Categories
ballot access election law insider corruption partisanship

Degrading Democracy, CNN-Style

Everyone’s talking about last month’s CNN debate. We can’t unsee President Biden’s performance.

But something else did go unseen: candidates independent of the two dominant parties — specifically, RFK, Jr.

“CNN RULES WOULD HAVE BARRED EVERY INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR LAST 112 YEARS,” read this month’s Ballot Access News (BAN) cover story.

Wow. That’s a long time.

Self-​deputized to supposedly defend “democracy,” CNN sponsored the recent presidential debate using criteria pointedly designed to shut out independent voices — even those polling double digits.

The main culprit was their mandate that “the candidate must [be] certified for the ballot in states with at least 270 electoral votes, by June 20.”

That doesn’t make any sense given the calendar for ballot qualification. As BAN relates, “The rule about being on the ballot was probably written by individuals who had no knowledge of the typical time-​line for presidential candidates running as independents, or nominees of new parties.”

Plus, “the rule” was applied with a double standard — one for Republicans and Democrats and another for other parties and independents.

“They require certainty for the independent candidate to show ballot placement,” notes BAN, “but they only require probability for the Democratic and Republican invitees.”

Once upon a time major news outlets were seen as playing a vital watchdog role, as referees, politically. Today, CNN and its ilk require their own umpires, a whole new set of watchdogs.

We are it — all of us on X, Facebook, podcasts and the blogosphere — we are those watchdogs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people

Not Acosta

In late April, Scott Johnson, cofounder of the political blog Power Line, a former attorney and an accredited reporter, was banned from the Minnesota government’s daily briefings about the COVID-​19 pandemic. Officials also stopped answering his written questions.

Why?

Minnesota officials told the Washington Free Beacon that the briefings were limited to “professional journalists.” But if they regarded Johnson as something other than a professional journalist, why had he been allowed to attend to begin with?

More plausible is Johnson’s contention in his June lawsuit against the state that officials simply didn’t like his conservative political perspective or his questions. Johnson had been critical of the policies of Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, in combatting the pandemic.

Months later, Scott Johnson has won his lawsuit. He can attend the briefings now. And officials must answer at least three of his written questions per week.

A question occurred to me as I was mulling this story: Isn’t what Minnesota did in banning Johnson from the COVID-​19 briefings exactly like what Trump did to that CNN banshee, Jim Acosta, when he banned Acosta from presidential briefings?*

No, not exactly, I answer myself. Trump ousted a reporter who was persistently rude and disruptive. “Asking questions government officials dislike” and “being a constant ass” are not the same thing.

At Power Line, Johnson has posted many reports about the lawsuit and about the course of the pandemic in Minnesota.

He may not be welcome by those in government he probes, but we out here, far from power, are glad he is there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* CNN sued and a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the White House, after which CNN and the Trump Administration agreed Acosta could return as long as he followed rules of decorum newly written by the administration and applied to all reporters.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Normal & Not

“Most people are not lunatics,” Tucker Carlson reminded viewers last night on his Fox News program, adding that “normal people don’t like this.”

By “this,” the conservative television host meant what can only be described as an attack on his home by Smash Racism DC, an Antifa-​like group comprised of people who are not normal.

Carlson wasn’t home Wednesday night, nor were his four young children, thank goodness, but his poor wife was. After hearing shouting and a man throwing himself into their front door so hard that he cracked it, she locked herself in a pantry and called 911.

“But it wasn’t a home invasion,” The Washington Post reported. “It was a protest.”

“What are they protesting?” asked Mr. Carlson. “They’re not trying to change my mind. They’re trying to threaten my family to get me to stop talking.”

The Carlson’s home and cars were vandalized by the mob of about 20 hoodlums. There were also chants of “Racist scumbag, leave town!” and “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

“Mail bomb,” one man shouted. And, of course, they doxxed Tucker Carlson by publishing his home address for the possible benefit of the next James Hodgkinson or any mail-bomber.

Instead of focusing on the political divide or the fear of further violence, a vacationing Tucker Carlson called in to his show last night to express gratitude … for an outpouring of concern, support, solidarity from across the political and media spectrum, expressing that it has “actually been really nice and affirming.”

Enough normal goodness remains in America, spread throughout the political spectrum, to unite us … at least against such behavior.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

Eighty-​sixing Civility

Had Sara Huckabee Sanders been asked to leave the Washington, DC, Red Hen, rather than the restaurant of that name in Lexington, Virginia, things might’ve turned out a bit different. In the nation’s capitol, it is illegal to discriminate against customers for reasons of political affiliation.

Out in Lexington? Not so much. One can “86” a politico there with impunity, I guess.

A Yelp reviewer defended the restaurateur’s request not to serve President Trump’s Press Secretary. “Thank you for refusing to serve a person who lies to the American people for a living.” 

Wait — I thought that is what all Press Secretaries do: present the official lie. Be that as it may, or not, objecting to one Administration and not another implicitly endorses the policies and lies of the Administration not censured. And the grounds given in this Red Hen cluckery — that the Trump Administration is racist, etc. — might possess a tad more plausibility had the Obama Administration not engaged in policies startlingly similar to the ones Trump and Sanders are blamed for.

The “right to refuse service to anyone” may be a right retained by the people, but since the Ninth Amendment is a dead letter, and the federal government, at least, does not recognize such rights when the refused parties fall into certain “protected groups,” talking about it at length is probably a waste of time.

While the anti-​Trump side of the current political-​cultural divide seems resolute in denying a right to refuse to bake specialty cakes for gay couples, refusing to serve standard meals to political enemies is apparently copacetic.

Which can only mean: that democratically elected and appointed government officials are not the right “protected group” — which is odd, isn’t it, when those doing the discriminating call themselves “Democrats”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights general freedom media and media people

Pravda in the Izvestia

Back in the USSR’s heyday, the joke about the two major newspapers, Pravda (meaning “truth” — and published by the Communist Party) and Izvestia (meaning “news” — and published by the Soviet State), was that “there’s no Truth in the News and no News in the Truth.”

Nowadays, in Trump’s America, we have fake news. And one reason Donald Trump won the presidency was his defiant stance against the “lying press.”

Which is why, when Trump announced, last week, his intent to give out awards to the news media for their top “fake news” stories of 2017, he was playing to his base. This week he announced his picks. It did not exactly bowl everyone over.

Indeed, I am going to skip most of it, noticing only that the press whined a bit and picked at the list on technical grounds, and that Sen. Flake gave Trump some flak.

But Trump’s pick for First Place is worth thinking about.

And the Duranty* goes toNew York Times economist Paul Krugman!

What for? The Nobel Laureate’s insane and unhinged prediction immediately after Trump’s win: “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”

An embarrassing play for Doomsayer Attention, which has been “trumped” (so to speak) by new record stock market highs.

Of course, a global depression may be in the offing — but it probably won’t be Trump’s fault, and Krugman is totally resistant to acknowledging that dire event’s likely structural causes (debt, Fed policy).

But note: prophecy isn’t “news,” and in announcing the award Trump characterized his win in 2016 as a “landslide.”

So save a Duranty for Trump.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* My term, not a “Newsy” or “Fakesy,” and named, of course, after Walter Duranty, the Times’ Pulitzer Winning Fake News apologist for the Soviet Union and Stalin, back in the 1930s.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people

Ingrates of the Fourth Estate

Today is Thanksgiving. I hope that doesn’t offend anyone.

It ought not. But modern humans can be pretty touchy.

“This will be our last press briefing before the Thanksgiving holiday …” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced Monday, “so I want to share a few things that I’m thankful for and I think it would be nice for you guys to do so as well before asking your questions.”

Then, after reciting a bevy of her own blessings, Sanders opened to Q&A, inviting thankful preambles to journalistic questions.

The press corps seemed unperturbed. One reporter was thankful for living in the greatest country on earth. Several expressed gratitude for the First Amendment; one was even thankful “for this exercise.”

“I’m thankful to my father, 96-​years-​old and going strong,” Newmax’s John Gizzi stated sincerely, “and to my wife, my heroine, I’m thankful to her for saying yes … on the fourth request.”

To light laughter, Gizzi continued, “My question is about Zimbabwe …” And the room erupted.

But this lightheartedness was not universal:

  • John Kirby’s article at CNN was headlined, “How Sarah Sanders humiliated the press.” 
  • Newsweek’s Nicole Goodkind wrote, “The White House turned its Monday press briefing into a kindergarten game … And the reporters followed [Sanders’] orders.”
  • In the New Yorker, Masha Gessen claimed Sanders treated the reporters “the way a sadistic teen-​ager would treat a group of third graders.” 

I’m grateful that we are free … to complain, to disagree, to express outrage. But I’m also glad that on this day each year we can tune out all that, appreciate all we have and gain a few ounces at the dinner table.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 


PDF for printing