Every year I send checks to 4 NPR radio stations and the two PBS television stations within range of my electronics on the New Hampshire seacost.
I listen to NPR on the way to work and home again. I know those NPR reporters, I know their voices and their quirks and their back stories. Same for the PBS News Hour. Judy Woodruff, David Brooks, Mark Shields and Gwen Ifil. Before her, Jim Lehrer and Robert McNeill.
Started watching the News Hour from the start, in the 80's when the editors were clearly worried they would not have enough news to fill an hour every evening and they experimented with visual "postcards" from around the country.
So it is sad to see the decline of these news outlets, who are finding their niche overwhelmed by an invasive species which is better adapted to the new environment, the Fox News network and the right wing talk radio of Rush Limbaugh, Steve Bannon et al.
These news shows once upon a time would have been horrified to be described as "liberal." They strove to be neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democrat. Their approach: Ask everyone hard questions; challenge everyone, especially people you might privately agree with.
To their credit, with the advent of Trump, these programs realized "fair and equal" treatment of a politician who breaks all the rules, in the environment when Fox News makes no such effort to present both sides, and when there are simply not "both sides" of equal value, when one side flagrantly and un-repentantly lies about the size of the crowd at the Inauguration, about whether we have a higher level of people living in the country not born here than "ever before," about crime rates among immigrants, about climate change being a Chinese plot, about whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, about whether or not the massacre at Sandy Hook ever really happened, about whether or not Hillary Clinton was running a child porn operation out of a Washington pizza pallor, about any number of things.
It's hard to interview people who are demonstrably supporting falsehood as if, in the interest of fairness, we should accept their false witness as just their opinion, to which they have a right.
Someone said, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. But facts are slippery things, and it is hard work to "fact check."
But now PBS and NPR have chosen stories in ways which reveal just how lost they are.
Tonight, on the way home, I listened to an NPR story about a child who had been separated from her parents at the border, and the parents, given a "Sophie's choice" left the USA to go back to Honduras.
This was followed by a long story about former CIA chief Brennan being stripped of his security clearance by Trump.
And the PBS had a story on the big military parade which Trump planned for $30 million but cancelled when the price ballooned to $90 million, claiming he was now an economic hero to have save the nation $60 million. He blamed the cost explosion on the Democratic government of the District of Columbia and PBS never pointed out that even at $30 million, a parade would be a colossal waste of money for the sake of a politician's ego, or for any other reason.
The problem with choosing these stories about Trump and his policies is that none of them are really important news. In reporting on them, these liberal outlets simply play into the Trump marketing machine and its fundamental premise, that every day, every news broadcast should be about Trump.
There is not a story, hasn't been a news day, which starts with any line other than, "Today, President Trump."
And none of this was news when President Obama was President. President Obama could deliver a well crafted, beautifully written speech at a Shriners' convention and not get even a sound bite. But now anything Trump says is the headline and half the news broadcast.
And why are we given that story about one of the 500 would be immigrant children still separated from her parents?
It's one of those "put a human face on..." stories, meant to play to the revulsion of putting children in cages or separating them from their parents. But we already know that story. Those of us who are revolted were revolted weeks ago and those who believe, "Well, if they wanted to protect their kids, they shouldn't have brought them here," will not be moved.
That discussion has been had.
And the story about stripping security clearances: Who cares? Some old goat wants to still be relevant and keep his perks in retirement. What do I care? Why does he even still need his precious clearance? To feel like he's still in the game? Well, he's not. Get used to it.
But now it's all about Trump trying to "chill" dissent from other former bigshots with security clearances. This is a story which plays in Washington but not in Portsmouth.
There are real stories, damaging stories out there, but they are more difficult to pursue: How are folks being damaged by not having health insurance which actually works for them?
How about the guy who works on the assembly line who just picked up his insulin and got presented a bill for $600, which is what he makes in a week?
The problem is, these liberal media types, the editors who choose the stories, they aren't all that bright. They just wait to be given stories and they run with them, because every tweet is "news." Why not go to doctors who see the struggles of everyday people, or lawyers who see bankruptcies or factory owners who are closing down factories or farmers who can't bring in their crops or restaurant owners who can't find workers or scientists seeing once clean waters getting befouled by changes in EPA regulations?
It would not be easy chasing those stories, but really, who cares about whether CNN can't get its reporter into the White House press room?
