Category Archives: Media

What Next For “60 Minutes?”

Posted on by

60 Minutes was founded as a weekly news show from the premier broadcast news organization. The idea was that, as a news program with a full hour to devote to a few stories, it would have the time to thoroughly investigate issues and report beyond the headlines. It became a huge success. For decades, Mike Wallace, Harry Reasoner, Ed Bradley, Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Morley Safer and others broke stories of real substance, even when the subjects of the stories refused to cooperate.

Unfortunately, the program now seems a shadow of its former self.

In a short, ten week span, Lara Logan and Leslie Stahl showed us what happens when a reporter lacks a real curiosity for the subject matter and fails to follow the disciplines of basic reporting. Maybe they were deceived. Maybe they succumbed to the charm of their interview subjects. More likely they approached the story with preconceived notions. Whatever the reason, they turned in reports unworthy of those who established the once-proud tradition of CBS News and 60 Minutes.

Logan later apologized for her false story on Benghazi, and was given a leave of absence from the network. Stahl, however, has not commented on criticisms of her shallow and misleading story on “Clean Tech.” She was given no time off. And this past week she returned to the type of story for which I believe she is better suited…fluff. Her report on those who have superior autobiographical memory is the kind of insipid story at which she truly excels. Indeed, it was the kind of story best-suited for the new 60 Minutes…a story that requires no real reporting. No complicated technologies to grasp. No requirement to investigate and vet sources. No nuances of international politics.

The question is, were the recent failures solely the fault of the reporters? Or were they the failure of network management? Time will tell. In the meantime, I find myself missing the insightful reporting of Andy Rooney, he of large eyebrows who filed investigative reports about his shoes or the contents of his office. In many ways, he displayed better journalistic instincts than some of the show’s most recent stories.

Bullying On A Massive Scale.

Posted on by

We have now learned that a top aide to Gov. Chris Christie ordered the closure of two access lanes to the world’s busiest bridge as political payback. Apparently, the aide was angry that the Democratic mayor of Ft. Lee failed to endorse Christie in his successful re-election campaign.

That public officials in New Jersey would use their offices to punish competitors is not surprising. Such stories are seldom even newsworthy. But given that the payback came from someone tied to one of the expected front-runners for the GOP nomination for president? That’s news!

If you think not, consider this: What would be the reaction of the media, especially the Fox Noise machine, if President Obama’s Chief of Staff had used his position to exact the same sort of revenge against a political opponent? Just think about that for a moment. How many headlines would that generate considering all the outrage and accusations against the Obama administration for merely conducting business as usual? Remember the controversy that stemmed from President Obama’s plan to address school children in a video link as previous presidents have done. Remember the “indoctrination” charges? And remember the outrage when the First Lady started the “Let’s Move” campaign and healthy foods initiative to combat childhood obesity? Right wingers were in full throat with claims of indoctrination and claims that she was “meddling” in decisions that should be reserved for the family.

If political payback by the White House was uncovered, Rush Limbaugh, Fox and most Teapublican politicians would have the tar boiling, the torches lit and their pitchforks raised.

I’m not saying that Democrats should react the same way in the wake of the Ft. Lee bridge closure. Gov. Christie may have no direct involvement or prior knowledge of the payback. A leader can’t be expected to micro-manage every aspect of the government. But a governor should be aware of actions by his (or her) senior staff members. Moreover, the bridge closure does raise questions about Christie’s leadership and his choice of those who work for him.

At minimum, this event deserves a full and timely investigation, the resignation of those involved, and an apology from Christie. At worst, it should disqualify Christie from office.

Stop Blaming Bush?

Posted on by

On today’s edition of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR, a conservative asked the question, “Can we all admit that this is no longer George W. Bush’s economy?” It’s a fair question. We are, after all, about to begin the sixth year of the Obama administration. So I, for one, am more than willing to concede the point. Even though Bush’s policies crashed the economy, slashing federal revenue through tax cuts for the wealthy and leaving us mired in two unfunded wars with annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion along with massive unemployment, this is no longer Bush’s economy.

It is now quite clearly President Obama’s.

So let’s review what has happened over the past five years. To begin, President Obama signed a stimulus plan that helped stem the bleeding. He gave loans to GM and Chrysler to save the US auto industry and tens of thousands of jobs. He withdrew troops from Iraq and has promised to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan this year. He lifted American spirits by giving the order to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. He expanded health care access to millions more Americans and stemmed out-of-control inflation of health care costs.

