Category: current events

Was the Trump-Russia Investigation a Hoax?

Trump and his supporters claim the investigation into his campaign with regard to Russian interference in the 2016 election was a “hoax” and a “witchhunt,” and that there was no collusion. If that is true, then we can assume that they would be OK if Joe Biden and his campaign did the following:

  • “Russia, if you’re listening–if you have recordings or information from Trump’s cell phone, I’m sure the American press would be happy to receive that information.”
  • meet with Russian contacts to get political dirt on Trump or discuss campaign strategy, don’t tell the FBI about this and lie about it to the public;

We can assume that Trump and those who agree with him believe that such actions do not warrant the FBI to investigate, and if they did investigate, that would be a witch hunt.

I’m almost certain Trump and his supporters would not be OK with this, not on a matter of principle, but because it would hurt Trump. For me, I can say such actions by a presidential candidate and his/her campaign, is unacceptable and would be disqualifying. And yes, it constitutes collusion or a level of cooperation with a hostile foreign power that is unacceptable and disqualifying.

The Best Chance to Protect and Preserve U.S. Democracy Might Be Closing Fast

Since the congressional Republicans decided to acquit Trump, instead of removing him (aside: There’s little doubt that Hamilton and Madison would have removed him), the voting Trump out was the next best chance to protect and preserve our republic. But Trump has been working hard to undermine the legitimacy of the election; he’s attempted to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service to hamper mail-in ballots, and he and congressional Republicans have been willing to use Russian assistance to win the election. He’s suggested sending federal forces to polling stations. Basically, he’ll cheat, subvert the elections to win. The question is not what he will do, but what he won’t do. (Prediction: From here on out, Trump will either follow through on his rhetoric and/or do more shocking things to win.)Because of this, I feel the election may not be the best chance to protect our republic–or to be more precise, in order to protect the elections, actions must be taken now. I’ll briefly go over each step in this post. Continue reading “The Best Chance to Protect and Preserve U.S. Democracy Might Be Closing Fast”

What’s the Deal with Chiefs Fans Booing the Players Standing in Unity?

When I watched the game last night I didn’t realize this happened. Only today did I hear comments from Deshaun Watson and J.J. Watt. I also watched some clips from ESPN’s First Take. Watt, and probably many others are baffled at the reaction. I was a little perplexed myself. Here the two best, or least bad, explanations I’ve seen: Continue reading “What’s the Deal with Chiefs Fans Booing the Players Standing in Unity?”

A Possible Blind spot for the Press

The following tweet resonated with me, and I wanted to comment on it:

Also: the most pervasive bias in political coverage is not left vs. right it’s “follows politics” vs. “doesn’t follow politics” By default, nearly everyone who covers politics falls into the “follows politics” category, which makes it really hard to understand people who don’t
What are possible ways the “follows politics” people (or news junkies, as I call them) have trouble understanding the “doesn’t follow politics” folks? Here are some thoughts off the top of my head Continue reading “A Possible Blind spot for the Press”

Changing Journalism Requires Systemic Changes; Or, the Challenge of Covering Trump, Part 3

I previously wrote about some of the unique challenges the press faces in covering Trump. But I never really touched on the larger structural features in the press that prevent coverage that best serves the public. I want to write about that in this post. Specifically, I want to address criticism of press coverage that I see regularly. What’s interesting, in my view, is that I agree with their criticisms, but my sense is that they don’t seem to understand the obstacles that prevent the coverage they seek. For example, the solution isn’t simply editors and journalists simply choosing a different approach. In my opinion, the problem is systemic and structural; individual journalists are more like cogs in a machine than masters operating the machine. To put it more simply, Continue reading “Changing Journalism Requires Systemic Changes; Or, the Challenge of Covering Trump, Part 3”

Do Whites Not Want to Know About Racism?

That’s what one African-Amerian Seattle sportswriter suggested in the two tweets below, which comment on recent statements made by Pete Carroll. I’m less certain about that claim, and I’ll share my thoughts after the two tweets:

Commercialization is a Bigger Problem in Journalism Than Political Bias; Or, a Letter Jane Craig Could Have Written

This is a not a new idea. The problem has existed probably since at least the 1980s. It’s also not an opinion I’ve just arrived at. I thought of this because of a recent post I read, about a journalist (who reminded me of Holly Hunter’s character in Broadcast News) quitting MSNBC.

It’s possible that I’m more sensitive to the editorial process due to my background in public radio, where no decision I ever witnessed was predicated on how a topic or guest would “rate.” The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.
and later,
“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.” As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.
I want to be clear that while I agree that ratings driven approach hurts the quality of news, this is not the same thing as saying “fake news”–that is, broadcast journalism is completely unreliable; that they’re making things up, particularly to hurt political opponents. I don’t think the public should completely give up on TV news, although they should be cautious and not blindly trust what they watch. The journalist calls for some way to change things. I’ll address some ideas in the first comments post.