I listen to NPR on the way to work and home again. I know those NPR reporters, I know their voices and their quirks and their back stories. Same for the PBS News Hour. Judy Woodruff, David Brooks, Mark Shields and Gwen Ifil. Before her, Jim Lehrer and Robert McNeill.
 |
| Obadiah Youngblood --Lockhouse 8 |
Started watching the News Hour from the start, in the 80's when the editors were clearly worried they would not have enough news to fill an hour every evening and they experimented with visual "postcards" from around the country.
So it is sad to see the decline of these news outlets, who are finding their niche overwhelmed by an invasive species which is better adapted to the new environment, the Fox News network and the right wing talk radio of Rush Limbaugh, Steve Bannon et al.
These news shows once upon a time would have been horrified to be described as "liberal." They strove to be neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democrat. Their approach: Ask everyone hard questions; challenge everyone, especially people you might privately agree with.
To their credit, with the advent of Trump, these programs realized "fair and equal" treatment of a politician who breaks all the rules, in the environment when Fox News makes no such effort to present both sides, and when there are simply not "both sides" of equal value, when one side flagrantly and un-repentantly lies about the size of the crowd at the Inauguration, about whether we have a higher level of people living in the country not born here than "ever before," about crime rates among immigrants, about climate change being a Chinese plot, about whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, about whether or not the massacre at Sandy Hook ever really happened, about whether or not Hillary Clinton was running a child porn operation out of a Washington pizza pallor, about any number of things.
It's hard to interview people who are demonstrably supporting falsehood as if, in the interest of fairness, we should accept their false witness as just their opinion, to which they have a right.
Someone said, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. But facts are slippery things, and it is hard work to "fact check."
But now PBS and NPR have chosen stories in ways which reveal just how lost they are.
Tonight, on the way home, I listened to an NPR story about a child who had been separated from her parents at the border, and the parents, given a "Sophie's choice" left the USA to go back to Honduras.
This was followed by a long story about former CIA chief Brennan being stripped of his security clearance by Trump.
And the PBS had a story on the big military parade which Trump planned for $30 million but cancelled when the price ballooned to $90 million, claiming he was now an economic hero to have save the nation $60 million. He blamed the cost explosion on the Democratic government of the District of Columbia and PBS never pointed out that even at $30 million, a parade would be a colossal waste of money for the sake of a politician's ego, or for any other reason.
 |
| Obadiah Youngblood--North Hampton along Rte 1A |
The problem with choosing these stories about Trump and his policies is that none of them are really important news. In reporting on them, these liberal outlets simply play into the Trump marketing machine and its fundamental premise, that every day, every news broadcast should be about Trump.
There is not a story, hasn't been a news day, which starts with any line other than, "Today, President Trump."
And none of this was news when President Obama was President. President Obama could deliver a well crafted, beautifully written speech at a Shriners' convention and not get even a sound bite. But now anything Trump says is the headline and half the news broadcast.
And why are we given that story about one of the 500 would be immigrant children still separated from her parents?
It's one of those "put a human face on..." stories, meant to play to the revulsion of putting children in cages or separating them from their parents. But we already know that story. Those of us who are revolted were revolted weeks ago and those who believe, "Well, if they wanted to protect their kids, they shouldn't have brought them here," will not be moved.
That discussion has been had.
And the story about stripping security clearances: Who cares? Some old goat wants to still be relevant and keep his perks in retirement. What do I care? Why does he even still need his precious clearance? To feel like he's still in the game? Well, he's not. Get used to it.
But now it's all about Trump trying to "chill" dissent from other former bigshots with security clearances. This is a story which plays in Washington but not in Portsmouth.
There are real stories, damaging stories out there, but they are more difficult to pursue: How are folks being damaged by not having health insurance which actually works for them?
How about the guy who works on the assembly line who just picked up his insulin and got presented a bill for $600, which is what he makes in a week?
- How is that burning "clean coal" working out?
- How many factory workers actually got their jobs back?
- How many factories or coal mines actually reopened?
- How many solar panel workers lost their jobs?
- How many soy bean farmers got reamed this week?
The problem is, these liberal media types, the editors who choose the stories, they aren't all that bright. They just wait to be given stories and they run with them, because every tweet is "news." Why not go to doctors who see the struggles of everyday people, or lawyers who see bankruptcies or factory owners who are closing down factories or farmers who can't bring in their crops or restaurant owners who can't find workers or scientists seeing once clean waters getting befouled by changes in EPA regulations?
It would not be easy chasing those stories, but really, who cares about whether CNN can't get its reporter into the White House press room?
No comments:
Post a Comment