

       Long before Fred's advice I'd read the wisdom of the

old "Sage of Baltimore" H.L. Mencken.  The journalist, editor, essayist said the role of a journalist was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

       Those formed my creedo in all of my years in journalism.

ENTER THE NEW AGE OF "NEWS"

       I took delight in the story that university research finds that Fox News viewers are the least well informed.

        You can link to the story here.

           Delight, I say, because Fox introduced deliberately staking out a political/philosophical position as a foundational rationale to their approach to news coverage.

       Now some will argue "the liberal media bias" already existed and that Fox News was at least honest about where they were coming from.  You might recall however they made their mantra "Fair and Balanced."  In all honesty they were neither, but it was a brilliant positioning and marketing strategy developed by Roger Ailes.  It immediately created the perception the other media was not fair or balanced.  

      Ailes started developing his idea when he was a partisan employee of Richard Nixon, the President with an enemies list, less than a harmonious relationship with the media, trouble with the truth and that little think called Watergate. Yes, that's when Ailes first started babbling about creating a network with a point of view.

      My gripe is not so much with the politics as with the idea 

of creating a "my side vs. your side" approach to news.

Back to the admonition of my old mentor.  Doing it right has everyone angry at you.  Conservatives, Republicans and right wingers probably find little to be upset with about Fox.  But

perhaps now they should be.  By adopting a "perspective" and hewing to a "party line" you destroy your claim to credibility

and damage the overall process.  I'm not ignoring MSNBC.

They have responded by taking a liberal perspective. 

      Maybe in this age of satellite, cable, Internet and broadcast offerings there is room for networks who are lackeys for an ideology or point of view.  Maybe, but they should not call themselves news or journalistic enterprises.

      Bravo to the academics who are willing to test, measure and survey issues like quality of information, knowledge and such.  Of course I can hear a few Fox viewers saying "well what do you expect from liberal academia?"

     Roger Ailes is like putting draino in a wine bottle and calling it a well aged vintage. This report is a bit like a consumer taste test.  Truth is just that.

DAY BOOK

A VISIT TO THE SHORE

How's that for a change of pace?
See you down the trail.

TURKEYS-JOURNALISTS AND OTHERWISE & WHAT A SHOT

FIRST, THE AMAZING IMAGE
Unless you have a powerful scope, you probably
missed the fly by of the asteroid 2005 YU55. 
Thanks to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab here is a short clip.

NOW ABOUT IDIOTS POSING AS JOURNALISTS
SPJ, the Society of Professional Journalists
drew attention when Herman Cain accused reporters
of violating the Journalist's Code.
You can link here to the SPJ blog by Kevin Smith,
SPJ President and Chairman of the Ethics Committee.
In his excellent analysis, Smith provides context and cites two recent examples of national journalists being unaware of the Code of Ethics.
Example 1
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus went after Cain, defending the paper but admitting she wasn’t familiar with the SPJ Code of Ethics. She wrote: “I suffer from the instinctive journalistic aversion to official codes of conduct.”
Example 2
Later Monday, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell showed her relative lack of ethical knowledgeby snarking to Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, the reporter who broke the original story, “I assume you’ve read the journalistic code of conduct, whatever that is.” 
Well,
the Mitchell snarking and the Marcus arrogance of destitute ignorance make them poster children of the WORST OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM.  I didn't know they were both
so empty headed, ungrounded and intellectually lazy.
Martin's snide response to Mitchell was also stupid and a disservice to real journalists.
I spent several decades in journalism and the SPJ Code of 
Ethics was something that guided my shops from when
I was a street reporter to my years as a news executive.
True journalists, serious journalists know about and 
abide by the code.  Fools, egotists, gas bags, snark queens,
and posers apparently do not.
SO, THIS IS DEDICATED TO
RUTH MARCUS, ANDREA MITCHELL AND
JONATHAN MARTIN--


THE TURKEY TROT

Perhaps they are not students of irony,

but as we near Thanksgiving, we can count on a 

parade of wild turkeys making their daily

migration across the ridge top.

We noticed that Mr White, the albino, is back.

Like some people, they are not very intelligent and

are ignorant of honor and codes of conduct and leave us

with messes to be cleaned up.

See you down the trail.  Watch your step

especially if Marcus, Mitchell and Martin are around.

A BAD SOURCE COULD HAVE IT RIGHT

A CONTRADICTION IN A TIME

OF FAILING MEDIA

Something to remember about the confused media today is that just because it comes from a source with a point of view, does not mean that it is not right.  Fox gets things right.  MSNBC gets things right.  So do all of the nets and even many on line sources despite the fact that some, too many  to my liking, have staked out a political or philosophical skew. Amongst the chaff is some real wheat but you must discern.

It used to be easier when journalists cared about

information first, before the tyranny of ratings

and the need to be a "profit center."

Objectivity used to matter.

Unless you only read the Economist and watch the BBC, about the only way you are going to get "the straight news" is to consume information from all over the spectrum.  We should be doing that anyway, but most of us rely on the same old...

Glass-Stegall ?  Remember your history?  Here's something the OWS has done well. Regardless of the "commercial like" close consider the historic clips and the point they make about banks.

Here's the wikipedia paragraph that lays it out.  Look what the repeals did and consider those in light of credit default swaps and other such scams.  The point is, we had strong economic growth without devastating recession UNTIL we began "repealing" and de-regulating.

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.^[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such asRegulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by theDepository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding companyfrom owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).^[2][3]

The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.

We may not always like the source, but we are served by

remembering that sometimes the truth can come

in thorny packages.  Very few of the Old Testament

prophets would have won a popularity contests.

Political dialogue in the US has been hijacked by ideologues, zealots, hacks and cable news "personalities."  While most of it is bilious and not worth your time,

some of it is necessary to fully understand all points of

view, even those with which you disagree.  And

some of it is probably right, from time to time.

Even if the media is less objective than it should be

you can be as objective as you allow yourself in

considering, really considering, honestly considering,

all points of view.  You can always rest in your

 view, and if you've allowed opposing thoughts to

cross your mind and it has not nudged you a bit,

then you can take solace in the knowledge.

An open mind wont hurt.

See you down the trail.