While I never disliked business mogul Donald Trump, I also never quite considered myself a fan either, even as I readily admit to having watched “The Apprentice” on occasion. However, his highly questionable crusade against President Barack Obama has completely soured my opinion of him.
Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.
Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.
So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?
Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.
The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.
Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Real News vs. Fake News
The most prominent ethical problem in journalism today is the infiltration of entertainment and popular culture into the news arena. With the emergence of entertainment news shows and the public’s increased interest in the personal lives of public figures, the lines between real news and industry buzz have been blurred. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news outlets. When talk shows hosted by highly-paid comedians become a news source, there is a serious problem. Distinguishing authentic journalism from pseudo journalism has become increasingly difficult due to the prevalence of mock news shows that are entertainment-focused, gossip-prone and sensationalistic.
The goal of news is to provide the public with meaningful information that enlightens and empowers people to make informed choices. To accomplish this, news outlets must center its content around stories that are newsworthy. Unfortunately, the application of the term is applied much too loosely. Too many stories are featured as newsworthy, when in reality they are nothing but an illustration of bizarre behavior and sophisticated gossip. The news industry must work to distinguish itself from entertainment media and reestablish its reputation as an avenue for accurate information based on reliable sources, sound reporting techniques, whose content is factual and substantive.
A study conducted by researchers at Ohio State University in 2008 found that people who watch fake news shows learn far less about political issues and candidates than people who watch television news shows on networks, such as CNN and NBC. “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more about a wide range of important topics than those exposed to entertainment media,” said Young Mie Kim, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State.
Entertainment news shows like Extra and Inside Edition project a news-like format, however the content featured hardly qualifies as news. Regular topics include movie and sitcom reviews, the latest fashion trends and quite often the indiscretions of celebrities. During the Tiger Woods scandal in 2009, networks such as CNN and MSNBC provided prolonged coverage of the ordeal. While the story was newsworthy to some extent, traditional news programs provided more coverage than appropriate for news networks. High viewership of such stories may prove there is a considerable audience present, but news organizations must fight the urge to dilute its content to compete with entertainment media.
Legal news shows like Nancy Grace feature newsworthy stories that obtain national attention, however, they are covered with a tabloid-like slant and overzealous tone. As a result, stories are taken out of context and blown out of proportion, making mock news shows like this a platform for sensationalism. Programs like The View use a talk show-like forum where issues of the day are discussed, however, most of the hosts are not professional journalists so their perspectives tend to be opinion-based, rather than founded on sound reporting and research. When substantial guests like President Obama appear, interviews are compromised due to poor training and technique. Programs in this genre also mix newsworthy events, such as the tax-cut debate with tinseltown gossip like Kim Kardashian’s divorce. Citizen journalism, while beneficial in some ways, has also compromised news quality due to “do it yourself” websites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia. Technology now allows people to blog and post videos of anything they find interesting without verifying facts, sources or properly reporting a story. The mix of real news with entertainment chatter is dangerous because it compromises the work of real journalists.
The news landscape has been muddied by a variety of genres that have weakened journalism and its perception by the public. “Audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public-affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, associate professor and Director of the Institute of Humanities at Old Dominion University. While solid journalism is the goal of most news outlets, ratings and revenue lie at the heart of any business model. Abiding by an ethical model in a revenue-driven media landscape where viewership of entertainment-based shows is in high demand may prove difficult, but its necessary. The role of ethics in journalism depends upon the philosophy and mission of a news organization, and the mindset of management and producers. Whether good or bad, the ethical code of any news organization will determine the quality and caliber of news featured, the direction a network will go in and ultimately its longevity. Implementing high standards will undoubtedly set traditional news networks a part from entertainment media, and position them as the more credible, reliable and respectable news source. -v7
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Herman Cain Ends an Embarrassing Campaign Spectacle
In the face of recent allegations of an extra-marital affair, Herman Cain has finally, albeit defiantly, ended his campaign to become the GOP nominee for president. Some suggest the combined fallout from sexual harassment and extra-marital affair charges made it impossible for him to stay in the race. But in reality, Cain had no business being in the race in the first place.
The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.
Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.
I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.
The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.
The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.
The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.
Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.
I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.
The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.
The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Mitt Romney is a Political Phony GOP Should Reject
According to conventional Republican Party political wisdom, Gov. Mitt Romney, who competed to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, should be outpacing his rivals this time around by leaps and bounds. Historically, Republicans tend to reward repeat nomination contenders with unbridled party support. But polls that show him garnering only about 23 to 25 percent support, even while being praised as the most plausible candidate in the field to challenge President Obama in 2012, suggest that GOP voters are not yet convinced. They seem intent to finding a more appealing alternative to Romney; and they are wise to keep looking.
Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.
George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”
In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”
When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.
GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.
What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.
Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.
Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.
George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”
In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”
When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.
GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.
What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.
Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Myth of Electing a “Non-Politician”
A recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll shows candidate Herman Cain pulling ahead of the other challengers in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain was the preferred choice among 27 percent of GOP primary voters. Behind Cain was Gov. Mitt Romney at 23 percent and Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)