News and Fake News and What’s in Between

The long war between President Donald Trump and certain members of the news media has lately escalated, and from our perspective on the sidelines we can’t see anyone coming out a winner.

Trump’s tormentors at the Cable News Network took a hard hit this week when they were obliged to retract a story that tied longtime Trump business associate Anthony Scaramucci to a federal investigation of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The story had only a single anonymous and other journalistic flaws that should have been obvious to the most cub reporter, proved to be utterly wrong, and can reasonably be attributed to the network’s unabashed zeal to air stories damaging to the Trump administration, so score one for Trump. Of course the president “tweeted” some about gloating about it, but of course he overplayed his hand by “tweeting” the non sequitur that everything else CNN and all of his other media tormentors have ever reported is therefor also wrong.

To its credit CNN did frankly acknowledge the error and retract the story, apologize profusely, then accept the resignations of three journalists including a Pulitzer Prize winner recently hired away from The New York Times. That inspires more confidence than Trump’s longstanding and clearly stated never-apologize-and-never-retract policy regarding his far more frequent statements that are anonymously sourced and utterly wrong, which a chastened CNN is for now not mentioning but has been widely remarked on in all those other Trump-tormenting media, and despite all the internet glee that CNN has been “destroyed” we expect they’ll stick around at least as long as Trump does.

CNN also got “stung” by the “sting” journalism of an independent filmmaker named James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas outfit, which caught a CNN producer on hidden camera describing his network’s coverage of the Russia thing with Trump and Russia with a barnyard epithet, but we expect that won’t prove much more than mosquito bite. O’Keefe is a protege of the late conservative provocateur Stephen Breitbart, who gave birth to the eponymous Breitbart.com internet news site where future Trump consigliere Stephen Bannon later became editor-in-chief, and although he once did a true public service by bringing down the notorious community-organizing racket called ACORN with a hilarious hidden camera video of them offering financial advice for his scam pimping business, he hasn’t scored any wins in a while. He was convicted of a felony for using a false identity to the infiltrate the offices of a Democratic Senator for some story or another, it turned out those hilariously over-the-top ’70s-blaxploitation pimp costumes he’d worn to the ACORN offices were an editing trick, and he’s generally engaged in the sort of journalistic trickery that no true conservative would tolerate if any of those Trump-tormenting outlets dared such a thing.

Still, Trump’s spokespeople in his administration and certain parts of the media tried to make the best of it. Official White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that she couldn’t vouch for the video’s accuracy but nonetheless urged everyone in the country to watch it, which strikes us as a damned odd thing for an official White House spokeswoman to say, and all the right-wing radio we heard on our drive time was endlessly replaying the video. After 36 years or more in the biz we think ourselves more savvy than most, so we don’t doubt the the tape’s accuracy but have to roll our eyes at its significance. As O’Keefe is obliged to admit, all he has here is one of countless CNN editors griping that his bureau’s stories aren’t getting as much airtime as as the Washington bureau’s stories, and although he’s the editor of the health bureau he’s based in Atlanta some reason and all those juicy and time-consuming stories about the health care debate also seem to be coming out of the Washington bureau, so his gripes are hardly newsworthy.

After 36 years or so of experience with various news organizations we can tell you there’s always someone swimming against the collective consensus, usually us, and we’ll score a point to CNN that they didn’t fire the guy and instead endorsed his right to a dissenting opinion. Back in our newspaper days we often butted heads with our executive editor, who had all sorts of crazy liberal notions, but we admired the way he butted heads with his corporate bosses, and he gave us the same respect he expected from his much higher-up bosses, and for the most part it kept us all honest.

