In The Nation’s final issue before the results desks across electronic media univocally confirmed the reality of The Once and Not Future King’s electoral ouster, Eric Alterman assessed the danger represented by the man’s epic dishonesty and the press’s broad inability to call it what it was. Mr. Alterman was on the money and an unpublished letter said so. A perusal of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent would do the press corps a world of good.
Eric Alterman, “The Plot Against America,” The Nation, 16-23 November 2020 (www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-plot-against-america/).
Eric Alterman’s critique of the press’s coverage of the Trump administration was fully on point. Authoritarian wannabes will vie for Mr. Trump’s mantle and base; they likely will be more strategically and less pathologically mendacious than the departing president and consequently will pose a continuing threat to democratic governance. Hiding behind the evasion of “only reporting” will neither inform the citizenry nor hold officeholders to account nor ensure the fourth estate’s long-term health. “Truth will out” only when public exposure of dishonesty and malfeasance is swift and assured.
Televised political conventions are inherently propagandistic; however, the backdrop of the coronavirus, The Benighted One’s exploitation of the Executive Mansion as a prop, and the hyperbolic expressions of fealty to His Sublimity, along with shaky production values, placed the 2020 Republican National Convention in its own subgenre. The unpublished letter below was written in response to The Washington Post’s account of the event.
Toluse Olorunnipa, “In Prime Time An Alternate Reality That Bolsters a Flagging Campaign,” The Washington Post, 28 August 2020, A1, A17 (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-convention-falsehoods/2020/08/27/41a07f5a-e888-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html).
And so the Republican National Convention has mercifully concluded. Toluse Olorunnipa ably exposes the convention’s dishonesty and the political desperation driving it. Beyond this, perhaps the convention’s most disturbing quality is how unsurprising it was.
Is anyone shocked that the clownish enablers who have flocked to Mr. Trump’s campaign would subject the nation to a bloated, low-rent analogue to Leni Riefenstahl’s The Triumph of the Will? Ms. Riefenstahl, whatever her defects, was a talented filmmaker able to impart a cinematic sheen to appalling totalitarian dreck. Even this dubious achievement evaded the Republican National Committee. It should be remembered that Ms. Riefenstahl, despite her considerable moviemaking skill, could not disguise the profound smallness of her subject and she indeed, regardless of her intentions, made apparent the banality of evil. The ham-fisted, reality-television-addled doyens of Trumplandia could not help but do the same. It is to be hoped that voters will not be deceived by Mr. Trump’s deluded medicine show.
My regard for Eric Alterman cannot be higher. When he took aim at Facebook for its exploitation of users’ data, it was an opportunity to roll out a short-form version of my spiel on social media. On this topic, consistency is categorically not the hallmark of a hobgoblin-infested small mind.
Eric Alterman, “The Social Menace,” The Nation, 28 January/4 February 2019, 6 (www.thenation.com/article/archive/facebook-spies-alterman/).
Thanks to Eric Alterman for his incisive assessment of the arrogance, avarice, and mendacity of Facebook’s top executives and of the platform’s toxic impact on the nation’s politics.
Equally troubling is Facebook’s sociocultural effect. Years ago, a friend – a recent Facebook hire – pressed my wife and me to join the nascent social media behemoth. I demurred because the enterprise seemed narcissistic, an invitation to drown in the trivial. My Facebook-free existence has been in no respect inimical to personal fulfillment. Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of boundless “connectivity” paradoxically leaves people atomized as, stricken by “fear of missing out” and grasping for “likes,” they tap, tap, tap and curate their lives for a faceless electronic throng rather than living them. Immersion in social media is not inherently bad but there are so many better things to do.
Early in 2019, a local guy – Raymond B. Wallace – had an opinion published by The Richmond Times-Dispatch in which he fulminated about the distressing decline in quality of broadcast news, especially the cable news outlets. By decline, he apparently meant that the news was not being reported in a pleasing manner, and pleasing was evidently some version of Fox News. The reasoning was more than a tad motivated. Mr. Wallace also purports to outline the history of the spiral downward in reportage that he perceived. The secret behind offering a history of anything is knowing the history of something; the salient facts of this history seem to have evaded his notice. The Richmond Times-Dispatch didn’t publish my response to Mr. Wallace.
Raymond B. Wallace, “What’s Happened to Television Journalism?” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 January 2019, A9 (https://richmond.com/opinion/columnists/ray-wallace-column-whats-happened-to-television-journalism/article_5d8598f6-9edc-548e-b68b-1e89bd73cec5.html).
Raymond B. Wallace’s excoriation of cable news suffers from lack of historical context. The genesis of today’s polarized cable news environment is not difficult to locate.
The FCC in 1987 suspended the Fairness Doctrine, under which the granting of broadcasting licenses was conditioned upon a commitment both to cover controversial matters of public significance and to present differing opinions regarding them. Efforts by the US Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine legislatively were thwarted by President Reagan’s veto in 1987 and President Bush’s threatened veto in 1991. The quashing of the Fairness Doctrine fostered the proliferation of political talk radio and it is likely no coincidence that Rush Limbaugh’s show first went national in 1988.
The polarization was sharpened with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Intended to foster media competition, the legislation has had precisely the opposite effect, the concentration of ownership of electronic media into progressively fewer hands. It likewise is probably not coincidental that Fox News went live eight months after President Clinton signed the bill.
Mr. Wallace seems curiously untroubled by elements of the media environment he decries: the nearly monopolistic domination of political talk radio by the right and the concentration of control of local electronic media into fewer hands, control responsible for the sad spectacle last year of dozens of anchors at Sinclair Broadcasting stations mouthing the same editorial verbatim in a “forced read.” One must wonder whether Mr. Wallace’s problem is less that each cable outlet has selected its editorial lane and more that some outlets have the temerity to gainsay and fact-check the notoriously mendacious Trump administration. Whatever the case, he asserts that a myriad of stories goes largely unreported except by Fox; nevertheless, I, no Fox viewer, was substantially informed regarding every story he cites. How could this have happened?
The Richmond Times-Dispatch in the summer of 2018 picked up an article by Desiree Zapata Miller, a sometime columnist for The Charlotte Observer. Ms. Zapata Miller hyperventilated about the hateful treatment Democrats were doling out to The Jackanapes in Chief and to all Republicans. She cited the nefarious influence of Saul Alinsky on Democrats’ tactics. It was as absurd as any opinion I had ever seen in print. I produced an editorial-length response to it and submitted it to The Richmond Times-Dispatch. An opinion-page editor informed me that the paper didn’t accept editorials in rebuttal to editorials and encouraged me to cut it down and submit it as a letter, so that’s what I did.
Desiree Zapata Miller, “Dems Have Become Party of Haters,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 July 2018, A11; The Charlotte Observer, 6 July 2018 (www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article214362199.html). If Ms. Zapata Miller’s editorial appeared in the online edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch, the newspaper’s search function seems unable to locate it. The link here is to the online version in The Charlotte Observer.
“Don’t Overlook Trump’s Role in Demise of Discourse,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 24 July 2018 (https://richmond.com/opinion/letters-to-editor/letters-to-the-editor-july-24-2018-zuckerberg-is-wrong-to-allow-holocaust-deniers-a/article_b87295fc-37bf-509d-a818-576ad5e2a377.html). (Scroll down).
Unwarranted Demonization of Democrats.
Ms. Desiree Zapata Miller’s call for civility in political discourse is welcome (“Democrats Have Become the Party of Haters,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 July 2018, A11) but her characterization of Democrats demands a rejoinder. Her editorial is replete with accusations but virtually barren of particulars.
When Ms. Zapata Miller charges Democrats with systematic harassment of President Trump’s supporters as a tactic to frighten and intimidate them, she engages in a dubious brand of right-wing argumentation. Isolated instances in which a Democrat has an arguable lapse in politesse, though nothing outside the pale of constitutionally-protected expression, become grist for hyperventilating stereotypes of Democrats and for insinuations that a grand, dark conspiracy is afoot. Her editorial, moreover, exposes an unfortunate tendency to label any gainsaying of Mr. Trump on fact or policy as hatred. Ms. Zapata Miller should rest assured that the left does not hate Mr. Trump’s supporters but only wishes for the scales to fall from their eyes so that they can soberly assess the damage Mr. Trump inflicts on our politics and institutions.
