Media Rant time

I really wish I wasn’t a journalist sometimes, because what I am seeing for passing for news reporting these just about makes me want to puke.

The blame game in this coverage is bovine scatology of the first order.

Now, understand folks, I spent about 30 years working in the news rooms of newspapers. Some of it I was reporting, some of it I was editing … but I will say this: the crap, and that is being generous, that was put up by CNN about the storm in the South was about the poorest example I have seen coming out of that once respected cable news outlet.

First of all, I lived in the Atlanta area for six years, and in the South generally for the better part of 25 years, and so I am quite familiar with what is paralyzing the region … as the saying goes, been there, done that … got the T-shirt, and lost it – a number of times. I doubt, honestly, that any folks up in Yankeedom (that is anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line or the Ohio River) probably would have done much better on the first big blizzard of the year, but then they do get a lot more practice.

I can tell you that on a good day that the traffic jams in Atlanta are epic, and the drivers worse (I had a Jaguar coupe try to swap paint with my old Ford pickup truck at 75 mph on an Atlanta freeway one day – and only because I grew up driving the Southern California freeways, we didn’t).

No, Southerners do not know how to drive on snow and ice, and for most years they don’t have to. On those few occasions that it happens, well, you are seeing the results.

For that reason, which my Canadian wife got real hoots out of, at the first snowflake, towns, schools and just about everything else closes up shop – and people all run to the grocery store to stock up on milk and bread. Don’t ask me why, but it is a Southern thing.

I have no doubt that the state, counties, cities and towns affected by this storm had emergency plans in place to deal with it … but when the rubber hits the road, the plans go in the bit buck about as fast as you can say snow flake or especially ice crystal.

Add to that the track record for meteorologists is nothing to write home about. For example, I now reside on the coast of Maine and the weather forecast has called for snow or some other type of frozen precipitation for just about every other day for the past week and I ain’t seen nary a flake yet … oh, there were a few drops of mist on the windshield when I went to the doctor’s on Monday, but not enough even to make the pavement damp.

So, between weather forecasters who can’t get their act together and a storm that comes along maybe once a decade – if not once a generation – and you expect things to go normally?

Now, if  you are journalist, you report what is happening, and you don’t go pillorying every government official you can put your microphone and camera in front of for failing to get everybody home.

Reminds me  of Hurricane Floyd in 1999. (Background on Floyd) As Floyd skirted up the East Coast, the governor of South Carolina, as a precaution, ordered all the people in the counties east of I-95 to evacuate. It turned into a royal mess with it taking people 10-12 hours to cover normally is a 90 minute to two hour drive.

And then … Floyd didn’t even come ashore in South Carolina and just brushed the North Carolina Cape Hatteras area before finally slamming in the Virginia and Maryland.

Now, what do you think people thought of evacuations then?

So, all you people who are pointing fingers at the folks down South: Bless your pea-picking little hearts, but you weren’t there and I have heard from folks from up North of the Border who were there and were saying that they doubted it would have been handled any better.

Actually, rather than try to blame somebody, CNN could have been going out and reporting actually what was happening, which probably was some really great human interest stories about people pitching in and helping one another when the going was tough and at its worst.

Like the teachers and school administrators who made the brave choice to hunker down in their schools with their students and do their best to make them feel safe and comfortable.

Or those police officers and firefighters going out and doing their jobs, despite the conditions. And yes, even those much maligned state and county road crews who had to put that strange and little used equipment to use out there on highways not even a snowshoe hare would dare to travel.

I have lived through a slew of those ice storms, and believe me, I will take the 30 inch snowfall we had here in Maine over them anytime.

Anyway, suffice it to say, I think CNN’s coverage sucked the big green weenie and what little respect I had for the institution slipped even further into the john.

Failure to understand

Failure of the campaigns
American political system is not working
No matter how Tuesday’s (Nov. 6) election turns out, at all levels, we will have those 21^st Century types that don’t understand how this venerable American political system designed in the 18^th Century is working actually the way it was designed, which really is an amazing tribute to the people who have shaped it over the last 225 years.
In both of the above referenced articles, the authors complain of the “failure” of the American political system. Apparently, if I am interpreting their rhetoric correctly, the failure is in that the government apparently is gridlocked and cannot agree on solutions. This is bad, according to them.
Well, count me among those who say maybe it isn’t so bad.
Yes, both sides of the political spectrum are being fairly obstructive, but then that is their jobs. Their jobs are to represent the people who voted them into office, not their constituency at large. Now, I am not saying that these people are not educated, or unintelligent, but I am saying that I don’t agree with their understanding of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.
To that end, I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
First, there is a failure to communicate exactly what Americans view as their expectations of the role government (especially the federal government) in their lives, in their finances, their health and nutrition, and in the economic affairs of the nation in general.
There is a great divide in America right now between those who see a big role for the federal government providing for welfare of the American people and those who are suspicious of the federal government intervening in the lives of individuals. That divide, unfortunately, is wide and probably can’t be reconciled, but it will have to be accommodated somehow.
Second, somewhere along the line, two concepts were missed in translation and apparently failed to be communicated to the generations in the 21^st Century. The first concept is that instantaneous gratification really is not possible, no matter how much we want to believe it is. Part two is that winner takes all is not part of the democratic equation; rather it sows the seeds of conflict in the future, especially in a country that has more than one vision of what that future ought to be.
So, we have people looking at the American system and saying “It is broken” or “It is dysfunctional” when they really mean that it is not providing the solutions that they think it should. That seems to be more a problem of their expectations than whether the system is broken or dysfunctional.
However, assuming that it is “broken”, I would be very curious as to what their “solution” would be. My question is that while they may think it is broken, could it not be that the “system” is thinking, trying to ascertain what the best solution might be.
You see, your first reaction sometimes is not the best reaction. Sometimes it is, and then again sometimes it isn’t. We used to value people in this country people who would take the time to consider their actions, rather than merely react to certain stimuli. I fear that carefully considered approach is waning, to be replaced by the demands of those who require instant gratification.
I mean, just look at our wired world today. Millions, if not billions, of people have the ability to access information nearly instantaneously, make a snap judgment on that information (as incomplete as it may be) and then move on to the next thing that may attract their attention.
It takes no thought to do that. I would call it reactionary, but I suspect that many of those who are addicted to the swiftness of modern communications would revolt at being labeled as such, particularly progressives who seem to be enamored with the benefits of such technology.
We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to lay foundations and to build new edifices to our dreams and hopes for the future. No, we seem to have lost that perspective … and this is not just a left-right deal or liberal/progressive-v-conservative argument.
It is more of a generational thing, where those who vaguely remember what life was like before television, cell phones and the internet can recall having to wait … and wait … and wait … sometimes. Not just for decisions, but for the information to base those decisions on. Patience is not a virtue that Americans have.
The election, whenever it is decided, will not change things immediately. I hope people realize that. The system will continue its slow, inexorable process toward resolution of issues large and small … and no, the world is not going to come to end on Dec. 21.
The system is not broken or dysfunctional … it merely is not spitting out solutions at the pace your video game has taught you to react to.

Mountain out of a molehill

Binders, sminders

As Pappy would have said: Tis a mountain out of molehill.

Jeemney Christmas. What is with all the uproar about presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying he got “binders” filled with women’s resumes when he went looking for women to fill out his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts?

Hey, give the guy some credit. He did do the sexist thing and tried to do affirmative action for women. What was he supposed to say: I got a pile of resumes or a stack of applications? This has got to be the most senseless news story in … well at least a couple of weeks.

I will say one thing for the businessman-turned-politician at least he had his staff trained halfway decently. The boss asks for information and a good staff will organize it for him, so he doesn’t waste time. It seems to me that his staff did just that: Organized the resumes for his review. And for this he is getting blasted and blistered?

Methinks some people have their head in the wrong place.

No, it seems that some of our progressive and liberal friends are trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, or at least shouldn’t be in my estimation. I wish someone would explain to me ( as Pappy used to say) in words of one syllable or less so I could understand exactly what the problem is because I don’t see the problem. Ok, I am a male in my sixties, but I don’t see what the problem is hiring women to fill positions if they are qualified, pay them the same rate as any guy you would hire for the position (note: you are paying for the job being done, not for the person to fill it).

Still, we are three days after the debate, and we still are flapping our jaws about a non-issue.

To me the unanswered question was who pulled the security teams from Libya in August? Who denied the U.S. ambassador to Libya’s request for addition security and why? Why was the White House apparently clueless when the flunkies in the State Department knew pretty much what was going on? Was it really the Secretary of State’s fault that the real-time reports of the eight-hour gun-battle (including mortar fire, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns) by an estimated-platoon-sized contingent of terrorist drove the Americans and their staff and guards into bunkers was not transmitted to at least the National Security Advisor, if not the Secretary of Defense, as well as the President?

Sorry, that seems to bear more on the job of being president then whether or not he reviews candidates for cabinet or staff positions by having their resumes presented to him in binders.

I am a retired journalist, actually a retired newspaper editor, and the current state of journalism absolutely revolts me when it comes to campaign coverage. Of course, I come from a different era, when you didn’t have to deal with the passions of the social media.

For example, I pointed out to one of the people whom I have considerable respect as a thoughtful person that a picture that she had posted on her Facebook page was factually incorrect … and she told me I basically was being an idiot because it didn’t matter. Everybody did it. Well, I guess, I have to apologize to her, but damn, I thought accuracy and the truth was more important than just tearing down people, places, organizations and things you disagree with.

At least when I differ with someone, I do try to at least explain why I think my observations are valid. But just to say: Well, that is how it is done of Facebook and everybody does it, appalls me. I guess personal integrity is passé and personal credibility is something no one cares about.

