Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘media’ Category

You’ve heard it everywhere: Trump’s “Muslim ban” is inadequate on the one hand — the list of seven nations fails to include, for example, Afghanistan — and unconstitutional on the other hand. We are told that the President’s executive order only makes us more unsafe — and, indeed, his actions have been met with dismay throughout much of the world.

A surprising thing happens, however, upon taking one small step back from the maelstrom: In doing just that, I was given pause to reconsider what I thought I knew based on mainstream media reporting — thanks to the work of fellow WordPress blogger Seth J. Frantzman, Ph.D.

Frantzman did something extraordinary — well, it ought not be uncommon but in today’s climate it most definitely is: he read the full text of Trump’s executive order. 

So what, exactly, is the deal with the list of seven nations pundits and reporters frequently cite?

The first thing that becomes apparent in reading the text of the President’s order is that there is no “list” per se. The nations thought to pose a disproportionate terrorism risk are referred to as “countries of concern”. In fact, only one country is implicitly named by Trump’s so-called travel ban: Syria.

The executive order contains another surprise. It expresses a not-so-controversial intent to improve vetting procedures to rule out unlawful practices against women, gays and religious minorities. From the order:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Based on media reporting, how many of us appreciate that the vetting the President is calling for concerns refugees’ tolerance of minorities, religious, sexual or otherwise?

How many of us, similarly, appreciate that the executive order, in Section 5 (e), also states that the Secretary of States and Department of Homeland Security can lift these restrictions on a “case-by-case basis”?

How many of us appreciate, finally, that what the media is calling “the list” is referenced in Trump’s order only indirectly — as defined, ironically, in legislation dating to 2015, signed by President Obama?

While there is no doubt that President Trump’s actions will continue to trigger controversy,  there is a deeper moral to the story that we cannot afford to overlook: We must begin to appreciate now, before civil unrest breaks out, that social media and media at large has found a winning formula: Fear. In local broadcast news, there is a longstanding saying among reporters and producers: “If it bleeds, it leads”. Speaking of a temporary travel ban as if it is permanent — as if the sole purpose is to hurt and harm Muslims — is the political equivalent of “If it bleeds, it leads”.

Far from tempting a Constitutional crisis, the vetting improvements that the President calls for concerns religious minorities (treatment thereof), women (treatment thereof) and sexual orientation (treatment thereof). To read social media and media at large, however, one would be forgiven for concluding that the only motive is pure, unadulterated evil. Instead, as is often the case in life, shades of gray emerge. This matters not because there is any requirement to support Trump’s actions — those are personal decisions every American has the right to decide for him- or herself. Unbiased reporting of events and actions matters not for the President’s sake but for ours. Why? Because the price of playing we the people against one another will be riots in the streets. Keep up this climate of hysteria driven by self-serving omissions and “alternative facts” and people are going to get HURT here — if not also abroad — because the rhetoric has become toxic.

To the extent Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was marked by hurtful or misleading rhetoric we must also appreciate that such behavior does not exist in a vacuum. Donald Trump is as much a product of the times as any of us. In a climate that is increasingly sensationalized, members of the Fourth Estate are hardly immune.

If ever there was a time to embrace the axiom “take it with a grain of salt”, this is as good of a time as any.

If and when violent clashes occur in the streets of this country, we can’t blame Trump and Trump alone. Although the President’s actions will, without a doubt, instigate controversy, what we do with that “bad news” is up to us. Do we bring down the house — do we destroy our hard work abroad and at home for the sake of proving this man dead-wrong? How far do we — ordinary Americans, yes, but in particular those in media and leadership — go to make a point?

We can no longer deny it: the exploitation of fear through media and social media has become its own force to be reckoned with — apart from whatever policy our political leaders propose. As Americans, we must begin to appreciate this much if only because our safety here and abroad depends on it.

As consumers of news and current events the new rule-of-thumb for the foreseeable future boils down to this: Do not accept any report, no matter the source, at face value. Do your homework: read the source documents, identify nuances and make up your own mind.

Putting a dent in the national hysteria — which must soon occur if we are to forestall an even more tragic global backlash — depends not just on those who occupy the White House. It depends on us — you and I. Today, more than ever, the basic efforts of an informed citizenry — with or without mainstream media cooperation — are paramount. We did not learn how to read and write merely to graduate high school or college and land a job. We learned everything we did — in school, from loved ones — for just these sorts of times. So roll up your sleeves and put on your thinking caps, America. The next four years are going to be one bumpy ride. But remember: This too shall pass.

###

Read Full Post »

New Year’s Day 2015 marked the 20th anniversary of NAFTA’s implementation. The North American Free Trade Agreement became infamous when independent presidential candidate Ross Perot remarked in 1992 that the passage of NAFTA would create a “giant sucking sound” of American jobs lost to Canada and Mexico. NAFTA, however, is hardly in history’s rear-view mirror. It has been augmented all these years by more of the same, and now the Obama administration is about to enact the biggest so-called free trade agreement yet. The Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership represents the most far-reaching agreement in a generation, yet has only recently begun to garner widespread attention.

In spite of over a decade’s worth of negotiations mainstream media has left the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement largely untouched — in part because negotiations have not been open to the public. Few of our elected representatives have been clued in either, however. Why? Because the TPP flies in the face of the very self-determinating principles this country was founded upon. It takes the economic aspects of governance of the people, by the people and for the people and hands it over to international authorities on all manner of issue pertinent to our health, welfare and safety — from finance to food. Because the trade agreement has spawned opposition from all sides of the political spectrum, the TPP has been negotiated behind closed doors. Only in these latter stages are the provisions supposed to undergo open debate. The problem? President Obama wants to “fast track” the TPP so that little congressional debate is possible.

Media Matters has this to say:

Congress Is Currently Debating A Bill That Would Grant The President Expedited Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

According to a January 30 Reuters article, President Obama is at odds with Democratic and Republican lawmakers in both houses of Congress concerning reauthorizing a procedure called the “trade promotion authority” (TPA). The TPA is a formal legal authority granted to the president by Congress, which allows the White House to fast-track international treaty negotiations with foreign partners, bypassing most congressional review: A bill before the House and Senate would grant the White House power to submit free trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments, something that would give trading partners peace of mind but that raises hackles among some lawmakers.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

There is something attractive about defrocking a figure of faith-and-family-values virtue, particularly one of great commercial success who has endeared himself to an endangered minority: the American middle class. The late Thomas Kinkade, who died of unnamed causes Friday, made an easy target. The self-anointed “painter of light” specialized in idealized scenes harkening to a more innocent and bucolic time. Such art might be expected from a pastor’s wife or a bookish introvert yet it was the high degree of contrast between the artist’s placid and peaceable imagery and his real-world foibles and flaws that made him an irresistible subject for personal and artistic attack.

In the wake of Kinkade’s untimely death at age 54, the Los Angeles Times rehashed a 2006 exposé in which the painter was portrayed as a drunken, ruthless and foulmouthed hypocrite.  Whatever one may believe about the man, the art world has stood firm about his vision: Kinkade is a commercial success but his paintings do not merit creative or historic memory.

Kinkade’s artistic legacy is as much in question as his personal one. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »