Steve Benen has written a book with the title "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics. The book is excerpted on a talkingpointsmemo at How The GOP Gave Up On Governing In Order To Keep Winning Elections.
The excerpt explains, "The GOP's push to win elections at all costs opened the door to a new leader who would cement its status as a post-policy party."
The following passage is the heart of Benen's argument:
"Many voters have grown accustomed to the idea of a national competition pitting two governing parties against each other. One has a more progressive vision, the other a more conservative one, but for most Americans, Democrats and Republicans are basically mirror images of one other, each with an internal range of opinions. The electorate has long had reason to assume that both major parties were mature and responsible policymaking entities, their philosophical differences notwithstanding.
The actions of the Republican Party over the last decade have made it abundantly clear that it’s time to reevaluate that assumption.
The current iteration of the GOP is indifferent to the substance of governing. It is disdainful of expertise and analysis. It is hostile toward evidence and arithmetic. It is tethered to few, if any, meaningful policy preferences. It does not know, and does not care, about how competing proposals should be crafted, scrutinized, or implemented.
The modern Republican Party has become a post-policy party."
When this blog was started on February 14, 2016 with the post "Scalia Successor" , the blog name "When Tactics Become Policy" was chosen as the best description of the phenomenon that Benen describes.What he calls a "post-policy party" is one in which actions to advance a policy are completely replaced by actions with the sole purpose of winning, and such actions are tactical in nature, not designed to advance policy, but to ensure victories, either by election or by judicial nominations.
But this blog has also been dedicated to the proposition that the traditional view of political parties that are mirror images of each other, equal and opposite, is also a protected viewpoint, however flawed. That is because the traditional view of fairness and objectivity taken by the NYT and others commands that any objective view of the political parties must eschew assymetry - assymetry could result in one party being "bad" when the other party is being "good", assumed be a biased conclusion.
This tension between entities like the NY Times clinging to an outmoded definition of good political journalism and the clear logical argument against that NY Times position has persisted in recent years despite its flaws. And so, Benen emerges as only the latest example of someone yet again making an argument to the public as if it is new, trying different angles to convince people who refuse to be convinced by compelling arguments because they made their minds up long ago. Or maybe because they only care about winning and using any tactics that will get them there.
Showing posts with label Party Tactics(Gov't). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Party Tactics(Gov't). Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2020
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
What's Wrong with these Headlines?
New York Times today:
As America Turns More Divided The Mood Turns More Tense
It's the first time in more than a century that all but one state legislature is dominated by a single party.
As each state's majority party pushes its agenda, the weaker one has grown more combative
Absolutely nothing there to suggest that the current American president pushes his agenda of division daily, as he did throughout the 2016 campaign. Nothing to suggest that Republicans have been playing extreme hardball in state legislature for decades and Democrats have been slow to catch on to these tactics. And Republican tactics have become more extreme - not only to suppress the votes of citizens, but to thwart the outcome of elections if a Democrat defeats a Republican governor, but the state legislature remains controlled by Republicans, by stripping the incoming governor of powers normally retained by the executive, which were enjoyed by his or her predecessor. See Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio. (Incumbent Ohio governor refused to play, to his credit.)
The NYT has a strong bias toward skewing the facts toward a balanced conclusion when reporting on politics. Thus the NYT fails to distinguish between fair, accurate reporting and balance. Balance in reporting is regarding by traditional reporters as an attribute when a fair and accurate conclusion can not be known. But Republicans in office together with Fox News reporting have teamed together to furnish America with a 24/7 propaganda channel dedicated to keeping Republicans in office and their policies in place. This conspiracy of the right has built on a mountain of lies that has worsened with Trump as president. True balance would mean that a responsible news organization (i.e. NYT or WaPo) would confront the mountain of lies with the hard truth - not after-the-fact fact checking,which always comes too late because liars have already moved on to the next lie, thus controlling the overall narrative - but aggressive reporting on the fact of Fox News as lying propagandists.And not trying so hard with every news story to report "both sides" as equal and opposite as possibly true, when they are not. The net result of the narrative that America hears is Fox News propaganda on one side and NYT maybe-yes-maybe-no "balance", which ironically yields an imbalance in sum while failing to be accurate by implying that some lies may be true.
The NYT article provides factual information about the contentiousness of activity in the divided state legislatures, but fails to note that extreme gerrymandering has been practiced more by Republicans - to greater effect on election outcomes - than Democrats. This is not to suggest that Democrats have been perfect in all cases, but observing how Republicans behave in office and looking for the same thing in Democrats will always yield some examples, but accurate reporting requires continuing the analysis at that point to report full context, rather than declaring vicotry - done, we found an example of Democrats behaving badly so "both sides do it".
We see this again in the recent NYT:
People are trying to figure out Bill Barr. Meanwhile He's Stockpiling Power. Is he the operator who spun the then-secret Mueller report? Or the straight shooter who later disclosed portions that were damaging to President Trump?
NYT syntax shows how they gravitate to the middle of all stories relating to politics. Their headlines often take the almost comical form "On the One Hand, Yes - But on the Other Hand ,No". Bill Barr wrote an unsolicited paper in support of unbridled presidential power - a job application for AG - prior to his nomination.
The problem with these headlines is that when the NYT is satisfied with any conclusion that validates the middle as true and treats with great skepticism any conclusion that treats one "side" as different qualitatively as different from the other "side" they themselves help to create the reality of a "divided" country because that behavior encourages more extreme tactics. Republicans know that the more extreme their tactics, the more the NYT will be willing to work toward the "safe" conclusion that Democrats do it too.
And why, NYT, is the opposite of "straight shooter" an "operator who spun the then-secret Mueller report"? Isn't the opposite of straight shooter a liar?
As America Turns More Divided The Mood Turns More Tense
It's the first time in more than a century that all but one state legislature is dominated by a single party.
As each state's majority party pushes its agenda, the weaker one has grown more combative
Absolutely nothing there to suggest that the current American president pushes his agenda of division daily, as he did throughout the 2016 campaign. Nothing to suggest that Republicans have been playing extreme hardball in state legislature for decades and Democrats have been slow to catch on to these tactics. And Republican tactics have become more extreme - not only to suppress the votes of citizens, but to thwart the outcome of elections if a Democrat defeats a Republican governor, but the state legislature remains controlled by Republicans, by stripping the incoming governor of powers normally retained by the executive, which were enjoyed by his or her predecessor. See Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio. (Incumbent Ohio governor refused to play, to his credit.)
The NYT has a strong bias toward skewing the facts toward a balanced conclusion when reporting on politics. Thus the NYT fails to distinguish between fair, accurate reporting and balance. Balance in reporting is regarding by traditional reporters as an attribute when a fair and accurate conclusion can not be known. But Republicans in office together with Fox News reporting have teamed together to furnish America with a 24/7 propaganda channel dedicated to keeping Republicans in office and their policies in place. This conspiracy of the right has built on a mountain of lies that has worsened with Trump as president. True balance would mean that a responsible news organization (i.e. NYT or WaPo) would confront the mountain of lies with the hard truth - not after-the-fact fact checking,which always comes too late because liars have already moved on to the next lie, thus controlling the overall narrative - but aggressive reporting on the fact of Fox News as lying propagandists.And not trying so hard with every news story to report "both sides" as equal and opposite as possibly true, when they are not. The net result of the narrative that America hears is Fox News propaganda on one side and NYT maybe-yes-maybe-no "balance", which ironically yields an imbalance in sum while failing to be accurate by implying that some lies may be true.
The NYT article provides factual information about the contentiousness of activity in the divided state legislatures, but fails to note that extreme gerrymandering has been practiced more by Republicans - to greater effect on election outcomes - than Democrats. This is not to suggest that Democrats have been perfect in all cases, but observing how Republicans behave in office and looking for the same thing in Democrats will always yield some examples, but accurate reporting requires continuing the analysis at that point to report full context, rather than declaring vicotry - done, we found an example of Democrats behaving badly so "both sides do it".
We see this again in the recent NYT:
People are trying to figure out Bill Barr. Meanwhile He's Stockpiling Power. Is he the operator who spun the then-secret Mueller report? Or the straight shooter who later disclosed portions that were damaging to President Trump?
NYT syntax shows how they gravitate to the middle of all stories relating to politics. Their headlines often take the almost comical form "On the One Hand, Yes - But on the Other Hand ,No". Bill Barr wrote an unsolicited paper in support of unbridled presidential power - a job application for AG - prior to his nomination.
The problem with these headlines is that when the NYT is satisfied with any conclusion that validates the middle as true and treats with great skepticism any conclusion that treats one "side" as different qualitatively as different from the other "side" they themselves help to create the reality of a "divided" country because that behavior encourages more extreme tactics. Republicans know that the more extreme their tactics, the more the NYT will be willing to work toward the "safe" conclusion that Democrats do it too.
And why, NYT, is the opposite of "straight shooter" an "operator who spun the then-secret Mueller report"? Isn't the opposite of straight shooter a liar?
Thursday, March 28, 2019
What Jussie Smollett Is All About
"It's the false epitome stupid!"
Huh?
Yes, bear with me.
If you are Donald Trump, the decision in Chicago yesterday to drop charges against Smollett creates an irresistible opportunity to exploit the occasion for personal gain. And nothing feeds the need of Team Trump to distract from everything they do like the chance to accuse a black person, immigrant, or minority of something. And the Smollett case could not be better - he is black and gay. Terrific. And this appears to be a case of false victimization. Even better. And he got off - a black person who is not deserving who benefits from favoritism from authorities. Great. Anything else? We are going to investigate - see, we can investigate, too, just like you Democrats do. Perfect.
But there's more. One of the great tools used over and over by Team Trump is the false epitome. Highlighting the Smollett case, which does, in fact, appear to be a miscarriage of justice creates a focus that is intended to represent a far broader case. For those conservatives who like to obsess about these things, this single case provides an opportunity to take this one example as representative of a much more extensive problem.
Smollett was treated initially as a victim, but he was a perpetrator...becomes
They are all claiming to be victims, but they are all perpetrators.
False epitome was at work in Trump's claims that immigrants come here to kill people, often using as examples drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents - as if that is identical to deliberately murdering people.
And, perhaps more importantly, to help any such conservatives hold dearly to that fallacy, Trump acknowledges NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule. "They" must all be bad people. Therefore, Team Trump can never acknowledge, let alone, praise the noble sacrifice of Humayun Khan. Because that threatens the logic of false epitome - if any are good, even noble, maybe others are too...maybe they are just like us in many ways...No, we can't have people thinking like that. In fact, given the opportunity, take down his grieving mother and father.
False epitome is an especially sinister weapon because, like many of Trump's weapons and his endlessly awful behavior, the underlying reality hides in plain sight.
When Trump distracts and attacks with an argument or action that takes a specific case - of his choosing - and unreasonably extrapolates to make a general case that appeals to his followers- traditional journalists are at a loss to identify what is really happening. But, at this point, the rest of us should not be fooled.
Huh?
Yes, bear with me.
If you are Donald Trump, the decision in Chicago yesterday to drop charges against Smollett creates an irresistible opportunity to exploit the occasion for personal gain. And nothing feeds the need of Team Trump to distract from everything they do like the chance to accuse a black person, immigrant, or minority of something. And the Smollett case could not be better - he is black and gay. Terrific. And this appears to be a case of false victimization. Even better. And he got off - a black person who is not deserving who benefits from favoritism from authorities. Great. Anything else? We are going to investigate - see, we can investigate, too, just like you Democrats do. Perfect.
But there's more. One of the great tools used over and over by Team Trump is the false epitome. Highlighting the Smollett case, which does, in fact, appear to be a miscarriage of justice creates a focus that is intended to represent a far broader case. For those conservatives who like to obsess about these things, this single case provides an opportunity to take this one example as representative of a much more extensive problem.
Smollett was treated initially as a victim, but he was a perpetrator...becomes
They are all claiming to be victims, but they are all perpetrators.
False epitome was at work in Trump's claims that immigrants come here to kill people, often using as examples drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents - as if that is identical to deliberately murdering people.
And, perhaps more importantly, to help any such conservatives hold dearly to that fallacy, Trump acknowledges NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule. "They" must all be bad people. Therefore, Team Trump can never acknowledge, let alone, praise the noble sacrifice of Humayun Khan. Because that threatens the logic of false epitome - if any are good, even noble, maybe others are too...maybe they are just like us in many ways...No, we can't have people thinking like that. In fact, given the opportunity, take down his grieving mother and father.
False epitome is an especially sinister weapon because, like many of Trump's weapons and his endlessly awful behavior, the underlying reality hides in plain sight.
When Trump distracts and attacks with an argument or action that takes a specific case - of his choosing - and unreasonably extrapolates to make a general case that appeals to his followers- traditional journalists are at a loss to identify what is really happening. But, at this point, the rest of us should not be fooled.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
The God that Failed
The American model for objective political journalism takes the he said/she said, both sides approach to every issue. Jay Rosen calls this the View from Nowhere. And nowhere is it more apparent than in the persistent adherence to this soft, hands-off approach followed by The New York Times.
This forced balance reporting falls easily into the horse race model for elections also decried by Rosen. After the horse race field is winnowed down by the primaries to two opposing main party candidates, one Democrat and one Republican, this archaic model can be strictly applied by political reporters.
And so NYT news analysis drifts easily into the headline: For a President Consumed With Winning, a Stinging Defeat. In it, Peter Baker writes:
"Democrats were not exactly gracious in victory, barely containing their delight. “Hopefully, it means a lesson has been learned: Shutting down government over a policy difference is self-defeating,” tut-tutted Mr. Schumer. “It accomplishes nothing but pain and suffering for the country and the American people.”
See what he did there? Government shutdown battles are a tug of war between the two sides. Trump "wanted" a wall and did not get it, so he lost. Nancy Pelosi held the Democrats in the House together, so she "won". She "defeated" Trump. But what did Pelosi win exactly? Getting the government running again, though weakened, falls short of the status quo before Trump/McConnell employed this tactic. That's no victory.
Suppose the goal of Trump is to disable the federal government so badly that the FBI and Justice Department are hamstrung in their investigations of him and his team. Suppose Mitch McConnell wants to disable the federal government so badly that most of the agencies fail in their mission and, when Democrats return to power, need to spend all of their energies just trying to revive the functioning of the government. And, in addition to wanting to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, the Education Department, Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Finance Protection Agency, isn't it obvious that a weakened IRS benefits Trump and the billionaires who financially support Republicans?
No, Pelosi has not won, if winning means gaining an advantage that you did not have previously. Pelosi and the Democrats have lost. Trump had no chance of holding the functioning of the U.S. government hostage and obtaining a legislative advantage. But he was able to hold the U.S. hostage with the aid of Mitch McConnell who held the Republican coalition in the Senate together for 34 days - long enough to inflict real damage on government and make skilled people think twice about going to work fot the feds and, for those who are good at their jobs, think twice about staying in those thankless roles when private industry beckons.
Peter Baker's "Democrats were not exactly gracious..." nonsense demonstrates his full commitment to the horse race, both sides, black and white winner/loser view of politics." At the NYT, the "barely containing their delight" take on the Dems is not the observation of an objective reporter. The NYT loves to refer to "gleeful" politicians. And for some reason, probably their commitment to "both sides" symmetry, Baker and many fellow reporters do not acknowledge the assymetry between Democrats and Republican on government shutdowns. Republicans are happy to engineer shutdowns, as noted above, to weaken the federal government to make a later cleanup by Democrats that much harder, but also to support and expand the cynicism of voters about the federal government. Baker's comment about Schumer's quote shows he has no understanding of the game theory dynamic of government shutdowns. The NYT and Peter Baker do not and can not face the facts because it would force them to confront their perpetual devotion to the God of both sides symmetry - the God that failed.
This forced balance reporting falls easily into the horse race model for elections also decried by Rosen. After the horse race field is winnowed down by the primaries to two opposing main party candidates, one Democrat and one Republican, this archaic model can be strictly applied by political reporters.
And so NYT news analysis drifts easily into the headline: For a President Consumed With Winning, a Stinging Defeat. In it, Peter Baker writes:
"Democrats were not exactly gracious in victory, barely containing their delight. “Hopefully, it means a lesson has been learned: Shutting down government over a policy difference is self-defeating,” tut-tutted Mr. Schumer. “It accomplishes nothing but pain and suffering for the country and the American people.”
See what he did there? Government shutdown battles are a tug of war between the two sides. Trump "wanted" a wall and did not get it, so he lost. Nancy Pelosi held the Democrats in the House together, so she "won". She "defeated" Trump. But what did Pelosi win exactly? Getting the government running again, though weakened, falls short of the status quo before Trump/McConnell employed this tactic. That's no victory.
Suppose the goal of Trump is to disable the federal government so badly that the FBI and Justice Department are hamstrung in their investigations of him and his team. Suppose Mitch McConnell wants to disable the federal government so badly that most of the agencies fail in their mission and, when Democrats return to power, need to spend all of their energies just trying to revive the functioning of the government. And, in addition to wanting to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, the Education Department, Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Finance Protection Agency, isn't it obvious that a weakened IRS benefits Trump and the billionaires who financially support Republicans?
No, Pelosi has not won, if winning means gaining an advantage that you did not have previously. Pelosi and the Democrats have lost. Trump had no chance of holding the functioning of the U.S. government hostage and obtaining a legislative advantage. But he was able to hold the U.S. hostage with the aid of Mitch McConnell who held the Republican coalition in the Senate together for 34 days - long enough to inflict real damage on government and make skilled people think twice about going to work fot the feds and, for those who are good at their jobs, think twice about staying in those thankless roles when private industry beckons.
Peter Baker's "Democrats were not exactly gracious..." nonsense demonstrates his full commitment to the horse race, both sides, black and white winner/loser view of politics." At the NYT, the "barely containing their delight" take on the Dems is not the observation of an objective reporter. The NYT loves to refer to "gleeful" politicians. And for some reason, probably their commitment to "both sides" symmetry, Baker and many fellow reporters do not acknowledge the assymetry between Democrats and Republican on government shutdowns. Republicans are happy to engineer shutdowns, as noted above, to weaken the federal government to make a later cleanup by Democrats that much harder, but also to support and expand the cynicism of voters about the federal government. Baker's comment about Schumer's quote shows he has no understanding of the game theory dynamic of government shutdowns. The NYT and Peter Baker do not and can not face the facts because it would force them to confront their perpetual devotion to the God of both sides symmetry - the God that failed.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Martial Law
In America, the president has enormous power. Trump will use those powers not only for personal financial gain at home and abroad, but to stifle opposition to his regime. The chief opposition to Trump is law enforcement because Trump, his family and their associates have committed serious felonies before the election of 2016, during the transition, and following his inauguration.
The mainstream press has focused on the Mueller investigation as the single potential solution to the problem of Trump. Under this interpretation, no matter what else goes wrong in the U.S., so long as the Mueller investigation continues and his investigation's magical report may be issued - the U.S. is not in an existential crisis.
But it is. The Wall Street Journal report on continuing Russian cyberattacks reminds us that the U.S. is made extremely vulnerable because we have a president who can not be trusted to act in America's interests, but can be trusted by Putin to act in Putin's interests. Our mainstream press has no journalistic standard that allows them to consider the president as anything other than the chief player on one side of a binary functioning democratic system with two equal and opposite sides, both of which act in the interests of the U.S. , but who have different political philosophies that are equally valid in all circumstances. Under that lens, a president who acts solely in his personal financial interests, and who is happy to commit crimes can not exist in nature. It just can not be.
Trump's incrementalism is plain for all to see. He began his term in office by appointing a mix of family members, campaign loyalists, people with Russian ties, and a smattering of generals and traditional Republican party operatives. The generals were there for a combination of optics and as a test of loyalty - could the generals be counted on to maintain loyalty throughout the military when push comes to shove? Meanwhile, the Republican party operatives were mostly there for window dressing - no way would Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus last long. But they, too, were window dressing - see, this is only a little different from a normal Republican administration. Meanwhile, there was no question that the long arm of the law would head towards team Trump. That meant the greatest threats - the Justice Department and FBI needed to be wrestled to the ground. In short order, Trump was able to eliminate or sideline some of the FBI's most effective leaders in Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Bruce Ohr. (And no coincidence that this plays into Russia's goal of eliminating the U.S. ability to withstand their cyberattacks.)
As now Trump has succeeded in consolidating power within his administration. Only lackeys and sycophants remain. Predictably, a leader who can only remain in power by authoritarian means in a democracy will need to impose marshall law at some point to avoid removal by the normal operationo of the legislature and the courts. But the imposition of marshall law requires a reason, or at least an excuse...like the claim that there is an emergency, such as a flood of enemies massed at the southern border trying to enter illegally to cause harm.
Today it is a false claim of a national emergency. But tomorrow the national emergency will be any attempt by the legislature - or the people -to remove the president by legal means. If a false emergency can be declared, nothing would stop this president from signing a declaration that suspends the 2020 elections. One way or another, Trump's incremental approach to consolidating power will lead to a state of martial law in the U.S., whether or not that is the term he uses.
This is not to argue that Trump's incrementalism is a carefully calculated and orchestrated approach - that he thinks to himself - "I see where this is going and will have to declare martial law someday, but what do I need to do today to get there?" Or, "I see where this is going and I will have to suspend elections in 2020. What do I need to do today to get there?" Rather, it is a matter of Trump doing whatever works for him today, personally, and without regard to any future consequences whatsoever, based on the assumption that his next step will be regarded as only incremental and not as part of a developing scenario - by Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press alike. And those two players - Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press are both setting up America for a complete breakdown of our basic governmental systems and processes, just as Trump is doing. Trump is actually the only player among those three who is behaving strategically, in the sense that he knows that his short term thinking approach has always worked to his personal advantage in the long run, no matter what else happens. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press have willingly locked themselves into a system that is designed to protect Trump in all circumstances. That is, unless the magical "Mueller report" transforms America and saves us all.
The mainstream press has focused on the Mueller investigation as the single potential solution to the problem of Trump. Under this interpretation, no matter what else goes wrong in the U.S., so long as the Mueller investigation continues and his investigation's magical report may be issued - the U.S. is not in an existential crisis.
But it is. The Wall Street Journal report on continuing Russian cyberattacks reminds us that the U.S. is made extremely vulnerable because we have a president who can not be trusted to act in America's interests, but can be trusted by Putin to act in Putin's interests. Our mainstream press has no journalistic standard that allows them to consider the president as anything other than the chief player on one side of a binary functioning democratic system with two equal and opposite sides, both of which act in the interests of the U.S. , but who have different political philosophies that are equally valid in all circumstances. Under that lens, a president who acts solely in his personal financial interests, and who is happy to commit crimes can not exist in nature. It just can not be.
Trump's incrementalism is plain for all to see. He began his term in office by appointing a mix of family members, campaign loyalists, people with Russian ties, and a smattering of generals and traditional Republican party operatives. The generals were there for a combination of optics and as a test of loyalty - could the generals be counted on to maintain loyalty throughout the military when push comes to shove? Meanwhile, the Republican party operatives were mostly there for window dressing - no way would Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus last long. But they, too, were window dressing - see, this is only a little different from a normal Republican administration. Meanwhile, there was no question that the long arm of the law would head towards team Trump. That meant the greatest threats - the Justice Department and FBI needed to be wrestled to the ground. In short order, Trump was able to eliminate or sideline some of the FBI's most effective leaders in Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Bruce Ohr. (And no coincidence that this plays into Russia's goal of eliminating the U.S. ability to withstand their cyberattacks.)
As now Trump has succeeded in consolidating power within his administration. Only lackeys and sycophants remain. Predictably, a leader who can only remain in power by authoritarian means in a democracy will need to impose marshall law at some point to avoid removal by the normal operationo of the legislature and the courts. But the imposition of marshall law requires a reason, or at least an excuse...like the claim that there is an emergency, such as a flood of enemies massed at the southern border trying to enter illegally to cause harm.
Today it is a false claim of a national emergency. But tomorrow the national emergency will be any attempt by the legislature - or the people -to remove the president by legal means. If a false emergency can be declared, nothing would stop this president from signing a declaration that suspends the 2020 elections. One way or another, Trump's incremental approach to consolidating power will lead to a state of martial law in the U.S., whether or not that is the term he uses.
This is not to argue that Trump's incrementalism is a carefully calculated and orchestrated approach - that he thinks to himself - "I see where this is going and will have to declare martial law someday, but what do I need to do today to get there?" Or, "I see where this is going and I will have to suspend elections in 2020. What do I need to do today to get there?" Rather, it is a matter of Trump doing whatever works for him today, personally, and without regard to any future consequences whatsoever, based on the assumption that his next step will be regarded as only incremental and not as part of a developing scenario - by Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press alike. And those two players - Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press are both setting up America for a complete breakdown of our basic governmental systems and processes, just as Trump is doing. Trump is actually the only player among those three who is behaving strategically, in the sense that he knows that his short term thinking approach has always worked to his personal advantage in the long run, no matter what else happens. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and the mainstream press have willingly locked themselves into a system that is designed to protect Trump in all circumstances. That is, unless the magical "Mueller report" transforms America and saves us all.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Not a Wall, Not a Wall
The fight over the wall has nothing to do with the wall. It's all about power. If Trump had really wanted the wall, he would have used his considerable leverage to get his wall when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Trump is asserting his absolute power - if he wants to, he can declare a national emergency, even as a whim, sending a message to Pelosi and the Democratic House - "don't get too excited about your new majority...you have no power."
For decades now, ever since Newt Gingrich and House Republicans tried to force their Contract on America through Congress, a series of federal govenment shutdowns have illustrated the stark asymmetry between the two main political parties. Republicans are willing to impose shutdowns because they are basically opposed to the federal government with the sole exception of the military and federal law enforcement. In game theory terms, Republicans only care about the effects of a shutdown on the next election, which tend to be quite limited. For Trump, who is unpopular and conducts himself as the president of his base rather than the nation, the shutdown affords a perfect opportunity to assert his absolute dominance over national politics. And Mitch McConnell is more than willing to assist. The added benefit for Trump in this case is that strangling the federal government eventually hurts the special counsel investigations into his presidential campaign, the transition, and the conduct of the president and members of his administration.
Speaking of strangling the important work of the federal government:
For decades now, ever since Newt Gingrich and House Republicans tried to force their Contract on America through Congress, a series of federal govenment shutdowns have illustrated the stark asymmetry between the two main political parties. Republicans are willing to impose shutdowns because they are basically opposed to the federal government with the sole exception of the military and federal law enforcement. In game theory terms, Republicans only care about the effects of a shutdown on the next election, which tend to be quite limited. For Trump, who is unpopular and conducts himself as the president of his base rather than the nation, the shutdown affords a perfect opportunity to assert his absolute dominance over national politics. And Mitch McConnell is more than willing to assist. The added benefit for Trump in this case is that strangling the federal government eventually hurts the special counsel investigations into his presidential campaign, the transition, and the conduct of the president and members of his administration.
Speaking of strangling the important work of the federal government:
Monday, January 7, 2019
The Safe Place
In America, political journalists in the business of objective news reporting pull themselves to the safe place of "both sides" reporting as a purported best practice in their field. When you play the "both sides" game you innoculate yourself from criticism of bias.
Reporting "both sides" is not always wrong or inaccurate, but forcing all political reporting into a "both sides" box is one of the great journalistic failures of 2016. And it continues.
On MSNBC this morning, Craig Melvin announced in his lead-in:
"A disrupter in Congress...
How Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio Cortez draws the right's outrage and forces members on the left to look over their shoulders all at the same time.
Take a look at the subject and the predicate. Ocasio-Cortes just is a maverick - is that now that John McCain is no longer with us? Is that why - just to fulfill the press's need for a maverick?
And what action did she take to draw the right's outrage? Is it really outrage at some action? More likely she represents a threat or an opportunity. A threat if she is well liked, or an opportunity if she lets certain conservatives check all the boxes of their antagonism - a) female, b) outspoken, c) latina, and d) young. After her election, a Washington Examiner reporter tweeted a picture of her taken from behind, challenging her personal story by claiming her being too well dressed to be poor. That also gave him the excuse he needed to take a photo of her butt. More recently, an old video of her joyfully dancing with friends at Boston University was tweeted in an apparent effort to discredit her for being what? Young, attractive, energetic, and happy? That most recent episode demonstrates that something peculiar is going on here with the urgent attempts to take her down. Ordinarily a freshman member of Congress has very little power - one vote among 435. So the rapid fire attacks on AOC demonstrate that Republicans feel a need to make the story about her. It's a tell - something about the Republicans. Not AOC. That is the real news. The Republicans want AOC to be their spokesperson for the Democrats. And for that story, let's keep "the left" out of it. Don't bring in "the left" to force the appearance of balance. Just tell the real story.
"How conservative operatives jumped on the election of AOC to attract attention and foment anger and resentment of this new member of Congress as a way to distract from serious policy discussion"
Not perfect. But would be much better. Much closer to the truth.
Melvin made it worse after he came back from the "break."
"Love her or hate her Congress youngest member AOC has become a lightning rod for Republicans
She has also become a darling of the left."
There he goes again. Both sides. You can't say anything about one side without invoking an equal and opposite statement about the other "side" That may seem harmless enough, but that approach has made it almost impossible to state the obvious as plain fact or even as the most likely set of facts in any situation where "both sides" leads to fallacy.
The presumption that both sides are always the same is a fallacy that flies in the face of the reality we have faced over the past two years. A man is president of the U.S. who did certain things and did not do certain things.
He never ran for or served in any government office or as a general in the military.
He never functioned in business in any way similar to ANY business leaders in the U.S. He just is not Rex Tillerson, let alone Jamie Dimon, Bill Gates, or anyone else.
He ran beauty pageants.
He ran casinos.
He traded in real estate, such as condos and office buildings. Much of his real estate was sold to Russian oligarchs and criminals.
And so on. Ignoring that stark asymmetry with a both sides approach guarantees that reporting will distort the truth about Trump. Which is why we are where we are today. And failure of major news organizations to recognize that problem with their reporting guarantees that 2020 will be a replay of 2018.
Reporting "both sides" is not always wrong or inaccurate, but forcing all political reporting into a "both sides" box is one of the great journalistic failures of 2016. And it continues.
On MSNBC this morning, Craig Melvin announced in his lead-in:
 |
| source:msnbc |
How Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio Cortez draws the right's outrage and forces members on the left to look over their shoulders all at the same time.
Take a look at the subject and the predicate. Ocasio-Cortes just is a maverick - is that now that John McCain is no longer with us? Is that why - just to fulfill the press's need for a maverick?
And what action did she take to draw the right's outrage? Is it really outrage at some action? More likely she represents a threat or an opportunity. A threat if she is well liked, or an opportunity if she lets certain conservatives check all the boxes of their antagonism - a) female, b) outspoken, c) latina, and d) young. After her election, a Washington Examiner reporter tweeted a picture of her taken from behind, challenging her personal story by claiming her being too well dressed to be poor. That also gave him the excuse he needed to take a photo of her butt. More recently, an old video of her joyfully dancing with friends at Boston University was tweeted in an apparent effort to discredit her for being what? Young, attractive, energetic, and happy? That most recent episode demonstrates that something peculiar is going on here with the urgent attempts to take her down. Ordinarily a freshman member of Congress has very little power - one vote among 435. So the rapid fire attacks on AOC demonstrate that Republicans feel a need to make the story about her. It's a tell - something about the Republicans. Not AOC. That is the real news. The Republicans want AOC to be their spokesperson for the Democrats. And for that story, let's keep "the left" out of it. Don't bring in "the left" to force the appearance of balance. Just tell the real story.
"How conservative operatives jumped on the election of AOC to attract attention and foment anger and resentment of this new member of Congress as a way to distract from serious policy discussion"
Not perfect. But would be much better. Much closer to the truth.
Melvin made it worse after he came back from the "break."
"Love her or hate her Congress youngest member AOC has become a lightning rod for Republicans
She has also become a darling of the left."
There he goes again. Both sides. You can't say anything about one side without invoking an equal and opposite statement about the other "side" That may seem harmless enough, but that approach has made it almost impossible to state the obvious as plain fact or even as the most likely set of facts in any situation where "both sides" leads to fallacy.
The presumption that both sides are always the same is a fallacy that flies in the face of the reality we have faced over the past two years. A man is president of the U.S. who did certain things and did not do certain things.
He never ran for or served in any government office or as a general in the military.
He never functioned in business in any way similar to ANY business leaders in the U.S. He just is not Rex Tillerson, let alone Jamie Dimon, Bill Gates, or anyone else.
He ran beauty pageants.
He ran casinos.
He traded in real estate, such as condos and office buildings. Much of his real estate was sold to Russian oligarchs and criminals.
And so on. Ignoring that stark asymmetry with a both sides approach guarantees that reporting will distort the truth about Trump. Which is why we are where we are today. And failure of major news organizations to recognize that problem with their reporting guarantees that 2020 will be a replay of 2018.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Triangular Trade
The Daily Beast reports: Get Ready for Mueller's Phase Two: The Middle East Connection:
In court filings that are set to drop in early 2019, prosecutors will begin to unveil Middle Eastern countries’ attempts to influence American politics, three sources familiar with this side of the probe told The Daily Beast.
In other words, the “Russia investigation” is set to go global.
But the items Mueller is investigating have long been in the public domain, waiting for investigative journalists to connect the dots and ask questions.
"While one part of the Mueller team has indicted Russian spies and troll-masters, another cadre has been spending its time focusing on how Middle Eastern countries pushed cash to Washington politicos in an attempt to sway policy under President Trump’s administration."
OK, but from the moment Jared Kushner was appointed to seek "peace in the Middle East", questions should have been raised about team Trump's motivation. Jared Kushner was heavily in debt at the time and needed money. News accounts at the time generally ridiculed the selection of Kushner as Middle East envoy, but what if that was just a cover for doing family business in the region? The family Trump only cares about money, not the United States.
"Various witnesses affiliated with the Trump campaign have been questioned about their conversations with deeply connected individuals from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, according to people familiar with the probe. Topics in those meetings ranged from the use of social-media manipulation to help install Trump in the White House to the overthrow of the regime in Iran."
The article mentions Flynn's role working for Trump, meeting representatives of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
But then the article steps back slightly, before proceeding,
"Hussein Ibish, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, said it is unclear if Mueller’s team will unveil nefarious foreign activity beyond what normally occurs in Washington."
See what they did there? That's how balance works. Take two steps forward, then one step back. But treating Trump and his family as anything close to normal is actually irresponsible, given the extraordinary evidence of likely extreme wrongdoing. If Trump is so unlike any other president, why is it necessary to compare him with other presidents or "Washington" when sifting through the evidence?
The Daily Beast article mentions certain operatives - Zamel of Israel, and George Nader with ties to the Middle East,
"Mueller has also probed Nader’s role in the January 2017 Seychelles meeting between Prince and Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. In his House testimony, Prince said the meeting was a chance encounter and the two met to talk about trade and mineral wealth. But prosecutors this year received evidence that showed the meeting was premeditated. Communications reviewed by The Daily Beast reflect that narrative.
A memo shows the two spoke about a range of topics, including peace between Ukraine and Russia, military operations in Syria, investment in the Midwest, and nuclear weapons. Although RDIF is under U.S. sanctions, it was and is still legal for U.S. individuals to meet with Dmitriev, and, in some circumstances, do business with the fund."
The most telling evidence is the denials about the meetings. The famous Trump tower meeting of June 9, 2016 was supposedly about "Russian adoptions" according to Don Jr., Adoptions probably were mentioned because it was the least important topic discussed as part of removing U.S. sanctions in exchange for release of the emails and other favors.
And the January 2017 Seychelles meeting was initially described, in part, as a chance encounter. Look at the attendees, per Vox:
Eric Prince
MBZ, or Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the crown prince of the UAE
George Nader
Kirill Dmitriev, manager of a $10 billion sovereign wealth fund
So, common sense tells you the meeting, held in the Seychelles just as Trump is assuming the presidency, takes place in the most remote possible place on earth because secrecy is paramount. The Russian representative is there to offer cash. The UAE representative (and Saudi ally) is there to offer cash. And Prince is there to accept cash for services.
This is just one of several "mysterious" meetings involving a representative of team Trump and representatives of at least two other countries with cash to give.
What better way to hide Trump's foreign policy for cash trades than to use multiple conduits - multiple countries - to conceal the transactions.
Trump has been so anxious to limit the Mueller probe to Russia. Not only has Trump traded foreign policy favors for cash from Russia. Not only has he traded with Saudi Arabia/UAE, playing them off against Qatar, but team Trump has conspired with Russia and Saudi Arabia (and possibly others) in concert. His team has forged secret multi-state alliances of the U.S. with other countries that no other U.S. persons other than his family members know about.
Another interesting link between Russia and Saudi Arabia is Dimitry Rybolovlev.
Rybolovlev bought a Trump Florida estate for $95 million as the real estate market teetered that Trump had bought in 2004 for $41 million.
Ryboloblev bought the Davini for $125 million and sold it to a proxy for bin Salman for $450 million. It had been appraised at about $100 million though doubts about its authenticity persist.
What better way to launder money than right there in the open. Would that Mueller or other authorities would investigate the "second" bidder who helped drive up the price of the Salvator Mundi at auction.
Then there is the other Trump tower meeting that is often overlooked. As reported by Seth Abramson in Newsweek,
"A second area of inquiry involves spring 2018 reporting from the New York Times that on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met in Trump Tower with George Nader, an emissary from the Crown Princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; Erik Prince, a Trump national security adviser and later an envoy from Trump to a top Russian oligarch; and Joel Zamel, an Israeli business intelligence expert with ties to both Russian oligarchs and Israeli intelligence officers. At the meeting, both Nader and Zamel offered collusive assistance to Trump’s campaign; according to the Times, Trump Jr. reacted favorably to both offers. Zamel, who had in the past attempted to recruit Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn into his intelligence-gathering outfit, offered Trump Jr. a clandestine propaganda and domestic disinformation campaign that mirrored the one Russian trolls ultimately delivered in the final three months of the general election."
George Nader and Erik Prince involved yet again. This time, Joel Zamel, a veteran of Israeli intelligence is there, but the Russian connections are represented by proxy - through Nader and Zamel.
Abramson continues:
"If the Steele dossier and relevant reporting since its January 2017 publication are to be believed, Kushner personally benefited from this collusion in the form of hundreds of millions in Qatari Investment Authority-backed loans. This means that not only Trump’s historically pro-Russia foreign policy, but also certain policy decisions Trump made in 2017 and 2018 that were favorable to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel must be investigated."
By all appearances, the secret triangular alliance among Trump/Putin?Saudi(with UAE) is supplemented by active measures to join by Israel and Turkey (more to come on that). The losers in all of this are the traditional U.S. partners in NATO, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and, by the way, the United States of America.
And don't forget that Trump found a way to eliminate the most experienced FBI investigators during the past two years: Comey, McCabe, and Strzok and has applied enormous pressure on the employment of Bruce Ohr.
In court filings that are set to drop in early 2019, prosecutors will begin to unveil Middle Eastern countries’ attempts to influence American politics, three sources familiar with this side of the probe told The Daily Beast.
In other words, the “Russia investigation” is set to go global.
But the items Mueller is investigating have long been in the public domain, waiting for investigative journalists to connect the dots and ask questions.
"While one part of the Mueller team has indicted Russian spies and troll-masters, another cadre has been spending its time focusing on how Middle Eastern countries pushed cash to Washington politicos in an attempt to sway policy under President Trump’s administration."
OK, but from the moment Jared Kushner was appointed to seek "peace in the Middle East", questions should have been raised about team Trump's motivation. Jared Kushner was heavily in debt at the time and needed money. News accounts at the time generally ridiculed the selection of Kushner as Middle East envoy, but what if that was just a cover for doing family business in the region? The family Trump only cares about money, not the United States.
"Various witnesses affiliated with the Trump campaign have been questioned about their conversations with deeply connected individuals from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, according to people familiar with the probe. Topics in those meetings ranged from the use of social-media manipulation to help install Trump in the White House to the overthrow of the regime in Iran."
The article mentions Flynn's role working for Trump, meeting representatives of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
But then the article steps back slightly, before proceeding,
"Hussein Ibish, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, said it is unclear if Mueller’s team will unveil nefarious foreign activity beyond what normally occurs in Washington."
See what they did there? That's how balance works. Take two steps forward, then one step back. But treating Trump and his family as anything close to normal is actually irresponsible, given the extraordinary evidence of likely extreme wrongdoing. If Trump is so unlike any other president, why is it necessary to compare him with other presidents or "Washington" when sifting through the evidence?
The Daily Beast article mentions certain operatives - Zamel of Israel, and George Nader with ties to the Middle East,
"Mueller has also probed Nader’s role in the January 2017 Seychelles meeting between Prince and Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. In his House testimony, Prince said the meeting was a chance encounter and the two met to talk about trade and mineral wealth. But prosecutors this year received evidence that showed the meeting was premeditated. Communications reviewed by The Daily Beast reflect that narrative.
A memo shows the two spoke about a range of topics, including peace between Ukraine and Russia, military operations in Syria, investment in the Midwest, and nuclear weapons. Although RDIF is under U.S. sanctions, it was and is still legal for U.S. individuals to meet with Dmitriev, and, in some circumstances, do business with the fund."
The most telling evidence is the denials about the meetings. The famous Trump tower meeting of June 9, 2016 was supposedly about "Russian adoptions" according to Don Jr., Adoptions probably were mentioned because it was the least important topic discussed as part of removing U.S. sanctions in exchange for release of the emails and other favors.
And the January 2017 Seychelles meeting was initially described, in part, as a chance encounter. Look at the attendees, per Vox:
Eric Prince
MBZ, or Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the crown prince of the UAE
George Nader
Kirill Dmitriev, manager of a $10 billion sovereign wealth fund
So, common sense tells you the meeting, held in the Seychelles just as Trump is assuming the presidency, takes place in the most remote possible place on earth because secrecy is paramount. The Russian representative is there to offer cash. The UAE representative (and Saudi ally) is there to offer cash. And Prince is there to accept cash for services.
This is just one of several "mysterious" meetings involving a representative of team Trump and representatives of at least two other countries with cash to give.
What better way to hide Trump's foreign policy for cash trades than to use multiple conduits - multiple countries - to conceal the transactions.
Trump has been so anxious to limit the Mueller probe to Russia. Not only has Trump traded foreign policy favors for cash from Russia. Not only has he traded with Saudi Arabia/UAE, playing them off against Qatar, but team Trump has conspired with Russia and Saudi Arabia (and possibly others) in concert. His team has forged secret multi-state alliances of the U.S. with other countries that no other U.S. persons other than his family members know about.
Another interesting link between Russia and Saudi Arabia is Dimitry Rybolovlev.
Rybolovlev bought a Trump Florida estate for $95 million as the real estate market teetered that Trump had bought in 2004 for $41 million.
Ryboloblev bought the Davini for $125 million and sold it to a proxy for bin Salman for $450 million. It had been appraised at about $100 million though doubts about its authenticity persist.
What better way to launder money than right there in the open. Would that Mueller or other authorities would investigate the "second" bidder who helped drive up the price of the Salvator Mundi at auction.
Then there is the other Trump tower meeting that is often overlooked. As reported by Seth Abramson in Newsweek,
"A second area of inquiry involves spring 2018 reporting from the New York Times that on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met in Trump Tower with George Nader, an emissary from the Crown Princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; Erik Prince, a Trump national security adviser and later an envoy from Trump to a top Russian oligarch; and Joel Zamel, an Israeli business intelligence expert with ties to both Russian oligarchs and Israeli intelligence officers. At the meeting, both Nader and Zamel offered collusive assistance to Trump’s campaign; according to the Times, Trump Jr. reacted favorably to both offers. Zamel, who had in the past attempted to recruit Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn into his intelligence-gathering outfit, offered Trump Jr. a clandestine propaganda and domestic disinformation campaign that mirrored the one Russian trolls ultimately delivered in the final three months of the general election."
George Nader and Erik Prince involved yet again. This time, Joel Zamel, a veteran of Israeli intelligence is there, but the Russian connections are represented by proxy - through Nader and Zamel.
Abramson continues:
"If the Steele dossier and relevant reporting since its January 2017 publication are to be believed, Kushner personally benefited from this collusion in the form of hundreds of millions in Qatari Investment Authority-backed loans. This means that not only Trump’s historically pro-Russia foreign policy, but also certain policy decisions Trump made in 2017 and 2018 that were favorable to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel must be investigated."
By all appearances, the secret triangular alliance among Trump/Putin?Saudi(with UAE) is supplemented by active measures to join by Israel and Turkey (more to come on that). The losers in all of this are the traditional U.S. partners in NATO, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and, by the way, the United States of America.
And don't forget that Trump found a way to eliminate the most experienced FBI investigators during the past two years: Comey, McCabe, and Strzok and has applied enormous pressure on the employment of Bruce Ohr.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Election Security
The WaPo editorial board dishes us complete and utter nonsense in "The NRCC hack shows that election security is a bipartisan problem".
The big problem is the misframing of the issue.
The first sentence "PRESIDENT TRUMP may claim that Democratic incompetence was to blame for hacks of the party’s systems during the 2016 election."
Wait, why are we starting the discussion with a claim from the president who lies instinctively about every issue every day? Letting Trump set the framing of the issue is a complete mistake, but understandable if your WaPo antiquated editorial standards require you to take the view from nowhere. The problem with that approach is that the lead nudges the reader to think about the claim - is it true? is it false? is it misleading? In what way might the claim make sense? But in light of the Russian cyberattacks on Democrats in 2016 that assisted with the installation of an increasingly authoritarian Republican regime, lending credence to the Trump claim by even mentioning it makes absolutely no sense.
WaPo editors, like the NYT editors , are inclined to view the world from a comfortable distance, with a presumed symmetry between two parties - Democrats and Republicans. (Incidentally, what would they do if there happened to be three large parties in the U.S.? Would the moderate party always be the right one and the other two always wrong when they disagreed with the middle path?)
The WaPo claim that "the NRCC hack shows that election security is a bipartisan problem" has its own problems.
What would WaPo have said four or five days ago, before the hack was revealed? It's a bipartisan issue, but we are waiting for a hack of Republicans to have "proof"?
What does WaPo mean by bipartisan problem? Both "sides" should be able to agree because both "sides" have a strong interest in stopping hacking within the U.S. By now, WaPo editorial board should have learned that there are many issues where both "sides" have aligned interests, but somehow do not agree. WaPo would do better to try harder to understand and explain why it is so, instead of following the constant drumbeat that stems from an insistence on belief in two equal and opposite "sides" - that the world of America is divided into two equal and opposite parties that disagree most of the time, but can agree on compromise, if only they can put aside their differences.
Republicans in government found long ago that it suits their agenda to ignore actual discussion of policy issues and instead focus on winning through better marketing which meant taking down their political opponents with personal attacks that effectively distract attention from policy issues and arguments.
The WaPo editorial continues:
"It is, in fact, an issue for everyone in the United States, demanding a broad response from Congress and political actors across the board.
Congress has done too little since 2016 to shore up election cybersecurity. Actions to increase the integrity of voting systems are regrettably stalled. Voting machines are not the only critical infrastructure under threat: There is no minimum federal standard for the cybersecurity of campaigns or parties, and there is no single dedicated agency responsible for overseeing how those organizations protect their information — or don’t. There’s a money problem, too: Without federal help, cash-strapped campaigns and state election systems lack the resources to guard themselves."
Congress has failed to act because Congress has been controlled by Republicans who benefited in 2016 from the Russian conspiracy of cyber attacks on the U.S. Setting that crucial fact aside ignores the larger problem that some Republican officeholders have purposely looked to the side while other Republicans actively participated in the attacks on the U.S. electoral system. Ignoring this stark fact with an appeal to "bipartisanship" in this editorial is complete nonsense.
The big problem is the misframing of the issue.
The first sentence "PRESIDENT TRUMP may claim that Democratic incompetence was to blame for hacks of the party’s systems during the 2016 election."
Wait, why are we starting the discussion with a claim from the president who lies instinctively about every issue every day? Letting Trump set the framing of the issue is a complete mistake, but understandable if your WaPo antiquated editorial standards require you to take the view from nowhere. The problem with that approach is that the lead nudges the reader to think about the claim - is it true? is it false? is it misleading? In what way might the claim make sense? But in light of the Russian cyberattacks on Democrats in 2016 that assisted with the installation of an increasingly authoritarian Republican regime, lending credence to the Trump claim by even mentioning it makes absolutely no sense.
WaPo editors, like the NYT editors , are inclined to view the world from a comfortable distance, with a presumed symmetry between two parties - Democrats and Republicans. (Incidentally, what would they do if there happened to be three large parties in the U.S.? Would the moderate party always be the right one and the other two always wrong when they disagreed with the middle path?)
The WaPo claim that "the NRCC hack shows that election security is a bipartisan problem" has its own problems.
What would WaPo have said four or five days ago, before the hack was revealed? It's a bipartisan issue, but we are waiting for a hack of Republicans to have "proof"?
What does WaPo mean by bipartisan problem? Both "sides" should be able to agree because both "sides" have a strong interest in stopping hacking within the U.S. By now, WaPo editorial board should have learned that there are many issues where both "sides" have aligned interests, but somehow do not agree. WaPo would do better to try harder to understand and explain why it is so, instead of following the constant drumbeat that stems from an insistence on belief in two equal and opposite "sides" - that the world of America is divided into two equal and opposite parties that disagree most of the time, but can agree on compromise, if only they can put aside their differences.
Republicans in government found long ago that it suits their agenda to ignore actual discussion of policy issues and instead focus on winning through better marketing which meant taking down their political opponents with personal attacks that effectively distract attention from policy issues and arguments.
The WaPo editorial continues:
"It is, in fact, an issue for everyone in the United States, demanding a broad response from Congress and political actors across the board.
Congress has done too little since 2016 to shore up election cybersecurity. Actions to increase the integrity of voting systems are regrettably stalled. Voting machines are not the only critical infrastructure under threat: There is no minimum federal standard for the cybersecurity of campaigns or parties, and there is no single dedicated agency responsible for overseeing how those organizations protect their information — or don’t. There’s a money problem, too: Without federal help, cash-strapped campaigns and state election systems lack the resources to guard themselves."
Congress has failed to act because Congress has been controlled by Republicans who benefited in 2016 from the Russian conspiracy of cyber attacks on the U.S. Setting that crucial fact aside ignores the larger problem that some Republican officeholders have purposely looked to the side while other Republicans actively participated in the attacks on the U.S. electoral system. Ignoring this stark fact with an appeal to "bipartisanship" in this editorial is complete nonsense.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Republicans Redefine Elections
"Stung by Election Losses, Republicans in the States Seek a Way to Neutralize Democrats" reads the NYT headline.
"Stung by losses...". Think about the meaning of that purported objective news blurb.
Feeling hurt and sad, a little depressed perhaps - and only due to their hurt feelings, Republicans in the State legislatures that have a majority in the current lame duck session and, thanks to gerrymandering, in the upcoming legislative session, Republicans who received a minority of votes in certain states while maintaining a legislative majority, have passed laws that the current lame duck governor will sign, in order to eliminate gubernatorial powers that these Republicans want to deprive the newly elected governor - powers that the majority of voters were fine with - powers that these same Republicans were fine with, if and only if, the next governor was going to be a Republican.
Being "stung" asserts a feeling and that headline implies a cause and effect relationship. Only because of their hurt feelings, Republicans are doing things they might not otherwise do. The headline is subjective, not objective, a subjective thought that, according to NYT journalistic standards, belongs in an Opinion piece, not the headline to a hard news story. But the Times pulls back and casually observes each Republican step in its own solitary universe, without regard to a pattern of increasing anti-democratic behavior. How can we downplay this latest Republican maneuver in order to maintain our casual air of objectivity?
So voters in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan are denied the fruits of their ballots because Republicans are willing to act against the majority to change the laws that control the separation of powers - the very functioning of State government. Reps are only able to do this because the government has lame duck sessions as a means of assuring a smooth transition between legislatures. The existence of the lame duck is based on a basic trust, the proposition that we are all in this together, that no one would think to take advantage of the lame duck to thwart the will of the people expressed at the ballot. But that is yet one more step in the destruction of a functioning democracy.
Feeling hurt, wounded and in pain, Republicans ....
Why not "Desperate to hold onto their minority rule and thwarting the will of the majority of voters, Republicans in the legislature are usingthe lame duck session...." ?
Republican tactics that are used to hold on to power are becoming more extreme. The more extreme and dangerous the tactics, the more the NYT news writers feel compelled to downplay the gravity of the threat to democracy, ostensibly because objective news writers must sound calm. But if you try harder to appear calm than you try to be accurate, you will find that it becomes too late to fix your reporting because it is too late to do anything to save functioning democracy.
 |
| source: random house dictionary |
"Stung by losses...". Think about the meaning of that purported objective news blurb.
Feeling hurt and sad, a little depressed perhaps - and only due to their hurt feelings, Republicans in the State legislatures that have a majority in the current lame duck session and, thanks to gerrymandering, in the upcoming legislative session, Republicans who received a minority of votes in certain states while maintaining a legislative majority, have passed laws that the current lame duck governor will sign, in order to eliminate gubernatorial powers that these Republicans want to deprive the newly elected governor - powers that the majority of voters were fine with - powers that these same Republicans were fine with, if and only if, the next governor was going to be a Republican.
Being "stung" asserts a feeling and that headline implies a cause and effect relationship. Only because of their hurt feelings, Republicans are doing things they might not otherwise do. The headline is subjective, not objective, a subjective thought that, according to NYT journalistic standards, belongs in an Opinion piece, not the headline to a hard news story. But the Times pulls back and casually observes each Republican step in its own solitary universe, without regard to a pattern of increasing anti-democratic behavior. How can we downplay this latest Republican maneuver in order to maintain our casual air of objectivity?
So voters in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan are denied the fruits of their ballots because Republicans are willing to act against the majority to change the laws that control the separation of powers - the very functioning of State government. Reps are only able to do this because the government has lame duck sessions as a means of assuring a smooth transition between legislatures. The existence of the lame duck is based on a basic trust, the proposition that we are all in this together, that no one would think to take advantage of the lame duck to thwart the will of the people expressed at the ballot. But that is yet one more step in the destruction of a functioning democracy.
Feeling hurt, wounded and in pain, Republicans ....
Why not "Desperate to hold onto their minority rule and thwarting the will of the majority of voters, Republicans in the legislature are usingthe lame duck session...." ?
Republican tactics that are used to hold on to power are becoming more extreme. The more extreme and dangerous the tactics, the more the NYT news writers feel compelled to downplay the gravity of the threat to democracy, ostensibly because objective news writers must sound calm. But if you try harder to appear calm than you try to be accurate, you will find that it becomes too late to fix your reporting because it is too late to do anything to save functioning democracy.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
One of these "Senators" Is Not Like the Others
Conservatives understand the power of the frame and manage to keep one step ahead of their opponents in this realm. In 2000, the Miami Dade demonstrations on behalf of democracy looked like this:
But Democrats caught on and, after some research, this not-so-spontaneous demonstration late came to look like this:
This showing by Republican operatives who descended on the Miami/Dade vote count has been dubbed the Brooks Brothers Riot, a mocking label that is unusually catchy and apt for one affixed to a group of Republicans.
In 2018, with Republicans again determined to stop counting votes in Florida, another "spontaneous" riot might not fool folks quite so easily. As Bush the Younger has taught us "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'"
No, do not misunderestimate Republicans. You can count on Mitch McConnell, inventor of the 'Biden rule' to set the frame:
"We're here this morning to welcome our six new Republican Senators." said McConnell. Notice how MSNBC repeats the framing with their chyron, doing the work for McConnell in the photo, even while noting that Scott is not elected as of this date:
MCCONNELL WELCOMES NEW
GOP SENATORS TO HIS OFFICE
Actually, McConnell welcomes new GOP Senators-elect and purported Senator-elect Rick Scott to his office, but that is a mouthful. By being the first to set the frame, by framing Scott as the elected Senator, McConnell puts Democrats on the defensive. By casually grouping Scott with the five elected Senators in a photo op, McConnell visually removes any doubt about Scott's current status, despite the continuing counting of votes in the Florida senatorial election. This photo op puts Democrats in a defensive posture, having to insist on the legitimacy of vote counting.
This jumping to the front of the line -pretending that something exists that does not and something that does exist does not - is something Democrats never do. It's not in their nature. Democrats are more inclined to work within reality. Republicans do whatever it takes to win, and if that means embracing an alternative to reality, so be it. But it works.
News organizations like CNBC could react to a staged photo of a meeting that is designed solely to frame this issue, with their own more accurate label that recognizes how they are being used by McConnell. How about:
ONE OF THESE 'SENATORS' IS
NOT LIKE THE OTHERS
In 2018, with Republicans again determined to stop counting votes in Florida, another "spontaneous" riot might not fool folks quite so easily. As Bush the Younger has taught us "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'"
No, do not misunderestimate Republicans. You can count on Mitch McConnell, inventor of the 'Biden rule' to set the frame:
 |
| source:CNBC |
"We're here this morning to welcome our six new Republican Senators." said McConnell. Notice how MSNBC repeats the framing with their chyron, doing the work for McConnell in the photo, even while noting that Scott is not elected as of this date:
 |
| source:CNBC |
GOP SENATORS TO HIS OFFICE
Actually, McConnell welcomes new GOP Senators-elect and purported Senator-elect Rick Scott to his office, but that is a mouthful. By being the first to set the frame, by framing Scott as the elected Senator, McConnell puts Democrats on the defensive. By casually grouping Scott with the five elected Senators in a photo op, McConnell visually removes any doubt about Scott's current status, despite the continuing counting of votes in the Florida senatorial election. This photo op puts Democrats in a defensive posture, having to insist on the legitimacy of vote counting.
This jumping to the front of the line -pretending that something exists that does not and something that does exist does not - is something Democrats never do. It's not in their nature. Democrats are more inclined to work within reality. Republicans do whatever it takes to win, and if that means embracing an alternative to reality, so be it. But it works.
News organizations like CNBC could react to a staged photo of a meeting that is designed solely to frame this issue, with their own more accurate label that recognizes how they are being used by McConnell. How about:
ONE OF THESE 'SENATORS' IS
NOT LIKE THE OTHERS
Monday, November 12, 2018
Without Evidence is Not Good Enough
"Without evidence, Trump alleges forged ballots in Florida, calls for halting recounts" reads the top headline in the Washington Post. There it is again. It never stops. That pesky qualifier "Without evidence..." followed by an outrageous claim.
So that frames the issue as two sides, where one side introduces a new topic - a charge of a crime, so far an nonexistent crime --- "without evidence" gives it away. Pretending your political opponent has committed a crime tells us that you, the accuser may just as credibly be committing a crime and covering it up by being the first to frame the issue (see Lakoff) or maybe just "suppressing" the counting of ballots.
What is a legitimate news organization to do?
The Miami Herald's "Trump, Scott and Rubio continue to push claims of Florida voter fraud without evidence" does better. But something is missing.
First of all, center every story on the most credible narrative at the moment, not on the most outrageous statement or action of Trump or anyone else. Make the headline reflect that reality. As part of that effort, resist the impulse to center the subject of the headline on a person making a claim. If the process is so important, which voting is, then make the headline about that to improve the accuracy and the reader's best understanding of what is happening.
So remove Trump as the subject of the sentence. Make it Election, Ballots, Voting, or Voters.
"Without evidence.." should never be the start or even part of a headline on any important matter. Never.
Accurate count of Florida ballot threatened by unsubstantiated claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's better, but something is still missing.
Isn't making accusations without any evidence an "outrageous" claim? How hard would it be to cite evidence if the claim has any credibility? Then call it "outrageous" when it is outrageous.
Accurate count of Florida ballot for Senator and Governor threatened by outrageous claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's it! And isn't that the real story?
So that frames the issue as two sides, where one side introduces a new topic - a charge of a crime, so far an nonexistent crime --- "without evidence" gives it away. Pretending your political opponent has committed a crime tells us that you, the accuser may just as credibly be committing a crime and covering it up by being the first to frame the issue (see Lakoff) or maybe just "suppressing" the counting of ballots.
What is a legitimate news organization to do?
The Miami Herald's "Trump, Scott and Rubio continue to push claims of Florida voter fraud without evidence" does better. But something is missing.
First of all, center every story on the most credible narrative at the moment, not on the most outrageous statement or action of Trump or anyone else. Make the headline reflect that reality. As part of that effort, resist the impulse to center the subject of the headline on a person making a claim. If the process is so important, which voting is, then make the headline about that to improve the accuracy and the reader's best understanding of what is happening.
So remove Trump as the subject of the sentence. Make it Election, Ballots, Voting, or Voters.
"Without evidence.." should never be the start or even part of a headline on any important matter. Never.
Accurate count of Florida ballot threatened by unsubstantiated claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's better, but something is still missing.
Isn't making accusations without any evidence an "outrageous" claim? How hard would it be to cite evidence if the claim has any credibility? Then call it "outrageous" when it is outrageous.
Accurate count of Florida ballot for Senator and Governor threatened by outrageous claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's it! And isn't that the real story?
Friday, November 2, 2018
Hothead But Not a Liar II - Tactics for Truth
The Washington Post fact checker tells us President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days So what? Is that different from 323 false or misleading claims? How about 2.3 million false or misleading claims. Well, here at WaPo, we believe in fair and balanced he said/she said journalism. We report the facts and let you decide based on the evidence.
But the only reason to report in detail on so many outright lies is to tell citizens that any reasonable person should not believe anything that Trump says. If Alec Baldwin can be called a "hot-head" in a political news story because he is a hot-head, surely Trump can be called a liar in every news story about him that includes a claim by him. "Lying Donald Trump says a 400 pound man may have done it" or "Lying Donald Trumps says 'maybe it's Tchina'". This approach would eliminate the need for reporters to lamely state "Trump claims, without presenting evidence..." Yeah. No kidding. Without evidence because he lies all the time.
George Lakoff comes as close as anyone to pinning down the news media for their kid gloves treatment of Trump based on his research over decades. Lakoff explains why fact checking is a recipe for failure. See his Medium piece "A Blitzkrieg Strategy of Lies and Distractions."
Lakoff's writing is compelling:
"Trump’s “big lie” strategy is designed to exploit journalistic convention by providing rapid-fire “news” events for reporters to chase. Trump spews falsehoods in a blitzkrieg fashion, but the lies are only part of the game. What reporters continue to miss is the strategy behind the big lies: to divert attention from big truths. The technique is simple: create controversy and confusion around politically-charged topics to stoke his conservative base and distract from stories that harm Trump.
It’s a numbers game. The more he can get his key terms and images repeated in the media — even as “fact checks” — the more he wins. That’s just how our brains work. The more we hear about something, the more it sticks. Even if it’s not true. When I say “don’t think of an elephant,” it forces you to think of an elephant. Repeating lies, even to debunk them, helps spread and strengthen them. The scientific evidence is clear."
As Lakoff tells us, "Trump’s success is rooted in the media’s tendency to amplify, rather than analyze, his tactics." Lakoff recommends a "truth sandwich", that is, placing the lie between two truths at all times in any coverage, which does not seem adequate either.
Trump's strategy has been enormously successful. Fill in the blank: "Lyin' ___" Or how about "Crooked _______". You don't need help. You know the answers. Funny how the most appropriate and accurate response, though, is 'Trump" in both cases. But that's why he instinctively does that. What better way to distract. And that tells us the best approach. For each specific lie, there is a specific purpose- a denial, distraction, deflection, accusation, and so on that can be identified. In some cases this is speculation, but that is OK. Better to be accurate about treating a tactic as a tactic, which it always is, rather than treat Lyin' Trump's statements as possibly true inputs for the fact checking machine.
Which gets us back to "hot-headed actor Alec Baldwin. OK, if that works, then if Trump makes a claim that is false, and a fact checking reporter determines the statement is false, why not lead that news article with "Lyin' Trump says...". That kind of reporting sounds aggressive, but it would put both Trump and his supporters ( who have by the way embraced lying as a successful tactic) on notice that their little tricks have met some opposition, some tactics for truth. If 10 lies a day does not a liar make, what does? And if the article on Trump does not report Trump lying, then don't refer to him as "Lyin' Trump" in that article. Which is actually a gentle approach, though, to avoid snarkiness, I would suggest "Lying Trump" or "The Lying President" over "Lyin'"
Sometimes Trump is not lying as much as bluffing. This week he felt the need to say that he would raise the troop levels at the border from 5,200 to 15,000. Then he brought up changing the rules of engagement to have troops shoot at anyone who picks up a rock. Wait a second, this caravan of mostly women and children is hundreds of miles away, trying to escape to live in the U.S., and now they are expected to pick up rocks in a threatening manner against the military? of course that makes no sense, but see what he did there? By raising the stakes, he kept the threat of violence on the people from Central America and away from the white nationalist terrorists who struck this week - one who sent bombs to prominent Democrats, another who committed mass murder at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and yet another who tried to enter a predominately black church, failed, and then murdered a black man and a black woman nearby. My guess is that many Americans missed that last example and many others already forget about it. Trump wants us to forget. And he really does not want us thinking about the two young Saudi women bound together and thrown in the Hudson River off NYC. Because that reminds us about Khashoggi --- and Yemen.
Trump only needs to make his claims and threats to achieve the intended effect - to focus attention on the border with Mexico and away from these horrors.
At the end of the day, political reporting is just one subject of reporting. If the result is deficient, and the truth does not prevail, then remedial action is required. Political reporters who wring their hands and say "We are just doing what we need to do - reporting the facts" are wrong and need to start doing their job. It may not be easy, but it's not as hard as they make it sound.
But the only reason to report in detail on so many outright lies is to tell citizens that any reasonable person should not believe anything that Trump says. If Alec Baldwin can be called a "hot-head" in a political news story because he is a hot-head, surely Trump can be called a liar in every news story about him that includes a claim by him. "Lying Donald Trump says a 400 pound man may have done it" or "Lying Donald Trumps says 'maybe it's Tchina'". This approach would eliminate the need for reporters to lamely state "Trump claims, without presenting evidence..." Yeah. No kidding. Without evidence because he lies all the time.
George Lakoff comes as close as anyone to pinning down the news media for their kid gloves treatment of Trump based on his research over decades. Lakoff explains why fact checking is a recipe for failure. See his Medium piece "A Blitzkrieg Strategy of Lies and Distractions."
Lakoff's writing is compelling:
"Trump’s “big lie” strategy is designed to exploit journalistic convention by providing rapid-fire “news” events for reporters to chase. Trump spews falsehoods in a blitzkrieg fashion, but the lies are only part of the game. What reporters continue to miss is the strategy behind the big lies: to divert attention from big truths. The technique is simple: create controversy and confusion around politically-charged topics to stoke his conservative base and distract from stories that harm Trump.
It’s a numbers game. The more he can get his key terms and images repeated in the media — even as “fact checks” — the more he wins. That’s just how our brains work. The more we hear about something, the more it sticks. Even if it’s not true. When I say “don’t think of an elephant,” it forces you to think of an elephant. Repeating lies, even to debunk them, helps spread and strengthen them. The scientific evidence is clear."
As Lakoff tells us, "Trump’s success is rooted in the media’s tendency to amplify, rather than analyze, his tactics." Lakoff recommends a "truth sandwich", that is, placing the lie between two truths at all times in any coverage, which does not seem adequate either.
Trump's strategy has been enormously successful. Fill in the blank: "Lyin' ___" Or how about "Crooked _______". You don't need help. You know the answers. Funny how the most appropriate and accurate response, though, is 'Trump" in both cases. But that's why he instinctively does that. What better way to distract. And that tells us the best approach. For each specific lie, there is a specific purpose- a denial, distraction, deflection, accusation, and so on that can be identified. In some cases this is speculation, but that is OK. Better to be accurate about treating a tactic as a tactic, which it always is, rather than treat Lyin' Trump's statements as possibly true inputs for the fact checking machine.
Which gets us back to "hot-headed actor Alec Baldwin. OK, if that works, then if Trump makes a claim that is false, and a fact checking reporter determines the statement is false, why not lead that news article with "Lyin' Trump says...". That kind of reporting sounds aggressive, but it would put both Trump and his supporters ( who have by the way embraced lying as a successful tactic) on notice that their little tricks have met some opposition, some tactics for truth. If 10 lies a day does not a liar make, what does? And if the article on Trump does not report Trump lying, then don't refer to him as "Lyin' Trump" in that article. Which is actually a gentle approach, though, to avoid snarkiness, I would suggest "Lying Trump" or "The Lying President" over "Lyin'"
Sometimes Trump is not lying as much as bluffing. This week he felt the need to say that he would raise the troop levels at the border from 5,200 to 15,000. Then he brought up changing the rules of engagement to have troops shoot at anyone who picks up a rock. Wait a second, this caravan of mostly women and children is hundreds of miles away, trying to escape to live in the U.S., and now they are expected to pick up rocks in a threatening manner against the military? of course that makes no sense, but see what he did there? By raising the stakes, he kept the threat of violence on the people from Central America and away from the white nationalist terrorists who struck this week - one who sent bombs to prominent Democrats, another who committed mass murder at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and yet another who tried to enter a predominately black church, failed, and then murdered a black man and a black woman nearby. My guess is that many Americans missed that last example and many others already forget about it. Trump wants us to forget. And he really does not want us thinking about the two young Saudi women bound together and thrown in the Hudson River off NYC. Because that reminds us about Khashoggi --- and Yemen.
Trump only needs to make his claims and threats to achieve the intended effect - to focus attention on the border with Mexico and away from these horrors.
At the end of the day, political reporting is just one subject of reporting. If the result is deficient, and the truth does not prevail, then remedial action is required. Political reporters who wring their hands and say "We are just doing what we need to do - reporting the facts" are wrong and need to start doing their job. It may not be easy, but it's not as hard as they make it sound.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
When Political Calculation Becomes Your Only Policy
"When tactics become policy" is an attempt to describe the situation in U.S. politics that has developed over many years. Conservatives have a strategy that counts on short term political victories without regard to the long term impact - destruction of the U.S. political system.
People have been catching on to this.
People have been catching on to this.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Facts Don't Matter
Elizabeth Warren can be forgiven for believing facts matter, but they don't. Stories matter, but only stories that "feel" true - true to the listener.
Warren released the results of the DNA test of her Native American heritage. What does this tell us?
Number 1, this tells us that she is owned by the Republicans - Trump, and before him, Scott Brown who also called her "Pocohontas". By responding with her own "fact checking", Warren is showing respect to the campaign distractions of Republican leaders. This situation is nearly identical to the demands for Obama's birth certificate. The accusations about Obama were really just a way to challenge his legitimacy as an appeal to a base that hated having an African American president.
The Republican strategy is always to distract from policy and focus on personal attacks. The more that Republican policy veers away from the preferences of large majorities of Americans, the more that winning requires showering negativity on their political opponents. And, for Republicans, lies are more powerful than facts because telling lies sends your opponents - Democrats and the purported responsible press - into fact checking mode which is a defensive posture of weakness. Members of the press express pride in fact checking, but fact checking in the current environment is a symptom of press failure. Fact checking someone like Trump who lies all the time as a tactic of distraction and confusion only adds to the confusion, especially when the fact checking includes analysis that says "Obama did it too, but when Obama did it, there was this difference...". Sorry, but when you frame the issue as "both sides" do it, the differences you invoke get lost in the shuffle.
Democrats, with their ceaseless faith in the power of truth and logic, continue to work on messages consistent with their belief that reality matters to everyone, that eventually, people will come around to the belief that reality matters. And it does, to anyone paying attention to politics. But the Trump base does not care.
More to come on this and the difference between placing focus on persons vs. policy.
Warren released the results of the DNA test of her Native American heritage. What does this tell us?
Number 1, this tells us that she is owned by the Republicans - Trump, and before him, Scott Brown who also called her "Pocohontas". By responding with her own "fact checking", Warren is showing respect to the campaign distractions of Republican leaders. This situation is nearly identical to the demands for Obama's birth certificate. The accusations about Obama were really just a way to challenge his legitimacy as an appeal to a base that hated having an African American president.
The Republican strategy is always to distract from policy and focus on personal attacks. The more that Republican policy veers away from the preferences of large majorities of Americans, the more that winning requires showering negativity on their political opponents. And, for Republicans, lies are more powerful than facts because telling lies sends your opponents - Democrats and the purported responsible press - into fact checking mode which is a defensive posture of weakness. Members of the press express pride in fact checking, but fact checking in the current environment is a symptom of press failure. Fact checking someone like Trump who lies all the time as a tactic of distraction and confusion only adds to the confusion, especially when the fact checking includes analysis that says "Obama did it too, but when Obama did it, there was this difference...". Sorry, but when you frame the issue as "both sides" do it, the differences you invoke get lost in the shuffle.
Democrats, with their ceaseless faith in the power of truth and logic, continue to work on messages consistent with their belief that reality matters to everyone, that eventually, people will come around to the belief that reality matters. And it does, to anyone paying attention to politics. But the Trump base does not care.
More to come on this and the difference between placing focus on persons vs. policy.
Friday, September 7, 2018
NYT Opinion as News
The NYT frequently inverts news articles and opinion pieces these days. The recent story "Some of the Democrats grilling Judge Kavanaugh have their eye on the White House" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (also running under "Democrats Grilling Kavanaugh Have Their Eyes on 2020").
The alternate headlines frame the piece quite nicely. The times has been running articles calling the Kavanaugh nomination approval by the Senate basically a done deal. So the Times logic goes something like this:
Republicans have control of the Senate and will approve Kavanaugh without question. (This despite the narrow 51-49 margin by party.)
Since Kavanaugh is a done deal, any visible attempts to derail the nomination are a sham.
As for Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, they can not stop Kavanaugh, so they are just showboating.