Under President Obama, we have seen a consistent rise in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the stock markets. At the same time, we have seen a substantial drop in umemployment despite substantial cuts to the number of employees at all levels of government. Finally, under President Obama, we have seen the most rapid drop in the federal deficit in modern history!

And most of this has been accomplished despite a recalcitrant GOP-led House that would have us believe that the way to deal with a struggling economy is to cut federal spending and revenues. Counter to the advice of most every economist, the Teapublicans in Congress have voted against bills that would create jobs, bills that would rebuild infrastructure while interest rates are at historic lows, and programs that stimulate the economy while helping those who most need it.

So, yes indeed. This is President Obama’s economy. And it would be even better if the GOP would get out of the way!

Paying It Forward.

Posted on by

Renewing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation bill would add $25.2 billion to the current federal budget. Right wing politicians and media outlets tell us that we can’t afford such “giveaways” unless they are offset by other spending cuts. Oddly, they have no such requirements for subsidies to defense contractors, the oil industry, the financial industry, big Pharma, corporate agriculture and other large interests.

But for a program that will prevent 1.3 million people from falling into the abyss? Teapublicans believe that cost needs to be offset!

Certainly saving $25.2 billion sounds good. But, in government, saving money always comes at a cost. In this case, it’s not difficult to imagine the human cost of taking away the only source of income for 1.3 million people…people who have been unemployed for six months or longer. People who are discriminated against by employers who think there must be something wrong with someone who has been unemployed for so long.

And there are other costs.

As journalist Bill Moyers reports, “Harvard economist Lawrence Katz estimates that the expiration of benefits for the long-term unemployed is costing the economy $1 billion per week.” Others estimate the cost to our economy at $400 million a week. Whichever figure is correct, that means the cost of extended unemployment benefits is already offset by what the program contributes to the economy.

Economists confirm that money spent on such programs goes directly into the economy. After all, what else are the long-term unemployed going to do with the money? Save it? Obviously, they spend it. They use it to pay for food, gasoline, utilities and other necessities. It’s not enough to allow them to live comfortably. But it helps. And that money stimulates other portions of the economy. It contributes to sales taxes. It contributes to the profits of local businesses which, in turn, pay income taxes on the money. As a result, the money finds its way back into federal, state and local governments as revenues.

It’s a win-win. It’s taxpayers paying it forward to help their struggling neighbors. Anyone who would say otherwise is cruel and heartless.

Oh wait! I just described today’s GOP.

CBS’ “60 Minutes” Fails Again!

Posted on by

After its well-publicized failure to report the truth about the attack on our Benghazi consulate, one would expect that CBS, particularly its 60 Minutes crew, would be careful to assure accuracy in future reports.

Yet, this past Sunday, just 10 weeks after its Benghazi debacle, 60 Minutes failed again.

In attempting to uncover government waste on the part of the Obama administration’s clean energy loan program, Leslie Stahl displayed her apparent bias and ignorance of the subject. Under the label “clean tech,” she conflated high-tech companies with clean energy companies. (Not every clean energy alternative is high tech.) She also conflated the failure of venture capital-backed start-ups with the failure of companies receiving federally-backed loans. In doing so, she implied that a majority of loans to clean energy companies were lost. She also implied that clean energy is a fool’s errand.

Further, Stahl failed to provide real context for her story.

She failed to report that when a federally-backed company fails it doesn’t always default on the loans. That’s because the loans are often recovered through the sale of assests. She failed to report the failure rate of federally-backed loans which, according to congressional testimony by the former head of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, is less than 3 percent. She failed to report that the loans to Solyndra began during the Bush administration. She failed to report that even companies that fail often create products and technologies that eventually benefit us all. She failed to report that, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 2013 was a huge success. She failed to mention that nine states now get 10 percent or more of their electricity from wind and solar; that wind is now the dominant energy source in Spain; that solar and wind compete head-to-head with coal in places like South Africa.

Stahl also failed to report that approximately three-quarters of all venture capital-backed businesses fail. That’s across all industries. Not just in the clean energy sector. She didn’t recognize the ecological consequences of making fuel from trees (one of the “clean tech” start-ups she covered in her story). She failed to report the ecological consequences of basing our future on oil, most especially tar sands oil. More important, she failed to report the staggering amount of money that the federal government gives to the carbon-based energy sector with no expectation of repayment (estimates range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually).

Stahl suggests that taxpayers should expect more from our government than failures such as Solyndra (which was a superior technology that failed primarily because of our long-standing trade policies with China).

I’d suggest that we should expect better…much better…from Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes.

Dumb Dynasty.

Posted on by

Last week, social media were overwhelmed with the Duck Dynasty scandal after the program’s “star,” Phil Robertson likened homosexuality to bestiality and talked glowingly about the days of Jim Crow. In an interview with GQ, he said, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once … They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

It seems that Robertson missed the Fifties and Sixties when black people were beaten or lynched for being “uppity.” Apparently he missed the entire civil rights movement when dogs and fire hoses were aimed at those participating in peaceful marches; when black churches were bombed or burned; when organizers were murdered for registering African-Americans to vote.

But Robertson’s failed memory isn’t the real scandal here. Neither is the fact that a ZZ Top lookalike said something stupid, insensitive and hateful. Nor is the fact that his employer chose to “suspend” him for his statements. It is somewhat more scandalous that the program is on a network named Arts & Entertainment, and that Robertson was interviewed by a magazine named Gentleman’s Quarterly. But none of those things represent a real scandal.

The real scandal is that anyone actually cares.

Contrary to the beliefs of its supporters, Duck Dynasty is not a reality show. Most of it is as phony as the family member’s beards which were grown just for the program. It doesn’t represent the South or American family “values.” What it actually represents is the further dumbing down of America. Centered on a family that made a fortune by making and selling duck calls, the program’s alleged entertainment comes from watching a wealthy family act like spoiled, overgrown children imparting hillbilly homilies. It is, in fact, a prime example of what former Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Newton Minow once condemned as television’s “vast wasteland.”

As for conservatives who have their tighty whities in a bunch over A&E’s “suspension” of Robertson, they can relax. The network has already announced that Robertson will not miss a single episode, and publicity of the controversy will likely only increase the program’s ratings. Further, the “suspension” was not a violation of Robertson’s First Amendment right to free speech. He was admonished by his employer, not the government. (Get back to me if he’s ever arrested for making dumb statements.)

Don Imus, Keith Olbermann, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin and many others have been removed from the air and lost substantial income as the result of making insensitive statements in public. On the other hand, Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, the pundits of Fox News Channel and other conservative icons never seem to face any real consequences for being chronically and publicly stupid.

Putting Pagan Back In The Solstice.

Posted on by

It’s that time of year when, once again, we are treated to the annual Fox News Channel “War on Christmas” diatribes. For some reason, the Fox pundits believe that wishing someone “Happy Holidays” is an insult to Christianity. It’s not. It’s simply a sentiment intended to include those of all religious backgrounds. Certainly, the majority of Americans call themselves Christian. But our population also includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Atheists and more. If you don’t know someone’s religious beliefs (and not everyone wears a necklace with a cross, a star or other symbol of faith), wishing them “Happy Holidays” is not insulting. It’s simply being polite.

This year, the Fox nitwits have become even more extreme than usual. They now claim that Santa Claus (a largely mythical and secular character) is white. They have also stated that Jesus was white. (Yes, white as in Caucasian white.)

Really?

The story of Santa originated with Saint Nicholas, a man of Turkish origin who was known for his generosity to the poor. His ancestry would indicate that he was not white. And, although the real St. Nick was always depicted with a beard, he was hardly the portly, cherubic character that most kids think of today. Since today’s Santa Claus is a figment of the imagination, people can imagine him to be white, black, brown or green. It really doesn’t matter.

As for Jesus, he was Jewish, not Caucasian. Even the most devoutly revisionist Christians should know that! Yes, over the centuries, artists have often portrayed Jesus as white. But artists tend to represent historical figures according to their own cultural heritage. Such renderings should not be confused with reality.

Moreover, few historians believe that Christ was actually born on December 25. The exact date of his birth is unknown. Historians have placed the date sometime between March and October from 7 to 2 BC. Likely the celebration of his birth was moved to December 25 in order to coincide with the Winter Solstice, thus encouraging Pagans and others to adopt Christianity without giving up the celebration of one of their most important holidays. When we celebrate Christmas on December 25, we are also honoring an important tradition of Pagans and other ancient cultures.

The point of all this is that, if it wants to be taken seriously as a news source, Fox should get its facts straight. And it should stop trying to pit one religion against another and one group against another. It causes me no harm if you want to put the Christ back in Christmas. Nor does it cause me any harm if you want to put the Pagan back in the Solstice. However you celebrate the season, it should be a time to gather with family and friends. It should be a time of happiness and joy.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Extremists And Cowards.

