* The media is not–and never should be–above criticism. We earn our (well-shy-of-“witch hunt”) share. We’re impacted by ego and given to opinions. We have to label them accordingly, and we have to do our homework. In fact, there’s never been a time when it was more important for the media to have its journalistic act, now under siege, together.
A recollection and an observation:
>Back in 2008 an anchor for a local network affiliate told me that a come-to-Jesus meeting was called by (her) producers to remind anchors that the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee was “Barack Obama.” In that order. It wasn’t a typical American name, so do take pains to get it right. Referring to Obama on second reference as simply “Barack” could imply a bias of liberal favoritism. Bottom line: Sound like a professional–and not some validation of Sarah Palin’s “lame stream media” taunt.
BTW, Palin, as we know, presaged Trump–from unprepared pop-culture candidate to one whose campaign MO featured high-profile attacks on a media having a field day with a flagrantly flawed candidacy.
>And even though no one would confuse it with purely objective analysis, Cable News could also rein itself in. Conflict and interruption, of course, sell. But I would suggest that progressive-side-of-the-spectrum hosts and guests still not look gratuitously gleeful and gloating when immersed in analytical conversations about White House matters. Leave the end zone spiking for the NFL and Fox. Try to keep it classy and credible while pleasing your show-business sponsors and partisan viewers. And, yeah, good luck.
* For once, whether it’s Harvey Weinstein or any of our other celebrity predators, wouldn’t it signal an even bigger societal pivot point if the response of the guilty were: “Yes. I did it. It’s disgusting. That’s the power I had.” But there’s always that defensive, “consensual sex” qualifier, which implies that attractive, young women were sexually smitten with older, sleazy fat guys.
* Much has been made in the media–both nationally and locally–of a study done by researchers at Johns Hopkins University indicating that there’s really a lot of agreement on gun policies between gun-owners and non-owners. Stuff like background checks, restraining orders, licensing requirements and safe-storage laws.
But not on everything. For example, less than half of gun owners supported bans on assault weapons or magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
In other words, we’re not there. In further words, not even close. If most gun owners still feel entitled to cherry pick the 2nd Amendment to rationalize private-citizen access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, we’re still unconscionably enabling another mass murderer. Disarming news.
* Remember when Parade used to be a, well, magazine?
* The Tampa Bay Times can spin it any way it wants, but the cost-cutting reality of folding its Sunday “Perspective” and “Latitudes” sections into an all-purpose “Floridian” section is a further diminution of a serious, important product. The editorial and op-ed pages will now be housed in the A section. But a crossword puzzle will be a “Floridian” staple. It’s the reality of the digital times we live in.
* I recently watched the Steve Martin and Martin Short traveling show on Netflix. It was the Greenville, S.C., performance. Lots of LOL material. Among them: a Short-channeling “Jimminy Glick” reference to Kim Jong-un as looking like a “bouncer in a lesbian bar.”