Category: media and media people

The New Centrism?

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

Have you noticed that CNN has been offering multiple “town hall” presentations of the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates?

I think this is not only great for the Libertarians and the Greens, but also good for the country — and I hope it proves good for CNN.

When the Cable News Network started, it was the only player in its league. Then Fox News pulled away its right-leaning viewers. MSNBC followed, offering a safe space for the far left. And there remains the center-left of the rest of major media.

So CNN has to distinguish itself. Why not appeal to those left … out of the political process?

By opening up to libertarians and radical environmentalists, CNN may bring in more viewers. And temper its well-known bias.

With the libertarians, though, CNN may really be just appealing to the new center.

Which is now libertarian … -ish.

Surely, with Trump harrumphing from the apparent “right” and Hillary Clinton dominating the neo-con left — and Dr. Jill Stein trying to soak up the far left — moderates need a voice.

And with moderate libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson and libertarian-leaning centrist Gov. Bill Weld, there does exist a reprieve from the scary extremes. Surprised? Well, that is precisely the case Johnson and Weld make. They pitch themselves, as Walter Olson perceptively argues in Reason, as “the ‘sane’ choice, the ‘responsible’ and ‘adult’ ticket … campaigning not on fear and anger but on a positive message of problem-solving.”

More of that, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags CNN, Gary Johnson, Gov Gary Johnson, Green Party, Jill Stein, Libertarian Party, Town Hall

Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, debate, debates, Gov Gary Johnson, libertarian, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

The False Fairness of Bias

Post author By CS Admin
Post date August 15, 2016
3 Comments on The False Fairness of Bias

media bias, Donald Trump, illustration, collage

“If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly,” Donald Trump tweeted on Saturday, “I would be beating Hillary by 20%.”

Argue the percentage, sure, but acknowledge the obvious bias.

Asked by MediaBuzz host, Howard Kurtz, about a “tilt against Donald Trump,” Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, replied, “I don’t think there’s any question about that.”

“But look,” continued Sabato, “there was a media tilt against Mitt Romney. There was a media tilt against John McCain. There was a media tilt against George W. Bush. It has more to do with party and personal characteristics of journalists than anything else.”

The bias is as old as it is obvious, “but of course I’ve never seen anything like this level of vitriol,” Kurtz clarified.

Kurtz noted a front-page New York Times column by Jim Rutenberg, which argued that reporters who believe Trump is “potentially dangerous” must “throw out the textbook American journalism has been using” and become “oppositional” — regardless of the fact that the stance “threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent … who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself.”

According to Rutenberg, an unbalanced approach during the campaign’s homestretch would help remedy the $2 billion in free coverage the media gave Trump during the primaries.

Notice that the anti-Trump bias now helps the Democrat, whereas the pro-Trump bias previously helped the GOP nominate a candidate likely to lose to the Democrat.

Perhaps there’s a method to such media madness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Biased Media, Donald Trump, mainstream media, media bias

Accountability government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Clinton Chasm

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?

She listens.

Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.

He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.

There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”

Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-on-one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.

On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.

I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because … well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..

Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Ezra Klein, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, VOX

Accountability ideological culture insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

Sorry Not Sorry

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrat, democratic party, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Today, the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia.

Yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, announced her resignation amidst a growing controversy over the DNC’s favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during this year’s presidential contest.

Months ago, Sen. Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, noting her closeness to the Clinton campaign and angered by what his campaign perceived as unfair treatment. To which, Wasserman Schultz had smugly responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

It seems Sanders had a lot better understanding of what the DNC does than she thought.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the American people have also gotten in the know. Last Friday, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from top DNC officials, reportedly snatched by Russian hackers. In the emails, one can read the DNC’s top financial officer suggesting a smear against Sanders over his religion. “AMEN,” responded the DNC’s CEO.

Yes, indeed, the Democratic Party establishment was rigging the process. “The release provides further evidence,” Michael Sainato wrote in The Observer, that “the DNC broke its own charter … by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.”

Caught breaking the rules, Wasserman Schultz is out!

Sorta. She’s out after the convention, not before.

Furthermore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still “in.” Mrs. Clinton just offered her a position on the campaign, and said she was “grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia.”

By hook and by crook.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photo credit: Medill DC on Flickr (Creative Commons)

Tags Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton

ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

No One Owns Anybody Else

DePaul University, Black Lives Matter , Social Justice Warriors, Dangerous Faggot Tour, Milo Yiannopoulis , provocative,

“The left does not own homosexuals anymore,” said Milo Yiannopoulos, to a crowd outside the Republican National Convention. And the crowd cheered.

I’ve talked about Milo before. He’s a controversial figure. So much so that Twitter just banned him for life. (That had something to do with his tweets about, of all things, the new Ghostbusters movie, and the racist tweets of his followers directed at one of its stars.)

Openly gay, he nevertheless has his priorities. “Donald Trump is best placed to end the tyranny of political correctness in this country. Many Trump supporters and Republicans have their challenges with the gay thing. But there’s a world of difference between refusing to bake a cake and opening fire” … at gay men and women in a nightclub.

There’s a lot to be said of Milo’s somewhat startling acceptance amongst conservative Republicans. Robby Soave deals with the important stuff at Reason.

What interests me is the basic contention: “The left does not own …”

The idea that people of certain races or sexual proclivities belong, naturally, to one side of the political spectrum is … itself racist or sexist.

The issues that divide left, right, center, today, are not primarily about race. Or sexual orientation/preference/display, etc. Balanced budgets, war, rule of law, taxation, redistribution — positions on these issues don’t adhere to people because of race or sex or what-have-you.

I wish gays and Republicans the best in coming to terms with this most obvious of truths. Let’s hope blacks, Asians, the homely and the beautiful also come to their senses. So we can all discuss politics rationally.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF