Showing posts with label News Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News Media. Show all posts

October 7, 2016

Why Would ‘The Atlantic' go for HC?




                                                                     
   


The following are the reasons why a publication such as The Atlantic which never endorses political candidates and has been negative on Hillary Clinton now endorses Hillary Clinton. I usually don’t post about news publications endorsements anymore because I don’t see that they are as important today as they might have been in the past. Candidates obviously still love to be endorsed since is free advertisement besides most people would prefer a good word about them that a bad word. 

Since The Atlantic has been what I consider very critical of Clinton I was a little surprised by the endorsement and thus would like to share with you the main reasons the The Atlantic felt compelled to endorse Hillary Clinton. I think the reason for a publication that has more to loose than to gain in an endorsement reasoning should be interesting for those that plan to vote on the US Presidential election a few weeks from now.

                                                                     _*_

“Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.


These concerns compel us, for the third time since the magazine’s founding, to endorse a candidate for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read. 

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.

Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy. But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.

In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent”

September 6, 2016

Fox News is On Top But It Only Has 10 yrs(tops) of Mainstay Left









If Hillary Clinton wins in November and is given a second term the democratic candidates fighting to replace her then,  wont have Fox to kick them around anymore.  Let us explain;  But to do this we will need help from (based on scientific polling) an article on what is keeping Fox where it is and what will happen to melt the ice they are standing on in the frozen cold lake of network television. The help comes from Derek Thompson in an *article he wrote on the Atlantic. The article was edited and condensed by adamfoxie*blog.

*With Ailes out, the future of the network is in the hands of the younger Murdochs, who take the helm of a network that seems to be both drowning and soaring, at a time when television audiences are fleeing the big screen of the living room for other devices. The dilemma: Does Fox change course to attract a broader audience in a period of fragmented viewership, or rededicate itself to the formula of hyperpartisan infotainment that made it the reigning emperor of cable?

Fox News’ situation is reminiscent of another television behemoth. Several years ago, ESPN enjoyed a similar dominion in the cable kingdom, as the self-anointed worldwide leader in sports. Just as there is no remotely equal challenger to Fox News on cable, there had been no real rival for ESPN in cable sports.
  
But today, ESPN is the victim of a broader turn away from pay TV. After peaking in 2011, the number of households that pay for ESPN declined from 100 million to about 92 million in 2015, as younger families cut the cord, or bought cable bundles without ESPN, or never got pay TV in the first place. (For any product to receive $8 a month from 90 million households, as ESPN does today, is a remarkable achievement; however, in business, as in sports and politics, all narratives are present-biased, and the trend line has not been kind to ESPN.)


Like ESPN, Fox News’s present-day strength is its future weakness: Its success is concentrated among men well into their retirement.There is no polite way to say this, so one might as well be explicit: People don’t live forever. If the future of your business relies on a dramatic and sudden extension of average human lifespans, your ten-year outlook is murky.


The lesson to take from the worldwide leader’s slip is that star broadcasters, brilliant programming, and sparkling production value are nothing compared to the sheer force of demographics and the evolution of media technology. 

Television is particularly popular among men, people who didn’t go to college, and people over the age of 70, which is a great description of a predictable conservative. (Retired seniors watch more than 50 hours of television a week.) Indeed, this older male group is not only ready-made for cable-television-viewing; it comes prepackaged with extremely conservative views. Over the last three general-election cycles, the 65-and-up group voted for the GOP presidential candidate by an average of 9 percentage points.

The press critic and columnist Jack Shafer suggests a respectable future for Fox News, in which the merchant of right-wing outrage and conspiracy politics sees the light of civic journalism and goes straight. Shafer encourages the Murdochs to broaden Fox News’s appeal and "tilt the network harder in the direction of conscientious journalists like Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace, and away from its honey badgers—notably Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and the Fox & Friends crew.”

One suspects that an erudite press critic at a coastal news publication who urges Fox News to metamorph into a conservative version of PBS is thinking of his own audience rather than that of Fox News. Ailes built a media empire by broadcasting conservative septuagenarian catnip and forcing infrastructure companies to pay it billions of dollars in fees, lest old retired men use their copious free time to call Comcast and complain that they can’t get their favorite show.