There seems to be a stronger consensus at all those right wing talk radio shows and the rest of the Trump-friendly media, and we can’t say it’s serving them well. The formerly formidable Rush Limbaugh gloated that one of the fired CNN reporters as Thomas Frank, who had some years ago written a controversial and best-selling jeremiad called wither “What’s The Matter With Kansas” or “What’s Wrong With Kansas,” with Limbaugh not being quite sure, and later in his jeremiad against “fake news” had to retract and apologize for the inaccurate claim that it was the same Thomas Frank. Sean Hannity predicted the “collapse” of CNN based on the O’Keefe tape and the retraction about his friend Scaramucci, but his cable network is currently in third place, and has recently retracted that weird conspiracy theory he’d been touting about how the Russians had nothing to with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails. He also wondered why a White House press pass had been issued to a reporter who challenged Sanders’ “inflammatory” attacks on the press, describing him as a “contributor to Playboy,” even though the fellow is also the executive editor of two newspapers, and William F. Buckley was also once a contributor to Playboy, and he never griped that the nutcase conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, whose reputation has Trump has praised along with The National Enquirer, was also granted credentials.. We think Hannity could also do with some dissenting opinions at the morning news budget meetings.

Trump’s tormentors could do with some more of that, too. All of the media organizations we’ve dealt with over the past 36 years have had their biases, and although they rarely just made stuff up out of whole cloth almost every time they got things utterly wrong it was because of a collective zeal for a certain outcome. That tough old executive editor of ours had a particular dislike for nuclear energy, one of his more ambitious underlings obliged him by altering some documents to implicate a local energy corporation running a nuke up in the Flint Hills, and all the lesser mistakes we noticed over the years followed the same pattern. Our executive editor and his paper ultimately acknowledged the mistake and retracted the story, and apologized profusely, and the reporter wound up at a better gig at a bigger paper where he did an even more scandalously wrong story, and we always read the paper with confidence that it was unabashedly biased but not entirely fake.

These days we’re skeptical of both the president’s “tweets” and his tormentors latest scoops, and we’re carefully considering all the claims. Some are obviously wrong, others are hilariously spun, and none are at all encouraging.

Trump has proclaimed his media tormentors “the enemy of the people,” and on the campaign trail he threatened to “open up the libels” so he could be enriched by any negative coverage, and he recently “tweeted” another threat to impose an internet tax on the billionaire Washington Post publisher’s Amazon business in retaliation for the paper’s unfavorable coverage, and lately the war isn’t so much against certain segments as the media as it against the very notion of freedom of press. He and his media allies are railing against the disrespect for the presidency, as if Trump hadn’t alleged with unnamed that his Republican predecessor had lied the country to into a war and his Democratic predecessor was born outside the country and was a “bad (or sick) guy,” and all the outside-the-mainstream media have been unerringly accurate.

We hope that all those media and the freedom of the press somehow survive this. The right wing media have noted that several of the lawyers that the special counsel investigating the Russia thing with Trump and Russia were contributors to the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, which is accurate even if the oft-stated claim that they’re all Clinton donors isn’t, and they don’t note that Trump was also a Clinton contributor, but that’s still information that should reported. Those lawyers were chosen by a special counsel who is a registered Republican and rose through three Republican administrations during his distinguished career, and were more likely chosen for their highly specialized expertise in eastern European organized rackets and money-laundering, so that’s also useful information those right wing radio talkers should be warning their audiences about. Any information from either side, so long as its true, is welcomed.

The glaring mistakes that have to be retracted and apologized for are almost always a result of zeal, which is why our lazy selves found few scoops for our tough old executive editor but had fewer retractions to apologize to him for, and what with all the zealousness going around these days we’re being very careful in our reading of the news.

— Bud Norman

Too Many Problems

Bashing Obamacare is becoming an difficult chore, as there are so many problems to point out. Any attention paid to one of the law’s myriad flaws is a distraction from another, and the full calamity of the convoluted contraption can be hard to see through all the damning details.

Much well-deserved ridicule has been heaped on the hugely expensive and barely functioning computer system that was supposed to enroll millions of Americans in health insurance plans, but even the harshest criticism left the impression it was all a matter of a few glitches that will quickly be worked out. The latest round of bad press concerns the puny number of people who have signed on to Obamacare, which is even punier when you exclude all the non-paying window-shoppers that the administration have dishonestly tacked on, but that will be attributed to the soon-to-be-fixed computer system. There have also been a slew of stories about the millions of people who have lost the insurance plans they were satisfied with, despite the president’s repeated and unequivocal promises that they would be able to keep their plan if they liked it, but The New York Times has already deemed the president’s misleading words a mere “incorrect promise” and we assured that it will soon be kept with a fix that is likely to cause other problems requiring similarly creative euphemisms.