Regarding Ms. Zapata Miller’s specific claims: She presents Mr. Trump as a grand dispenser of truth yet seems unaware that by this past 1 May, his 466th day in office, he had uttered upwards of 3000 lies or half-truths, more than six daily. The pace of his mendacity is accelerating (Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly, “President Trump Had Made 3001 False or Misleading Claims So Far,” The Washington Post, 1 May 2018 [www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/01/president-trump-has-made-3001-false-or-misleading-claims-so-far/]). She blames President Obama for the absence of immigration reform yet forgets that the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 cleared the Senate 68 to 32 but was denied consideration by the GOP-controlled House. Mr. Obama’s 2014 executive order creating DACA was a response to the House’s legislative intransigence and was greeted with howls of constitutional overreach from the right. Does she not recall that Mr. Trump then rescinded even this and left DACA recipients in limbo? Her political amnesia extends to the Republican Party’s inability, despite full control of Congress and the White House, to produce even a shadowy simulacrum of immigration reform.
I must, however, thank Ms. Zapata Miller for prodding me to read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I, a Roosevelt Democrat, received the book from an old friend, a Reagan Republican, as a gag birthday gift during our college days and yet, somehow, I reached nearly threescore years without turning its pages. Perusal of it convinces me that Ms. Zapata Miller has neither read it seriously nor understood it. One must wonder whether it falls into a well-established genre: books infrequently read, especially by the right, yet selectively mined, misrepresented, misinterpreted, and decontextualized in order to frighten children.
The undiminished capacity of a decades-old how-to manual for community organizing to induce spitting apoplexy on the right is a marvel. Mr. Alinsky’s goals – to aid the powerless in gaining a voice by working within the political system and to foster positive change – indeed seem less threatening than the words of the late GOP Senator Barry Goldwater in accepting his party’s nomination for president a scant seven years before Mr. Alinsky put pen to paper: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Does Ms. Zapata Miller believe that Democrats should mutely, even blithely, accept Mr. Trump’s indisputable undermining of democratic norms, his courting of autocrats, his denigration of allies, his ceaseless attacks on the fourth estate, his manifest conflicts of interest, his self-dealing through public office, his tolerance of governmental corruption, or his stunning dishonesty? To do so would be an irresponsible dereliction of citizenship. Ms. Zapata Miller should congratulate Democrats for their public spiritedness, not demonize them. And I would welcome having that proffered cup of coffee and chat with her.
I have never been well disposed toward George Will. I have regard for his knowledge of and reverence for baseball but his politics are appalling. A chasm separates his experience from that of most Americans and he seems unperturbed by this void in knowledge.
My distaste for his political commentary, both print and broadcast, is of long vintage. An anecdote from the way-back machine explains why. Sam Donaldson, the former ABC News correspondent, was skillful at exposing Mr. Will’s absurdities. During the Iran-Contra imbroglio, Mr. Will undertook the task of defending the indefensible Oliver North. He suggested that Mr. North had merely engaged in a justified act of civil disobedience and the left’s umbrage at the colonel’s conduct was hypocritical when considered alongside its tolerance toward acts of civil disobedience by sixties radicals. Ever the culture warrior, our Mr. Will. Mr. Donaldson made an obvious yet devastating point rhetorical point: The core principle of civil disobedience is acceptance of legal consequences for breaking the law the civilly disobedient has deemed unjust, in effect having the courage of one’s convictions. Mr. North was cravenly determined to evade responsibility for his actions; his doe-eyed presentation of himself as a cruelly victimized patriot was Oscar worthy. Mr. Will was rendered speechless, a delicious rarity. Despite his Brahmin mien, his education apparently had been a bit light on Henry David Thoreau. Sometimes the mask slips.
It was likely inevitable that Mr. Will would join the great migration of the Never Trump conservative punditocracy in the months following the 2016 election. Once Fox News made the pivot to become what Chris Hayes calls “Trump TV,” it was no longer welcoming for those of Mr. Will’s ilk. There was a stampede to secure spots at centrist or left-leaning outlets. MSNBC assembled a stable of these types: Steve Schmidt, Charlie Sykes, William Kristol, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens, David Frum, Mr. Will, others.
Mr. Will was among the least successful of these commentators. There was an unmistakable tension inherent in his commentary. He had a tough circle to square. He simultaneously felt compelled to register his contempt for President Bone Spur while his ideology fueled his undisguised disdain for anyone not subscribing to his narrow brand of movement conservatism, effectively an attack on his new audience.