There is not much precedent for expensive investigative journalism finding a dependably large audience on cable. Instead, the formula for driving profitable viewership on cable news is one that Hollywood learned several decades ago: Find your hero or antihero, and churn out as many sequels as viewers can take. On CNN, which has transformed rather deliberately into an all-day buffet of Trump banter, viewership rose 38 percent in 2015, more than Fox News or MSNBC, to reach its highest viewership in seven years. In the first quarter of 2016, its primetime ratings grew 159 percent annually.

But when it comes to building blockbusters around heroes and villains, CNN is the Padawan and Fox News is the Jedi Master. Its genius was in recognizing the appeal of simple recognizable demons, like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, politically correct teenagers, and the remainder of America’s occult army of radical socialist secularists. The wealth of Fox News and the rise of Trump-obsessed CNN suggests that most cable-news devotees probably don’t watch television to challenge their incoming assumptions and to learn that the world is complex. 

A smart case for Fox News’ sustainability—and that of the cable industry—is the overall aging of the country. The share of Americans over the age of 75 is projected to grow by more than 40 percent this decade. But it’s not altogether clear from current viewing patterns that today’s middle-aged conservatives are destined to become tomorrow's Fox News devotees. (In other words, conservatism may be an age effect, but cable news devotion is more of a cohort effect.)* It is also not clear that younger generations of conservatives are eager to pick up where their parents and grandparents left off. Today’s young people are less likely to be Republicans than their parents, less likely to watch cable news, and even less likely to pay for cable in the first place. Those who gravitate to conservative views seem more likely to align themselves with digital platforms, like Breitbart.

Fox News’ chief rival isn’t CNN, The New York Times, or even Facebook. It’s time. The average age of a Fox News viewer is about 70. The average life expectancy of a white American male is about 80. Fox News may continue to trounce CNN and MSNBC, but mortality will provide awfully stiff competition.

December 3, 2015

The Last Mass Shooting in San Bernandino Tell Us: “GOD AINT FIXING THIS” NY Daily News

Hours after the deadly shooting in San Bernardino, California that left 14 people dead and 17 others injured on Wednesday, the New York Daily News tweeted out their Thursday morning cover.



The cover and accompanying article criticizes Republican presidential candidates for offering "prayers" as opposed to solutions when it comes to America's glaring gun control crisis.
While many GOP players conveyed their "thoughts and prayers" in 140 characters or less in the hours following the 355th domestic shooting this year, the New York Daily News' cover specifically calls out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The publication is echoing many of the sentiments heard across the internet today.

A reddit thread titled "Maybe praying isn't enough?" put Gov. Mike Huckabee on blast for delivering the same sentiment following every recent gun violence crisis, yet making no moves to help the problem.

August 27, 2015

Anchorman Jorge Ramos Compares Trump as President to a Monkey with a loaded gun



                                                                       


Ricardo Sánchez, known as “El Mandril” on his Spanish-language, drive-time radio show in Los Angeles, has taken to calling Donald J. Trump “El hombre del peluquín” — the man of the toupee.

Some of Mr. Sánchez’s listeners are less kind, referring to Mr. Trump, who has dismissed some Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals, simply as “Hitler.”

Mr. Sánchez says that he tries to focus on the positive in presidential politics, but he, too, at times has used harsh language to describe Mr. Trump, a real estate mogul, according to translations of his show provided by his executive producer.

“A president like Trump would be like giving a loaded gun to a monkey,” Mr. Sanchez said in one broadcast. “But a gun that fires atomic bullets.”
The adversarial relationship between Mr. Trump and the Spanish-language news media, which has simmered publicly since he announced his candidacy in June, boiled over on Tuesday at a news conference in Dubuque, Iowa, when the candidate erupted at Jorge Ramos, the main news anchor at Univision and Fusion, when he tried to ask a question without being called on. Mr. Trump signaled to one of his security guards, who physically removed Mr. Ramos from the event.

             

Jorge Ramos, news anchor at Univision and Fusion, questioning Donald J. Trump at a news conference Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa. Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images:
“Don’t touch me, sir. Don’t touch me,” Mr. Ramos said, as he was marched out of the room. “I have the right to ask a question.”