This is not to mention the sticker shock that those suddenly un-covered citizens are experiencing, or the higher costs that millions more are paying to keep their plans rather than getting the promised the $2,500 windfall, or all the part-time work that employers are offering rather than deal with the costs and paperwork entailed with a full-time job, or the likelihood that all these problems will be exacerbated as the delayed employers’ mandate kicks in after the mid-term elections and more institutions find themselves forced to stop insurance plans. It’s enough to keep every reporter in the country busy, especially the ones who feel obliged to concoct some sort of plausible-sounding excuse for all these problems, and provides an excuse to overlook numerous other problems.

Still, a few intrepid reporters are finding other scandals worth noting. The estimable James O’Keefe, the youthful journalistic prankster who brought down the noxious ACORN community-organizing racket by walking into their offices in a ‘70s-era blaxploitation movie outfit and asking for advice on starting a prostitution business, has recently walked into the offices of the community-organizing rackets that are federally-funded to act as “navigators” through the choppy waters of Obamacare and found them eager to offer advice on committing insurance fraud. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was prodded by a congressional committee to concede that “It’s possible” the people collecting Social Security numbers and dates of birth and other potential identity-thieving information from citizens are felons, and the ones that O’Keefe encountered seem to have at least slightly larcenous natures. Although it’s possible to avoid these unsavory sorts by going on to that barely functioning computer system, but the congressional testimony suggests that the security there is also government-grade.

The billions of funding going to the community-organizing rackets is yet another problem, unless you’re a Democratic candidate hoping to use their information and other help in an upcoming campaign, and it’s well worth noting. Doing so would take notice away from all the other problems, but it seems as if we’ll have forever to grouse about Obamacare.

— Bud Norman

Who Would Do Such a Thing?

Of all the arguments that have been advanced against photo identification requirements for voting, the most confounding is the frequent insistence that there has never been and never will be a documented case of voter fraud. Some people might commit rapes, robberies, murders, and various other sorts of mayhem, we are told, but it requires a particularly cynical assessment of our fellow humans to believe that anyone would ever stoop so low as to commit voter fraud.

That the argument is usually made by the very same people who insist that any Republican victory is proof of a stolen election makes it all the more peculiar, but we’ve found that there’s simply no convincing them of the need to take even the simplest and least burdensome precautions to prevent an ineligible person from casting one or more votes. Two recently released videos show that some people are quite willing to accommodate voter fraud, so long as its done on behalf of the right candidate, but even this is unlikely to convince those with a touching faith in the innate honesty of mankind.

The videos were made by James O’Keefe, the comedian-journalist-provocateur who became briefly famous with his hilarious hidden-camera footage of officials at various ACORN offices offering business counseling to a man posing in an most unconvincing costume as a pimp. That widely-publicized effort resulted in the de-funding and subsequent disbanding of the hard-left community organizing group, earning O’Keefe the eternal enmity of the liberal press, and his latest effort is unlikely to endear him to his critics.

Both of the new videos show undercover reporters entering various Obama campaign headquarters and voter registration booths around the country to ask for assistance in casting multiple votes in different states. In each case such help is quickly forthcoming from the campaign staff, who offer advice, encouragement, and the necessary registration forms, usually accompanied by giddy laughter at the prospect of Obama picking up a couple of extra votes from a single voter. In one instance the campaign volunteers even note that a postage stamp for the fraudulent registration has also been provided.

Some Obama supporters will counter that none of this is definitive proof that voter fraud has actually occurred, which is true enough for their purposes, but it does seem to suggest that not everyone is America is so high-minded that they’ll not even consider adding a few illegal votes to the ballot count. The folks at Think Progress, a left-leaning think tank that has been among Obama’s most loyal allies, went further in their criticism by alleging that O’Keefe’s efforts actually constituted a violation of the voting laws.

If so, we’ve finally got a documented case of voter fraud. In fact, we’ve got it on tape.

— Bud Norman