So Mr. Will in a column exhorted people to vote against the GOP – note, not to vote for anything – in the 2018 midterm elections in order to thwart Mr. Trump. That was all well and good. That’s what the voters should have done and by and large did. However, the efficacy of the message is undercut by the Never Trumpers’ lack of a constituency, as Sam Seder points out. Had the Never Trumpers been significant numerically, The King of Queens would never have been elected president and pundits like Mr. Will would still be opining at right-wing outlets. At least Mr. Will had the courtesy to make his plea general. Other Never Trumper pundits had the gall to define type of candidates the Democratic Party would need to put on offer to garner their votes, a tacit threat either to vote Republican or to sit out the election. In their view, beggar was by right chooser. Never Trumpism is clearly weak tea.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch routinely runs Mr. Will’s columns, which afforded an opportunity to unload on him. I did. The paper passed on it. “I can’t imagine why,” the Bourbon Progressive repeats ironically.
George Will, “This November, Cast Your Vote Against the GOP,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 24 June 2018, E3 (https://richmond.com/opinion/columnists/george-will-column-this-november-cast-your-vote-against-the-gop/article_8ec57b8d-843d-599c-80ce-c4d4054327c7.html).
George Will’s call to reject the GOP in the 2018 midterm and thwart President Trump’s quasi-authoritarian antics is welcome. He also properly chastises the Republican Party for fecklessness. No one, however, should harbor illusions about Mr. Will’s brand of “never Trumpism.”
Mr. Will affects high dudgeon at the ugliness Mr. Trump has exposed, yet one wonders whether the wellspring of his disaffection with his onetime party is found more in the ascendancy of a chief executive who offends his priggish sensibilities, who, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quipped in 2016, refuses to “stick to the script.” [1]
The selfsame George Will has penned apologias for the race-baiting, segregationist presidential campaigns of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, [2] has insinuated that President Obama’s race inoculated him from criticism, [3] and then has had the effrontery to accuse liberals of suffering from “Tourette’s syndrome” in matters of race. [4] Can we believe that Mr. Will was taken unawares when Mr. Trump incited intolerance and rallied broad support by substituting a bullhorn for the dog whistle used by the GOP since President Nixon’s hatching of the “Southern Strategy,” a political modus operandi in which Mr. Will’s complicity is more than tacit? Mr. Will suffers either from singular absence of self-awareness or impressive intellectual dishonesty. He is talented. Perhaps he manages both.
Should 2020 or 2024 offer Mr. Will a Republican president he admires, one wonders whether he will forgive all and scurry to a sinecure in the Conservative Punditocracy Industrial Complex. He labels a 2019 House potentially controlled by Democrats – a party operating in good faith – as a “basket of deplorables.” The Right Wing Noise Machine beckons with a “basket” in which he himself can rest companionably. If George Will’s politicized maundering represents the acme of “conservative intellectualism,” how can it not be deemed an oxymoron?
[1] Jordain Carney, “McConnell on Trump: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the Daily Tweets,’” The Hill, 17 February 2017 (www.thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/320114-mcconnell-on-trump-im-not-a-fan-of-the-daily-tweets).
[2] George Will, “Robert Sarvis, Virginia’s Other Choice for Governor,” The Washington Post, 23 October 2013 (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-robert-sarvis-virginias-other-choice-for-governor/2013/10/23/1544f8d6-3b5c-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?utm_term=.300984fb5eac&wprss=rss_homepage); Oliver Willis, “George Will Whitewashes Racism from Pro-Segregationist Presidential Campaigns,” Media Matters 24 October 2013 (www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/24/george-will-whitewashes-racism-from-pro-segrega/196578).
[3] Elspeth Reeve, “Actually George Will Has Been Obsessed with Race for a Long time,” The Atlantic, 2 October 2012 (www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/actually-george-wills-been-obsessed-race-long-time/322988/).
[4] Ian Schwartz, “George Will: Liberals Have ‘Tourette’s Syndrome’ When It Comes to Racism,” Real Clear Politics, 13 April 2014 (www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/13/george_will_liberals_have_tourettes_syndrome_when_it_comes_to_racism.html).