Posted on by

Bullies and weaklings; a**holes and chickensh*ts; Teapublicans and Democrats.  Whatever you want to call them, many of the people who now take up seats in Congress generally fall into one of these two categories. Never has the distinction been more obvious than following the latest vote on “Obamacare.” 39 cowards chose to join the right wing extremists by voting for a bill to “fix” the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by requiring insurance companies to continue to sell junk insurance policies.

The cowards are Democrats who have revealed themselves to be far more concerned about being re-elected and doing what’s best for themselves than doing what’s right for their constituents and their country. Indeed, they are Democrats who have sold out their constituents, their campaign contributors, their congressional caucus and the president. Instead of standing up for health care reform, they stood up for the status quo. They stood up for insurance company profits. They stood up for lobbyists. They stood up with their hands out looking for large campaign contributions from the insurance industry and Big Pharma.

Certainly, many of these weaklings have been targeted by the Republican National Committee and its billionaire sponsors. I have a certain amount of sympathy for these people since right wing Super PACs have already spent millions to attack them more than a year before the mid-term elections. But, if you’re a progressive voter, what’s the point of supporting a representative who refuses to support you on something as important as the ACA? These cowards are forcing their supporters to hold their noses and choose the lesser of the two evils.

For the record, I don’t believe in so-called litmus tests for politicians. I believe in compromise and bipartisanship, but not at the expense of betraying those they are elected to represent. Voting to undermine the ACA by eliminating insurance standards is just such a betrayal.

From the beginning, the ACA has been a difficult undertaking. Everyone knew that its implementation would not be smooth, even in the best of circumstances. (We all know that the roll-out of Social Security, Medicare and Part D did not go smoothly.) In order to get the bill passed, the administration was forced to drop the public option that was intended to keep insurance companies honest by providing more competition. Congressmen and senators spent months and months adding amendments that would weaken the bill. Then many of those same people voted against it anyway.

The ACA faced unparalleled opposition from both inside and outside the beltway; from lobbyists; from the insurance industry; from the pharmaceutical industry; from the medical supply industry and more. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in very public attempts to block it. Teapublicans have spent years bad-mouthing it and predicting that it would be a “train wreck.” They mischaracterized it as a “government takeover” of medicine. They said it would result in “government death panels.” The right wing media has called it “an end to liberty,” “socialism,” “fascism” and worse. The mainstream media has thrived on the controversy, reporting it as though it was some sporting event, trumpeting every setback and glitch. Now they are scoring the ACA by the numbers of people who have registered and purchased insurance policies.

Teapublicans made their opposition to the ACA the centerpiece of two election cycles. They have attempted to repeal the ACA or defund it more than 40 times. They even shut down the government in an attempt to defund the ACA.

Many Teapublican-controlled states refused to expand Medicaid leaving millions of their citizens without health insurance. Many of those same states refused to create insurance exchanges, forcing the federal government to pick up the slack and directing millions more Americans to the healthcare.gov website. At the same time, they cut funding for the website. They funded cyber attacks to disrupt the website. Then they held congressional “investigations” in order to call attention to the glitches.

And now, NOW, 39 so-called Democrats add to the headwinds by voting for a bill that would undermine the ACA? I can think of only two words to describe such a vote…cowardice and treachery! I spent the last election cycle supporting some of these people. I donated to their campaign funds. I can hardly wait until I receive another email from them asking for my support.

They won’t like the answer any more than I like their vote.

A Sad Episode Of “60 Minutes.”

Posted on by

When I was in journalism school a long time ago, CBS was rightfully used as an example of great journalism. Such industry giants as Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Robert Trout, Harry Reasoner, Eric Sevareid, Roger Mudd, Charles Kuralt, Mike Wallace, Robert Pierpoint, Howard K. Smith, Douglas Edwards, Ed Bradley, and Daniel Schorr were part of the world’s premier news organization. They were idolized for their impartiality and determination to get at the truth.

Since those halcyon days, CBS News has sunk to such lows that journalism schools may now use its 60 Minutes report on Benghazi as an example of what not to do.

Lara Logan’s story was fraught with holes, inconsistencies and outright lies. Apparently Logan and the 60 Minutes crew were determined to break a sensational story that would expose some sort of cover-up by the Obama administration. Certainly, the story was sensational. It was also false.

In filing the report, CBS News broke some of the most basic rules that are taught to would-be reporters in Journalism 101. There were so many red flags, it’s astounding that an editor, any editor, would agree to air the report, let alone make it the lead story on the telecast. First, the “source” (independent contractor Dylan Davies) asked to be given an asumed name (Morgan Jones) for protection, yet he agreed to appear on camera making it easy to identify him. Second, Davies admitted to the reporter(s) that he had lied to his employers when asked if he had reached the US consulate during the attack. Third, it was known that Davies had also shopped a manuscript of his tale to a book publisher.

