Conservative Blogger
Sunday, November 13, 2016
A conservative's advice for the newly humbled press
Since Donald Trump won the presidency in numbers that shocked everyone paid to know the math, the media has been frank in its assessment that they got a collected “F” on their homework. From the denizens of MSNBC Morning Joe to Chuck Todd’s raw commentary to truly insightful column by CBS’ Will Rahn, members of the fourth estate have engaged in a bit of collective groveling, talking about how they need to do more to suppress their blatant displays of smugness in the face of the “others” in our society who don’t have to good sense to live in a large metropolitan city with sanitized points of view.
But after decades of working with members of the press representing conservatives of all kinds I don’t believe that disconnect will change as long as the media’s “analysis” of the problem continues to ignore the very people whom they claim to want to talk with and get to know.
In the last few days, panels of reporters have interviewed each other about why they and other professional critics missed the story, but when was the last time you saw them talking to the people who made this change happen with that same curiosity.
A network of people across the country, frustrated with government, academia, entertainment and media empires decided to act, and even now, when you watch the “analysis” of the change, what is offered is more naval gazing by the people who didn’t look up over the last 8 years, as wages have fallen and costs have exploded and millions of Americans have cried out for some relief.
Most of the time when issue boils over into the headlines, media representatives like myself spend hours gathering the details of the story, preparing the experts on the front lines and fine tuning key points that are being ignored, then spending countless more hours trying to get members of the media to pay attention. And most of the time, if there is a story, you find members of the media explaining what conservatives, or people of faith, or pro-life advocates or constitutionalists think. But God forbid that the actual people who are fighting good the fight on any specific issue get booked and are given the opportunity to speak for themselves.
Activists on the left get the courtesy of speaking for themselves, whether it is actors with an environmental gripe or people whose identity drives their activism. But for those on the conservative front, the media filters even the sight of the “other.”
And then there is the psychological approach to treating conservatism as some kind of weakness for which reporters and academics
dismiss as lack of learning or response to economic pressures or a
misplaced desire to return to the 1950s. Arriving at a different
conclusion is not deplorable; it’s a Constitutional right.
I’ve done countless hours of background interviews that end when a member of the media feels they have learned just enough to dismiss a point of view. But I always hope they will listen.
And then there is the set up interview, when reporters or producers want to book a conservative voice for a news package, editing complex issues to one 7-second sound bite, leading into the thoughtful conversation where the working press tells the world what they “really” meant.
Comedy shows routinely try to hide their intent, thinking sophisticated conservatives are too stupid to recognize that they will be the punch line.
I’ve told bookers directly that no client of mine with do some show because I’ve watched the show, and know it’s a set up, only to be told time and time again, “Well sure, sometimes we do that, but not with you. Trust us.” Right.
Hours of work go into getting one line at the end of a 20-inch story saying basically, “there is another way to see life,” and faith, if it motivates your view, cannot be one of the reasons for your position.
Isn’t it interesting that it is clearly bullying if someone is mocked for their looks or sexual orientation but it’s commentary and analysis if they are mocked for their faith, or the region of country they live in or their support for a candidate they have every right to choose.
On social media after the election, a number of people made disparaging comments saying, among many profanities, that the vast numbers of Americans who painted the country red with their votes were like “sheep.” I laughed heartily at that.
It’s work to hold and defend a position that mainstream culture rejects. Your facts must be sharp and your arguments backed with insight. It’s work to endure the droning on of celebrities and media analysts who are always telling you why they are right.
You must be strong to be gracious in the face of blatant disrespect and kind in explaining complex issues from a point of view that many reporters don’t even have the vocabulary to understand.
For years, I’ve worked with a number of thoughtful, intellectual people who provide excellent balance to the prevailing wisdom if the media took time to look. And they must work harder and longer to be heard.
Yet following Trump’s win, reporters seem puzzled about why the people they ignore are not listening to them. I offer some advice:
Pick up your phone. Check your e-mail. Go to an event not sponsored by the same groups you contribute to and yes, spend time in places where someone might disagree with you. I know firsthand that thoughtful, insightful conservatives have been trying to talk with you. Try talking with them.
And to those gatekeepers of shows, columns and news coverage, next time you want to explain a conservative point of view, feature an actual conservative. Go to the source and skip the filter. You just might learn something new.
North Carolina lawmaker rebuked over fake newspaper article about election
 |
| Rep. George Cleveland |
Cleveland’s email didn’t include any comments about the image, which he sent to members of the House Republican caucus.
Two other legislators rebuked Cleveland for sending the image, The string of emails was obtained by The News & Observer.
“I am not sure what point George is trying to make with the email below but it is certainly in poor taste,” House Rules Chairman David Lewis of Dunn wrote. “There are forces at work following this election that I do not understand – forces of hate and intolerance. I condemn those forces. I condemn the KKK and Black Panthers and any other group hell bent on dividing us. We must be smart enough to know our words and actions matter.”
Rep. Bob Steinburg of Edenton responded to Lewis: “Amen David, Amen!! We need NONE of this even in a poor and in my view tasteless attempt at humor. We are better than that.”
Reached by phone Friday evening, Cleveland defended the email and said he did not create the image or headline. “It was a bit of humor that I thought was a good jab at the media, and that was it,” he said. “The media has been very biased in the campaign.”
He said Lewis’ reaction was likely because the legislative leader is “extremely sensitive to what’s going on in the courts.”
Cleveland wanted to know how a reporter had obtained the email. “If you’re going to get involved, it’s going to be definitely blown out of proportion,” he said.
One legislator who received the email replied with his own attempt at humor aimed at the left.
“We need to set up a ‘safe space’ for our people to go to after ‘micro-aggressions,’” Rep. John Blust of Greensboro wrote. “I see where N.C. State has done this in wake of the election for its students. They are even having grief councilors and granola bars. One can’t help but wonder if such students should be home with their parents.
“We are going to be hit and hit hard in the coming session over many things. Let us strive to develop some thick skin.”
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
 |
| Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. |
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.
New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it (The Times) demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.
Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly-- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.
Trump decision on chief of staff 'imminent,' adviser says
President-elect Donald Trump's appointment of his chief of staff is "imminent," his campaign manager and transition team senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told reporters late Saturday.
TRUMP ADVISERS BACK DEREGULATION, PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY
A significant White House job, the chief of staff likely will set the tone for Trump's White House and serve as a main communications channel to Capitol Hill and Cabinet agencies.
Conway said the announcement would not come Saturday, but added, "It’s imminent. Soon."
Trump is said to be considering Steve Bannon, his campaign chairman and a conservative media executive, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for the job. Neither has significant policy experience, though Priebus is well-liked in Washington and has ties with lawmakers.
"I think Chairman Priebus has expressed an interest in the position. There are several people being considered. And it’s Mr. Trump’s decision ultimately," Conway said.
Conway is also said to be in the mix for a senior job. She is a veteran Republican pollster who formed a strong rapport with the candidate after taking the helm of his campaign in the general election. Conway said a possible future job in the White House was "not a big priority" for her.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who emerged as Trump's frequent travel partner and close aide, is on the short list for several positions, including attorney general.
Kasich's call was described as cordial and brief. He and Bush called the president-elect. Trump called Romney on Tuesday night.
Trump on Friday announced he'd assigned Vice President-elect Mike Pence to lead the transition team, replacing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a loyal adviser for much of the presidential campaign.
Christie will still be involved in the transition, joining a cluster of other steadfast Trump supporters serving as vice chairmen: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and Giuliani.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Pat Boone: Donald Trump's win is a slap in the face for Hollywood
Every rich and famous megastar from Katy Perry to Lady Gaga to Justin Timberlake (still waiting for them to leave the country)backed Hillary Clinton in a big way, but it didn’t help her secure a spot in the White House. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Hollywood’s elite shunned Donald Trump. Celebs even teamed up to produce several star-studded viral videos dedicated to taking Trump down.
Singer and Trump supporter Pat Boone thinks the Republican’s presidential win is a slap in the face for Hollywood's top stars.
“Donald Trump's unprecedented, emphatic win is a tremendous rebuke, a humongous... slap to the pompous, pampered Hollywood super-rich, supercilious, super brainwashed, over privileged crowd,” he told FOX411.
And Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said Trump’s defeat of Clinton proved that Hollywood has no real influence over politics.
“Hollywood celebrities cannot change votes,” he said. “At best they can motivate lazy partisans, such as some millennials, who find lots of reasons why they don't have time to vote. And they raise money and attract the TV cameras.”
After being blacklisted from Hollywood for supporting Trump, Antonio Sabato Jr. told FOX411 this election season was not about the Hollywood celebrities campaigning.
“This election was about the United States of America; this election was about the people of this country and they came from all kinds of races and backgrounds and they stood together and they voted for the right man,” he said. “The celebrity aspect of it didn't work, the people spoke and they voted.”
Variety Senior Editor Ted Johnson said it's possible Clinton's celebrity endorsements hurt her image.
“...Overall, I wonder if the sheer number of celebrities on the trail only added to the perception that Clinton was part of the elite, as much as this vote was a backlash against it,” he said. “Even though Trump himself is a celebrity... he was still running against the media mainstream.”
Boone said Hollywood "threw everything they had" at Trump and it made no difference.
Johnson said voters don't like to be told which candidate to choose.
“I don't think this was a rejection of Hollywood values.... as much as it was rejecting the idea of a celebrity, newspaper editorial, political surrogate or other figure 'knowing better' and telling voters what to do.
Trump Optimism Propels Dow to Best Week in Five Years
A whipsaw week powered by election uncertainty for markets ended on a high note as the Dow notched a fresh record high and the best five-day period since 2011.
By the closing bell, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 37 points or 0.20% to 18845, and leaping more than 5% for the week. The broader S&P 500 finished down by three points, but not before tacking on weekly gains of 3.79%.
Weighing on momentum was a drop in energy shares, which sank 2% during the trading day as oil prices fell more than 3% in reaction to data from OPEC showing output reached another record. The figures fueled worries about the viability of a potential plan to limit production aimed at easing global oversupply.
Performance on the tech-heavy Nasdaq reversed from the prior session in which shares saw significant declines as traders worried how Trump’s plans for stricter immigration controls and more American nationalism would dent the nation’s globalized technology firms. The Nasdaq capped the session up 28 points or 0.54%, gaining 3.78% for the week.
The market’s election momentum helped the major averages substantially advance their gains year to date: The Dow has risen 8% since the start of 2016, while the S&P has added 5.6% and the Nasdaq is up 4%. Meanwhile, financials also got a big boost from the post-election momentum. The sector jumped more than 11% for the week after headlines hit the tape about Trump’s preliminary plans to dismantle Dodd-Frank legislation enacted in the aftermath of the financial crisis, which was viewed as a positive for banks and other Wall Street financial institutions.
“For the moment, investors appear to see the prospects of tax reform and fiscal stimulus as the most important result of Mr. Trump’s victory. Much is still unknown, however, and the initial reactions could evolve as the new administration’s policy proposals and appointments take shape,” the note said.
Still, the outcome has resulted in a dive into risk assets, which has buoyed stock prices and sent traditionally safe-have assets like gold, sharply lower. The Election-Day results also sparked a steep selloff in government debt, which sent Treasury yields higher.
While the bond market was closed on Friday in observance of the Veteran’s Day holiday, four trading days this week was enough to send the benchmark 10-year Treasury bond yield to its biggest one-week gain in three years as it rose to 2.118%. The yields, which move inversely to prices, on other long-term bonds, also moved higher with the two-year yield reaching 0.906% and the 30-year climbing to 2.928%.
The shift in bond prices, which Goldman’s economists say is the “most impressive” change in post-election trade, is suggestive that investors expect fiscal stimulus enacted by President-elect Trump would help boost inflation -- a move that would send bond yields even lower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
