Read More »
Michael Medved looks at how the media and Nancy Pelosi took President Trump’s comments on immigrants out of context and how they are damaging their own credibility.
In late 1811 and early 1812, the town of New Madrid in the Missouri territory was hammered by three major earthquakes. “The ground heaved and pitched, hurling furniture, snapping trees and destroying barns and homesteads,” wrote Elizabeth Rusch in Smithsonian Magazine.
Like those earthquakes, the election of 2016 produced two “rivers” in U.S. media. One of those rivers is thoroughly inundated with anti-Trump, #NeverTrump debris and sediment. The other is almost wholly free of those ingredients.
It isn’t just cable news, the “two rivers” effect is mostly the result of the self-selected flows we direct ourselves to via Twitter feeds and chosen for us by Facebook’s and Google’s almighty algorithms.
The rise of partisanship on every issue, unmediated by respect for basic decency, is accelerating. Tapping the brakes, and eventually making a U-turn, is what the media need to do.Read More »
The Iranian people have taken to the streets in the largest mass protests since 2009, demanding freedom and economic change. There simply is no bigger story in the world right now-and the media establishments ought to covering it more extensively.
There are several options available to the United States as we consider how to respond.
We can assist the Saudis and the Arab states in providing satellite WiFi services to the protestors who are currently blocked from using social media by the Iranian government.
If the Iranian government attempts to brutally repress the protests in the style of the infamous Tiananmen Square crackdown in China, the United States can consider instituting a blockade. Individual and trade sanctions are also a possibility.
There are even reports that the United States has given the okay to Israel to assassinate General Soleimani who is commander of the Iranian Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Whatever action is taken, we must praise the decision of President Trump to support publically the Iranian people in their effort to live in a country that is stable and offers them and their children a decent standard of life.Read More »
For all his vast power, the President of the United States is always at a structural disadvantage in a “war” with the media. The First Amendment protects press rights to criticize the government, and everyone expects such criticism. But if government—or the president, as head of government—strikes back by assailing media, there’s an uneasy hint of bullying or oppression.
President Trump isn’t exceptional in generating media hostility, but Barack Obama was exceptional in avoiding such scrutiny for eight years. What’s more, there’s a double standard on defining victory in battles between the administration and the press. CNN would celebrate if it ever won 20 percent of the available viewing audience, but presidential approval ratings of just 20 percent would undermine chances for legislative and re-election success.
A president can’t win by exclusively catering to his most enthusiastic base, but a cable news operation can’t lose if it solely rallies its hard-core fans.[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/332115816″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]