If Senators just give up, their failure is a certainty. If there is any hope at all, don't they need to do everything they can to stop Kavanaugh. And doesn't it make more sense to frame their effort as a big victory if they succeed, but if they fail, then they have highlighted the concerns about Republican Supreme Court (and lower courts) nominees effectively for the 2018 Congressional elections?
But at the Times, where forced balance is established doctrine, politicians can always be presumed looking out for themselves. Besides, presidential races are exciting! All of these other races are so boring. I really don't care, do u?
The Times story which they present at a news item, rather than opinion is actually an opinion piece pretending to be a news story. It stems from a bias at the Times to see the world through a self imposed prism which is almost as bad in some ways at the Fox worldview.
A very different story could have been written. For me, the big news was the Cory Booker found a way to deflect the best efforts of John Cornyn, chair of the committee, to read him the "riot act" about Senate expulsion for his release of a handful of Kavanaugh documents. Cornyn's threat was actually an empty threat, but a framing tactic to label Booker as almost criminally out-of-order, in fact, so terrible that he could be punished and expelled from the Senate. Booker's open and immediate defiance was likely unexpected because team Cornyn's empty threat was shown to be a charade. So Cornyn was left to apparently falsely deny that the documents were still confidential and therefore there was no basis to expell Booker. But of course he had openly stated that Booker's actions could lead to expulsion, which had Cornyn simultaneously holding contradictory positions.
And so we continue to see Republicans threaten and attack democratic institutions as Democrats and some Republicans who do not hold elective office fight back. Republican officeholders continue to act in bad faith, often with lies and obfuscation, as they consolidate their hold on power with Trump at the center of the Party.
Not surprisingly, Paul Waldman provides his rebuttal in a WaPo opinion column, from a slightly different perspective, to wit:
"But thinking about politics — including how Democratic presidential primary voters might respond to the Kavanaugh nomination and the Supreme Court, in general — is exactly what these politicians ought to be doing. Politics is how we settle the most vital questions that confront us as a nation. And if the process of choosing and confirming Supreme Court justices was ever removed from politics, it certainly isn’t now. What’s wrong with Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, raising the issues they think their constituents care about?"
The main point here is that the Times sorting of articles into news and opinion categories is not working any more and has not worked for a long time. This Stolberg alleged news piece is clearly an opinion piece by any objective measure, but it is labeled news solely because the opinions of the author are forced into the newsy frame that "both sides" really only care about running for president in 2020.
The alternate headlines frame the piece quite nicely. The times has been running articles calling the Kavanaugh nomination approval by the Senate basically a done deal. So the Times logic goes something like this:
Republicans have control of the Senate and will approve Kavanaugh without question. (This despite the narrow 51-49 margin by party.)
Since Kavanaugh is a done deal, any visible attempts to derail the nomination are a sham.
As for Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, they can not stop Kavanaugh, so they are just showboating.
If Senators just give up, their failure is a certainty. If there is any hope at all, don't they need to do everything they can to stop Kavanaugh. And doesn't it make more sense to frame their effort as a big victory if they succeed, but if they fail, then they have highlighted the concerns about Republican Supreme Court (and lower courts) nominees effectively for the 2018 Congressional elections?
But at the Times, where forced balance is established doctrine, politicians can always be presumed looking out for themselves. Besides, presidential races are exciting! All of these other races are so boring. I really don't care, do u?
The Times story which they present at a news item, rather than opinion is actually an opinion piece pretending to be a news story. It stems from a bias at the Times to see the world through a self imposed prism which is almost as bad in some ways at the Fox worldview.
A very different story could have been written. For me, the big news was the Cory Booker found a way to deflect the best efforts of John Cornyn, chair of the committee, to read him the "riot act" about Senate expulsion for his release of a handful of Kavanaugh documents. Cornyn's threat was actually an empty threat, but a framing tactic to label Booker as almost criminally out-of-order, in fact, so terrible that he could be punished and expelled from the Senate. Booker's open and immediate defiance was likely unexpected because team Cornyn's empty threat was shown to be a charade. So Cornyn was left to apparently falsely deny that the documents were still confidential and therefore there was no basis to expell Booker. But of course he had openly stated that Booker's actions could lead to expulsion, which had Cornyn simultaneously holding contradictory positions.
And so we continue to see Republicans threaten and attack democratic institutions as Democrats and some Republicans who do not hold elective office fight back. Republican officeholders continue to act in bad faith, often with lies and obfuscation, as they consolidate their hold on power with Trump at the center of the Party.
Not surprisingly, Paul Waldman provides his rebuttal in a WaPo opinion column, from a slightly different perspective, to wit:
"But thinking about politics — including how Democratic presidential primary voters might respond to the Kavanaugh nomination and the Supreme Court, in general — is exactly what these politicians ought to be doing. Politics is how we settle the most vital questions that confront us as a nation. And if the process of choosing and confirming Supreme Court justices was ever removed from politics, it certainly isn’t now. What’s wrong with Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, raising the issues they think their constituents care about?"
The main point here is that the Times sorting of articles into news and opinion categories is not working any more and has not worked for a long time. This Stolberg alleged news piece is clearly an opinion piece by any objective measure, but it is labeled news solely because the opinions of the author are forced into the newsy frame that "both sides" really only care about running for president in 2020.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Polar Expressions
With the 2018 midterm elections looming, WaPo's headline this morning in a piece by Mike DeBonis plays to balance of those "two sides". So the big political news becomes "Pelosi is the star of GOP attack ads, worrying Democrats upbeat about midterms" which leads with:
"While Democrats grow optimistic about their chances of taking control of the House in November, they are increasingly anxious that the presence of their longtime and polarizing leader, Nancy Pelosi, is making it harder for many of their candidates to compete in crucial swing districts."
You could be forgiven for thinking that the description "polarizing leader" is an apt beginning to any accurate description of Trump. And anyone can see that the Republican talking points in campaigns play to a somewhat visceral reaction of the Republican base to certain prominent Democratic politicians who - not coincidentally - happen to be powerful women, or minorities, or both.
But our popular press gives themselves a pass in news reporting on politics and government - if one "side" does it - Trump in this case, then the other side can safely be assumed to "do it" - meaning Pelosi. If Trump polarizes, all day, every day, then reporting that Pelosi is a "polarizing figure" is deemed to pass the objectivity test. This approach in political news reporting may seem harmless enough, but this flaw in objective reporting, in its many forms, creates a loophole that is exploited by Republican party campaign (and governing) tactics, as frequently discussed on this blog. And actual assymetry between the two leading parties that dominate U.S. politics is, as a matter of "objective" journalistic practice, explained away. And if you provide counterexamples, then you are presumed biased and your examples are safely ignored. At least that is the position of WaPo much of the time, and the NYTimes editors virtually all the time.
Late today, without reference to the above news article about "polarizing" Pelosi, WaPo opinion writer Paul Waldman in "What Republican attacks on Nancy Pelosi are really about" lays bare the flaws in WaPo's news reporting. The accompanying picture of Pelosi from the DeBonis piece is used again in Waldman's piece, which seems intentional as a call-out on the original article. Waldman explains in detail why Republican campaigns target Pelosi, stating:
"And it’s partly the us-versus-them conflict that has animated every Republican campaign for a half century. Democrats, they tell voters, aren’t like us. They don’t share our values; they’re elitist and alien and threatening. Those ideas can be expressed through issues, but what they’re about is cultural affinity: The Republican candidate is one of us, and the Democratic candidate is one of them."
So it is not about policy. And it is not about anything Pelosi herself actually does. It is all about Republican tactics to demonize the opposition - tactics that Trump was able to employ better than any other Republican candidate in the 2016 primaries.
The term "polarizing" thus applies best to Republican tactics in campaigns. It is something Republicans do - not something our country is, no something that both sides do, or leading Dems do. Only laziness of reporters and their editors, or even bias, can explain why a WaPo news article refers to Pelosi as "polarizing" and it takes a WaPo opinion piece to call out the flaw in WaPo's own reporting.
"While Democrats grow optimistic about their chances of taking control of the House in November, they are increasingly anxious that the presence of their longtime and polarizing leader, Nancy Pelosi, is making it harder for many of their candidates to compete in crucial swing districts."
You could be forgiven for thinking that the description "polarizing leader" is an apt beginning to any accurate description of Trump. And anyone can see that the Republican talking points in campaigns play to a somewhat visceral reaction of the Republican base to certain prominent Democratic politicians who - not coincidentally - happen to be powerful women, or minorities, or both.
But our popular press gives themselves a pass in news reporting on politics and government - if one "side" does it - Trump in this case, then the other side can safely be assumed to "do it" - meaning Pelosi. If Trump polarizes, all day, every day, then reporting that Pelosi is a "polarizing figure" is deemed to pass the objectivity test. This approach in political news reporting may seem harmless enough, but this flaw in objective reporting, in its many forms, creates a loophole that is exploited by Republican party campaign (and governing) tactics, as frequently discussed on this blog. And actual assymetry between the two leading parties that dominate U.S. politics is, as a matter of "objective" journalistic practice, explained away. And if you provide counterexamples, then you are presumed biased and your examples are safely ignored. At least that is the position of WaPo much of the time, and the NYTimes editors virtually all the time.
 |
| Source: bostonglobe.com |
Late today, without reference to the above news article about "polarizing" Pelosi, WaPo opinion writer Paul Waldman in "What Republican attacks on Nancy Pelosi are really about" lays bare the flaws in WaPo's news reporting. The accompanying picture of Pelosi from the DeBonis piece is used again in Waldman's piece, which seems intentional as a call-out on the original article. Waldman explains in detail why Republican campaigns target Pelosi, stating:
"And it’s partly the us-versus-them conflict that has animated every Republican campaign for a half century. Democrats, they tell voters, aren’t like us. They don’t share our values; they’re elitist and alien and threatening. Those ideas can be expressed through issues, but what they’re about is cultural affinity: The Republican candidate is one of us, and the Democratic candidate is one of them."
So it is not about policy. And it is not about anything Pelosi herself actually does. It is all about Republican tactics to demonize the opposition - tactics that Trump was able to employ better than any other Republican candidate in the 2016 primaries.
The term "polarizing" thus applies best to Republican tactics in campaigns. It is something Republicans do - not something our country is, no something that both sides do, or leading Dems do. Only laziness of reporters and their editors, or even bias, can explain why a WaPo news article refers to Pelosi as "polarizing" and it takes a WaPo opinion piece to call out the flaw in WaPo's own reporting.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Flashing The Bunt Sign
For those in power, accountability is important. For the president of the U.S., accountability is of paramount importance due to the awesome power of the presidency as head of state, executive of government, and head of the party, especially in this case as head of the controlling party in the legislature.
And so, when this president, who is prone to holding political rallies for himself as a supplemental form of "governing", did so in Tampa July 31st. CNN is, of course, a frequent target of Trump's attacks, so it is no wonder that the crowd of Trump devotees chanted menacingly at Jim Acosta during his live reporting.
When pressed on this at the daily presser, Sarah Sanders pushed back, citing "The zombie claim that won’t die: The media exposed bin Laden’s phone".
So the president stokes hatred and anger against the responsible news media. He holds rallies of his base - this one attracted QAnon signs. As the base menaces reporters - Trump calls them "fake news". Reporters feel concern for their safety. Sanders pivots to a generalized vague "condemnation" using the "we have always said" form or expression directed at no one in particular, but just as quickly ducks responsibility on behalf of Trump with an irrelevant call for the press to be "responsible", citing that zombie claim.
But whether or not that zombie claim is true or false is irrelevant. In fact, deflecting news organizations to fact checking is a tried and proven method of distraction - more effective than a true claim would be because more work goes into proving a claim false. And if the claim, if true, is irrelevant anyway, then fact checking that claim is an exercise in futility.
Having distracted with a "both sides" argument (where "both sides" means the president on one side and his enemy the press on the "other side"), Sanders pivoted quickly to wrap up with an endorsement of "free speech" - which is strong encouragement to Trump supporters to keep up the good work, to intimidate the press at these rallies and, who knows, any place they may care to track down these members of the press.
Deny
Deflect
Distract
Accuse
(DDDA) is the go to tactical response in these situations. The final statement that follows the DDDA combination inviting continued menacing in the future - "While we certainly support freedom of the press, we also support freedom of speech..." which is effectively like the third base coach flashing the bunt sign in the midst of a raft of other gestures. The Trump supporters, like the batter, know which signs to ignore and which to take to heart.
And so, when this president, who is prone to holding political rallies for himself as a supplemental form of "governing", did so in Tampa July 31st. CNN is, of course, a frequent target of Trump's attacks, so it is no wonder that the crowd of Trump devotees chanted menacingly at Jim Acosta during his live reporting.
 |
| source:cnn.com |
When pressed on this at the daily presser, Sarah Sanders pushed back, citing "The zombie claim that won’t die: The media exposed bin Laden’s phone".
So the president stokes hatred and anger against the responsible news media. He holds rallies of his base - this one attracted QAnon signs. As the base menaces reporters - Trump calls them "fake news". Reporters feel concern for their safety. Sanders pivots to a generalized vague "condemnation" using the "we have always said" form or expression directed at no one in particular, but just as quickly ducks responsibility on behalf of Trump with an irrelevant call for the press to be "responsible", citing that zombie claim.
But whether or not that zombie claim is true or false is irrelevant. In fact, deflecting news organizations to fact checking is a tried and proven method of distraction - more effective than a true claim would be because more work goes into proving a claim false. And if the claim, if true, is irrelevant anyway, then fact checking that claim is an exercise in futility.
Having distracted with a "both sides" argument (where "both sides" means the president on one side and his enemy the press on the "other side"), Sanders pivoted quickly to wrap up with an endorsement of "free speech" - which is strong encouragement to Trump supporters to keep up the good work, to intimidate the press at these rallies and, who knows, any place they may care to track down these members of the press.
Deny
Deflect
Distract
Accuse
(DDDA) is the go to tactical response in these situations. The final statement that follows the DDDA combination inviting continued menacing in the future - "While we certainly support freedom of the press, we also support freedom of speech..." which is effectively like the third base coach flashing the bunt sign in the midst of a raft of other gestures. The Trump supporters, like the batter, know which signs to ignore and which to take to heart.
 |
| source:howtheyplay.com |
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Dumped in the Trumpster
If Donald Trump does not acknowledge that Team Putin has and is attacking the U.S. with cyberwarfare, he succeeds on centering the ongoing news coverage on his denials, which is consistent with his methods used to control media coverage during the 2016 election campaign.
If Trump were to acknowledge Russian cyberattacks, the media questions and discussion would center on "Mr. President, what are you going to do about Russia's attacks?". Trump does not want to go there because he does not want to do anything at all about Russia's cyber warfare. Trump does not want to do anything about Russian cyber warfare because Russian cyber warfare inures to his benefit.
Our mainstream media, including MSNBC, despite calling on all kinds of experts on these matters, still struggles to ignore the president's statements, which are such an effective tool to deflect their attention. Even after two years of this nonsense, the media struggles.
The only effective way for the media to cover this endless obfuscation would be to speculate about matters unknown assuming a worst case scenario. The absolute worst case - that the president is an agent of a foreign enemy - actually provides the most consistent, credible explanation of the behavior of all bad actors throughout the current crisis.
"Mr. President, what did you discuss with Vladimir Putin in private? People are saying (to borrow a phrase from the Obfuscator in Chief)...people are saying that you and Putin agreed on further conspiracies to sabotage the 2018 election, similar to your collaboration on 2016. We suspect that you made agreements on Syria, which, together with your side agreements with the Saudis and the UAE, will result in enormous personal financial gain to you and the Kushners."
And so on. The only way to fight this manipulation by Trump of the media's reluctance to go beyond the minimization of the bad case is for the media to speculate on the maximal worst case. Right now, Trump is just doing a dance as he always has and the media is dancing along with him. The media has come to depend on the "he says/she says - the truth will out as we fact check" so much that they do not know how to shift gears.
The media needs to keep speculating until those tax returns are released and the American translator in Helsinki testifies under oath divulging the details of the most recent secret meeting between Trump and Putin. If the American translator left the room, we need to know that. We need to know the reason so many Republican congressmen had to be in Moscow for the 4th of July this year and why Rand Paul needs to go there.
If Trump were to acknowledge Russian cyberattacks, the media questions and discussion would center on "Mr. President, what are you going to do about Russia's attacks?". Trump does not want to go there because he does not want to do anything at all about Russia's cyber warfare. Trump does not want to do anything about Russian cyber warfare because Russian cyber warfare inures to his benefit.
Our mainstream media, including MSNBC, despite calling on all kinds of experts on these matters, still struggles to ignore the president's statements, which are such an effective tool to deflect their attention. Even after two years of this nonsense, the media struggles.
The only effective way for the media to cover this endless obfuscation would be to speculate about matters unknown assuming a worst case scenario. The absolute worst case - that the president is an agent of a foreign enemy - actually provides the most consistent, credible explanation of the behavior of all bad actors throughout the current crisis.
"Mr. President, what did you discuss with Vladimir Putin in private? People are saying (to borrow a phrase from the Obfuscator in Chief)...people are saying that you and Putin agreed on further conspiracies to sabotage the 2018 election, similar to your collaboration on 2016. We suspect that you made agreements on Syria, which, together with your side agreements with the Saudis and the UAE, will result in enormous personal financial gain to you and the Kushners."
And so on. The only way to fight this manipulation by Trump of the media's reluctance to go beyond the minimization of the bad case is for the media to speculate on the maximal worst case. Right now, Trump is just doing a dance as he always has and the media is dancing along with him. The media has come to depend on the "he says/she says - the truth will out as we fact check" so much that they do not know how to shift gears.
The media needs to keep speculating until those tax returns are released and the American translator in Helsinki testifies under oath divulging the details of the most recent secret meeting between Trump and Putin. If the American translator left the room, we need to know that. We need to know the reason so many Republican congressmen had to be in Moscow for the 4th of July this year and why Rand Paul needs to go there.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Narrative vs. Counternarrative
Start with the tactic, then report the content.
Trump is a master at manipulation of news reporting. Journalists need to report tactics themselves fully as news items.
.
So when "Trump hosts citizens 'permanently separated' from loved ones", he is demonstrating his mastery of reclaiming the narrative, principally among his Republican supporters, that began to be lost with news reports on separation of young children from parents being kept in cages. Trump knows never to allow his opponents to establish the frame for his administrations actions or inaction. He knows that when a narrative takes hold against his administration, he needs to establish a counternarrative that directly attacks the opposing narrative so that his supporters will latch on to that counternarrative. Thus, the "permanent separation" of family members achieves the goal. "Permanent separation - death - is worse than temporary separation of children from parents. Score 1. And the visual of sympathetic victims - family members of citizens who were murdered or killed in car accidents (with the accidental nature of those deaths deemphasized for maximum effect) directly counters the crying child who has come to symbolize the current crackdown.
The point here is that Trump's defense, such as it is, is no defense at all. It is an example of his continued successful deflection from himself to others. The buck never stops here. For analogy, his staged 'permanent separation' event harks back to 2016 when Trump trotted out the Clinton accusers for a press conference right before the second debate, shortly after the Access Hollywood tape became public.
That which makes Trump appear most guilty calls for the most drastic accusations and visuals to create an equally compelling counternarrative. Of course, the 2016 campaign between Trump and Clinton was reduced to the negative views of Trump established based on reported facts vs. Trump's allegations against Clinton that only needed to be leveled in order to create and maintain the negative frame around her candidacy. Likewise, Trump's accusations against the FBI and the "deep state" are made to counter the frame of his team's close ties to Russia throughout the campaign and intensifying during his presidency. None of Trump's accusations against Clinton or leaders at the FBI and Justice (who happen to be Republicans) make him innocent. These are all examples of a pattern of guilty behavior.
For Trump, you fight accusations of sexual misconduct with accusations of sexual misconduct. Replace the frame with a like frame. Fight accusations of horrific family separation with accusations of horrific family separation. The full story never matters. All that matters is winning by replacing the frame of reality with a different frame more favorable to you.
Report the pattern of behavior first. Force the content to be secondary. "Nothing to see here, but look over there!" actually works best when the distraction is a false frame created by Trump because that sends otherwise responsible reporters fact checking his lies when their time would be better spent analyzing and accurately describing his devious patterns of behavior.
George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, has recently garnered attention to his suggestion that news media report Trump's lies using a "truth sandwich" approach. In Margaret Sullivan's "Instead of Trump's propaganda, how about a nice 'truth sandwich'?,
"First, he says, get as close to the overall, big-picture truth as possible right away. (Thus the gist of the Trump-in-Singapore story: Little of substance was accomplished in the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, despite the pageantry.) Then report what Trump is claiming about it: achievement of world peace. And then, in the same story or broadcast, fact-check his claims.
That’s the truth sandwich — reality, spin, reality — all in one tasty, democracy-nourishing meal."
But we need much more focused treatment than that example.
Whenever Trump says or does anything, first divine the purpose. Assume the worst, that he is being purely tactical. Report the tactic because that is really all that matters. Trump's claims are meaningless because he is all about tactics and lying whenever it is convenient. Fact checking is not an essential part of the story because the act of fact checking distracts from meaning and allows Trump to replace any true narrative with his own narrative. News organizations are still not getting that Trump uses their "fair and balanced reporting supported by fact checking" to make them unwitting tools for his own purposes. With the substantial support Trump gets from loyal Fox News, Republicans in Congress, and Putin, the news media needs to do a better job.
Trump is a master at manipulation of news reporting. Journalists need to report tactics themselves fully as news items.
.
So when "Trump hosts citizens 'permanently separated' from loved ones", he is demonstrating his mastery of reclaiming the narrative, principally among his Republican supporters, that began to be lost with news reports on separation of young children from parents being kept in cages. Trump knows never to allow his opponents to establish the frame for his administrations actions or inaction. He knows that when a narrative takes hold against his administration, he needs to establish a counternarrative that directly attacks the opposing narrative so that his supporters will latch on to that counternarrative. Thus, the "permanent separation" of family members achieves the goal. "Permanent separation - death - is worse than temporary separation of children from parents. Score 1. And the visual of sympathetic victims - family members of citizens who were murdered or killed in car accidents (with the accidental nature of those deaths deemphasized for maximum effect) directly counters the crying child who has come to symbolize the current crackdown.
The point here is that Trump's defense, such as it is, is no defense at all. It is an example of his continued successful deflection from himself to others. The buck never stops here. For analogy, his staged 'permanent separation' event harks back to 2016 when Trump trotted out the Clinton accusers for a press conference right before the second debate, shortly after the Access Hollywood tape became public.
That which makes Trump appear most guilty calls for the most drastic accusations and visuals to create an equally compelling counternarrative. Of course, the 2016 campaign between Trump and Clinton was reduced to the negative views of Trump established based on reported facts vs. Trump's allegations against Clinton that only needed to be leveled in order to create and maintain the negative frame around her candidacy. Likewise, Trump's accusations against the FBI and the "deep state" are made to counter the frame of his team's close ties to Russia throughout the campaign and intensifying during his presidency. None of Trump's accusations against Clinton or leaders at the FBI and Justice (who happen to be Republicans) make him innocent. These are all examples of a pattern of guilty behavior.
For Trump, you fight accusations of sexual misconduct with accusations of sexual misconduct. Replace the frame with a like frame. Fight accusations of horrific family separation with accusations of horrific family separation. The full story never matters. All that matters is winning by replacing the frame of reality with a different frame more favorable to you.
Report the pattern of behavior first. Force the content to be secondary. "Nothing to see here, but look over there!" actually works best when the distraction is a false frame created by Trump because that sends otherwise responsible reporters fact checking his lies when their time would be better spent analyzing and accurately describing his devious patterns of behavior.
George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, has recently garnered attention to his suggestion that news media report Trump's lies using a "truth sandwich" approach. In Margaret Sullivan's "Instead of Trump's propaganda, how about a nice 'truth sandwich'?,
"First, he says, get as close to the overall, big-picture truth as possible right away. (Thus the gist of the Trump-in-Singapore story: Little of substance was accomplished in the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, despite the pageantry.) Then report what Trump is claiming about it: achievement of world peace. And then, in the same story or broadcast, fact-check his claims.
That’s the truth sandwich — reality, spin, reality — all in one tasty, democracy-nourishing meal."
But we need much more focused treatment than that example.
Whenever Trump says or does anything, first divine the purpose. Assume the worst, that he is being purely tactical. Report the tactic because that is really all that matters. Trump's claims are meaningless because he is all about tactics and lying whenever it is convenient. Fact checking is not an essential part of the story because the act of fact checking distracts from meaning and allows Trump to replace any true narrative with his own narrative. News organizations are still not getting that Trump uses their "fair and balanced reporting supported by fact checking" to make them unwitting tools for his own purposes. With the substantial support Trump gets from loyal Fox News, Republicans in Congress, and Putin, the news media needs to do a better job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)