No wonder America is going to hades in the handbasket.

A hypothetical situation

I am not going to source this one, like I do, because it is merely speculation on my part and not necessarily based on what I expect or what I think is true (at least I hope not).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, it seems that the Democrats are going to great lengths to level the charge that the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of their supporters. Whether it is attempts to remove illegals, dead people, people in prison, people no longer living in a district (we are a republic, remember) from voter rolls or the whole discourse over how unfair it is to require someone to have a valid photo identification in order to vote, it seems that Democrats are really flogging the voter suppression issue, or at least it seems that way in the online national news media web sites.

Another thing, there is a huge debate on the accuracy of various media polls that are published it seems daily on how much support the Democratic and Republican party candidates have. Conservative sites trumpet how close the race seems, while progressive and what I used to call liberal (apparently the term is passé) sites trumpet how far ahead President Obama is and how seemingly unpopular former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is.

Given this drumbeat, I pose some what-ifs:

What if, despite the polls, Romney wins not only the Electoral College vote, but also the popular vote, by a substantially clear margin?

What if, Romney wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote?

What if, Romney actually wins the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote? (Ok, that is not likely but it could happen)

Given the polarization being advanced by the new media as well as the old media, what is going to happen?

What if, God forbid, there is a Republican surge and the party sweeps a whole bunch of Senate races unexpectedly?

On the flip side:

Will the right really revolt if Obama wins re-election, especially by a sizeable margin?

In either case, will Americans accept the results of Nov. 6 or will they reject them?

That is what is concerning me. It almost seems as if someone wants to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make the Mayan calendar “prediction” of the “end time” come true.

I don’t know what will happen in any of the above scenarios. I do know enough, however, to ask questions and seek answers.

I also have considerable hope that all the hyperbole that is being spouted in the new media, internet and traditional media is merely information overload and not really reflective of reality.

I may be wrong, but I have this belief in our ability to face reality and cope with it, however harsh it may be. The next six weeks will be ugly in a political sense in the United States … and maybe throughout the world, the way things are looking. It may get even uglier as Dec. 21 comes (the end of the Mayan Calendar) but I fully expect that this time next year, we will all look back and say:

“WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING BACK THEN?”

To my Muslim readers: Why the violence?

Short history of Muslim intolerance
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)

I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?

First Amendment concerns

Critiques' deletions cause censorship cries
You know, sometimes I really am impressed by how little a large proportion of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
For example: The right of free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, but most people don’t understand what “free speech” means.
It does not mean, for instance, that you can say anything you want about anything and anybody you want at any time you want. Sorry, but you can’t do that.
You can’t lie about other people, either verbally or in writing. You can’t damage the reputation of other people, either verbally or in writing (with some exceptions). You do that verbally, and you can successfully be sued for slander. You do it in print (or over the airwaves) and you can successfully be sued for libel.
You can’t say just anything that you want, like, maybe, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That also can get you arrested.
You can’t display things, calling it “art”, or do certain things that offend local community standards (or sometimes national community standards). It is called obscenity and will get you arrested.
You can’t call for the violent overthrow of the government. That also will probably end up getting you arrested, especially if you try to garner the means to accomplish your calls. It is called treason and sedition.
You can’t demand a third party print your libelous, obscene, treasonous or seditious material, or air it on television or radio or leave it on their servers on the internet. Sorry, that does not fall under your right of free speech.
Now, if you own the server, you can put whatever you want on it. But if it is someone else’s server or web page, then you have no rights at all. Besides, they can get (and probably would be) sued for your libel and they really don’t want that to happen.
You see, that is why web sites, servers and internet service providers (almost all of which are private entities and not government entities) will “censor” your comments. They don’t want to get sued.
The First Amendment only applies to the government(s – courtesy of the 15^th Amendment) in the United States. It says CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to the freedom of speech, expression, etc. It does not say that your neighbor, or your newspaper, or radio station, or your television station, or some web site or internet host has to allow you to have free rein on their platform.
Nope, you want the freedom to say or whatever, then you go get your own soapbox and put it on the public square, or buy a copy machine and use it as a printing press, or crank up your own radio or TV station (unfortunately, there you will have to get an FCC licenses due to limited bandwidth on the airwaves), or set up your own web site on your own server (although there too the government can shut you down if you violate the law, sorry about that).
You see, freedom doesn’t mean you have no responsibility. Not that at all as you are responsible for what you say and do. If there are consequences, civil or criminal, then you have to be prepared to face those consequences and accept them as a result of your actions while you were exercising your vocal cords or your computer terminal.
So, when a web site deletes your comment, get over it. It is their right. You may not like it, just as they don’t like what you are saying. But they own the printing press and they get to decide what they print. You don’t like it, go create your own web site.
You see, freedom really isn’t free. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be licensed or censored. Freedom comes with a cost and part of that cost usually is acting responsibility and with dignity and respect toward the rights of others.