Among letters that never reached print, this is one of the more interesting ones. It responded to an opinion from an in-house editorialist at The Richmond Times-Dispatch, A. Barton Hinkle, who since has decamped for the private sector, Dominion Energy I think. Mr. Hinkle’s op-ed was either disingenuous or clueless or cluelessly disingenuous or disingenuously clueless. His thesis, to the extent he had one, was that the media is dishonest, politicians are dishonest, I do declare, whatever am poor, pitiful I to do? He presented this as a symmetrical affliction of both left and right, an annoying and misleading absurdity.
I sent the letter and it didn’t appear in the paper. There’s no entitlement to have an item printed but this one was especially on point and it touched upon journalism. I was curious about why it hadn’t made the cut and had a polite email exchange with the letters editor. I noted that the tetchiness between politicians and the media had gained a further dimension since the letter’s submission because Greg Gianforte, a GOP congressional candidate, had assaulted Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian. It should be noted, parenthetically, that President World Wrestling Entertainment nodded his approval of Mr. Gianforte’s criminous conduct, the Montanan won his race, and now, after a hot minute in Congress, is the state’s governor.
The editor cited a technicality, that fewer than sixty days had passed since a letter from me had been printed. The point could be contested, but I was invited to resubmit it after the moratorium, which by any mode of counting had passed. I did. It wasn’t printed and, of the stuff on the blog, it has the distinction of double rejection by the same outlet. The relevant wisdom comes from W. C. Fields: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point being a damn fool about it.” This was a wall against which I didn’t need to beat my head.
A. Barton Hinkle, “Who’s Telling the Truth in Washington? Anyone?” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 21 May 2017, E5 (https://richmond.com/opinion/editorial/a-barton-hinkle-column-whos-telling-the-truth-in-washington-anyone/article_63dfa5c6-376e-5a2e-a78b-3e119bcc4c8d.html).
A. Barton Hinkle’s recent opinion piece (“Who’s Telling the Truth in Washington? Anyone?,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 21, 2017, E1, E5) misleads and lacks the balanced presentation of fact which Mr. Hinkle purports to champion.
Mr. Hinkle repeats the tired bromide of liberal bias in the “mainstream” media and then rehearses the canonical list of journalistic missteps. Absent from his excoriation of media is a Fox News network whose viewers have repeatedly been found the least informed, indeed the most misinformed, among consumers of major media outlets and are sometimes better served by no news at all. He likewise ignores a network of right-wing “think tanks” whose goal is ideological advocacy, not dispassionate regard for truth.
These omissions are stunning during a week in which Fox News begrudgingly disavowed its “investigative reporting” surrounding the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, a conspiracy theory dragged from the muck of far-right fever swamps. This correction perhaps represents progress under Fox’s new regime, since the late Roger Ailes would acknowledge only the most egregious errors. Is Mr. Hinkle so transfixed by the mote in the “mainstream” media’s eye that the nearby dangling beam vanishes? The comedian Stephen Colbert’s famous quip has never cut so sharp or true: “It is a well-known fact that reality has a liberal bias.”
Mr. Hinkle’s facile cynicism maligns journalists who toil in good faith against deadline to produce “history’s first draft.” This draft is sometimes messy. Sources can mislead. A journalist, like everyone, harbors political views. A rogue reporter sometimes willfully deceives. None of this on balance invalidates journalism’s service as bulwark against public malfeasance and corruption.
Mr. Hinkle seems to offer only a peculiar informational nihilism. In days when Russian President Putin baldly undermines Americans’ faith in media and institutions and President Trump seemingly admires Putin’s program, Mr. Hinkle’s critique, doubtless unintentionally, reads like useful idiocy.
Another whiff. It is sometimes possible to say something nice. Stanley McChrystal is one of the more interesting soldiers to have become a general officer. He’s what passes for unconventional in that rarefied demographic. He supports public broadcasting and makes a good case for it, so I sent a note.
Stanley McChrystal, “Save PBS. It Makes Us Safer,” The New York Times, 5 April 2017, A23 (www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/opinion/stanley-mcchrystal-save-pbs-it-makes-us-safer.html).
Kudos to Gen. Stanley McChrystal for his thoughtful defense of public broadcasting and its crucial role in childhood education. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting remains a great value per dollar spent and public radio and television not only inform but uplift and strengthen the bonds of our common humanity. I suspect that General McChrystal has had the experience common to public radio listeners of sitting in the driveway with the car idling while waiting for a compelling report or story to conclude.