To most experienced reporters any one of these issues would place the source’s credibility in question.

Finally, and more important, Davies’ testimony was in direct contradiction with what was already known about the events in Benghazi. It not only contradicted accounts by the State Department, the Department of Defense and the Obama administration. It contradicted reports from independent groups empaneled to investigate the matter. This should have caused CBS News to seek further corraboration. At very least, it should have caused the network to do much more investigation before running with the story. But it seems, CBS News and 60 Minutes were more intent on exposing or, more accurately, creating a scandal.

The only scandal they created centered on their failure to accurately present the news.

Yet the most astonishing aspect of this sorry mess is that CBS News chairman, Jeff Fager, stood by the story after serious questions were raised. Indeed, he used the fact that Davies had previously lied (not once, but twice) as evidence of his credibility!

Not until CBS News became aware that Davies had told a different story during his testimony to the FBI, did Fager and CBS News start to question Davies’ credibility. Seriously, CBS? No one in your news organization thought to check out your source? No one thought to read the volumes of testimony on the events at Benghazi? No one thought to ask the administration, the State Department or others for a rebuttal? The editor of my college newspaper would have fired me for less.

Of course, CBS News did pull the story from its website several days after it aired. And it apparently arranged for Lara Logan to apologize for the story during her appearance on CBS This Morning. It also has stated that it will correct the story on an upcoming 60 Minutes. That may undo some of the political damage from the story. But it won’t undo the damage done to the proud reputation of CBS News.

All of this is painfully ironic when you consider the network’s actions following Dan Rather’s report on the favoritism shown to George W. Bush during his service in the Air National Guard. If you remember, Rather presented documents showing that Bush had gone AWOL and never served the remainder of his enlistment. When the veracity of those documents was questioned, CBS News hung Rather out to dry. Three producers were fired and Rather left the network shortly afterward with his career in tatters. Yet, since that time, it has been determined that the documents could have been authentic, and that Bush likely was AWOL.

Maybe this time, instead of punishing the reporter(s), the network should fire Fager and the editor(s) who failed to question the Benghazi story. Maybe it should commit to raising its news standards. Maybe it should ask itself, “What would Edward R. Murrow do?”

UPDATE: Lara Logan gave a “correction” at the end of a “60 Minutes” telecast in which she admitted to errors. Given the fact, that her apology was at the very end of the program and lasted only 90 seconds, there’s only one word that adequately characterizes the “correction”: LAME!

Logan did not explain why the network chose to give so much credibility and air time to an admitted liar who was looking to cash in by selling his story to a book publisher. She failed to explain why CBS did so little investigation. And she did not explain why CBS chose to give the “correction” so little time and attention.

Contrasting British Politics With Ours.

Posted on by

On a recent trip to Scotland, I participated in a rally for Scottish independence…a Scotland independent of the United Kingdom. Although I strongly believe that outsiders should not be involved in local politics, I joined the march in support of my friends.

What I experienced was extraordinary.

The leaders of the Scottish independence movement were positive, upbeat and forward-thinking. Despite the fact that the people of Scotland have been underrepresented since the formation of the UK, there was no anger; no frustration on display. On the “telly,” there were reasoned discussions and debates. One evening, representatives of both sides debated the issues with facts and little emotion. The moderator interrupted on numerous occasions to ask a follow-up question or to challenge a viewpoint. Over the course of the debate, the viewers, and probably the participants, had a genuine opportunity to learn.

Now imagine something similar transpiring in the US.

Imagine if the so-called “Independent Republic of Texas” followed through on years of threats to secede from the US. Imagine the vitriol and anger. Imagine the rancor and misinformation that would dominate our media. Imagine the long list of talking points that would be “reported” by Fox News Channel, MSNBC and the rest of our mass media.
By the time the process was over, most of the rest of us would be ready to secede from each other.

In fact, we’re now experiencing incredibly high levels of vitriol over a much lesser issue…simple budget negotiations.

Now ask yourself, why? Are the citizens of Scotland and the UK really so very different from us? Why are Britons able to remain civil while debating issues of political import? Why can British reporters hold politicians accountable when our reporters can’t? Why are British elections held over a matter of weeks, while US elections are now perpetual? Why are millionaires, billionaires and corporations unable to secretly buy votes for British candidates, while they are allowed to own most US candidates and offices?

I don’t have the answers. But if we want this “grand experiment in democracy” to last, we better find some fast!