Mr. Ramos was eventually allowed to return. But for the Spanish-language press, which has grown in size and influence in politics, the tense exchange was a highly public flexing of muscle against a candidate who many outlets no longer pretend to cover objectively: They are offended by Mr. Trump’s words and tactics — and they are showing it.

Some, including Mr. Ramos, said that their networks have covered Mr. Trump more aggressively than their mainstream counterparts, which until recently, at least, largely dismissed Mr. Trump as a summer amusement — less a serious candidate than a ratings bonanza in the form of a bombastic reality television star. (After the dust-up with Mr. Ramos on Tuesday night, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists issued a statement condemning Mr. Trump.)

Mr. Ramos, who earlier this month delivered a searing indictment of Mr. Trump, calling him, “the loudest voice of intolerance, hatred and division in the United States,” attributed the difference in approach to how directly the issue of immigration affects Latino Americans.

“This is personal, and that’s the big difference between Spanish-language and mainstream media, because he’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies,” Mr. Ramos said in a telephone interview.

  Ricardo Sánchez, a talk radio host known as “El Mandril,” has at times used harsh language to describe Mr. Trump. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Mr. Ramos, who has been called the Walter Cronkite of Latino America for the tremendous influence he holds with Hispanic viewers, said that he could not recall Spanish-language news media covering a story as aggressively as it has Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

And though cable news and the Sunday morning news shows have blanketed their political coverage with stories about Mr. Trump’s improbable campaign, the focus of Spanish-language news programs has been almost exclusively on Mr. Trump’s controversial stance on immigration.
  
About 58 percent of all mentions of Mr. Trump in mainstream news media — broadcast, cable, radio and online outlets — in the past month have focused on immigration, while on Spanish-language news programs, the proportion is almost 80 percent, according to an analysis by Two.42.Solutions, a nonpartisan media analytics company. The Spanish-language news media has also been more critical in its coverage of Mr. Trump’s positions on the issue, with nearly all of it negative in tone.

José Díaz-Balart, the main anchor for Telemundo and MSNBC who takes a straight-news approach to his coverage and does not consider himself an advocate, nonetheless said that because of its viewership, Telemundo has delved deeper into the specifics of Mr. Trump’s immigration plan than many English-language outlets and has covered his candidacy with a sense of “urgency.”

“Our audience is very well versed, very knowledgeable, very well educated on the issue of immigration,” Mr. Díaz-Balart said, adding that his viewers are eager to hear “what are you realistically proposing and planning to do on the issues that are so important to the community.”
  
When Mr. Trump visited the United States-Mexico border last month, the Spanish-language networks devoted more time to Mr. Trump in their evening broadcasts than their English-language counterparts; Univision gave Mr. Trump six minutes, while Telemundo — which had Mr. Díaz-Balart anchor his nightly newscast live from the border — spent nine minutes on Mr. Trump.

In addition to his comments calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists, Mr. Trump’s immigration plan — which includes erecting a wall along the southern border and ending birthright citizenship — has also earned the ire of many Hispanics, who are expected to be a critical voting bloc in 2016.

Univision severed ties with the Miss Universe Organization, of which Mr. Trump is a part owner, because of his offensive comments about Mexican immigrants. Mr. Trump is now suing the network for $500 million.

Ken Oliver-Méndez, the director of the Hispanic media arm of the conservative Media Research Center, said that in the Spanish-language news media, “There’s just very opinionated, very sweeping condemnations of Donald Trump taking place.”

An analysis of news, blogs and forums by Crimson Hexagon, a nonpartisan social media analytics software company, also found that overall mentions of Mr. Trump in the Spanish-language news media since he announced his candidacy were 69 percent negative, but were less negative — 58 percent — in the English-language news media.
Critics of the Spanish-language news coverage, including Mr. Oliver-Méndez, say that the Hispanic press is engaging in advocacy and not journalism.

“The Spanish-language media is basically taking Trump through the prism of what’s best for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, so to the extent that Trump is coming out with statements that are threatening the existence of that community, he’s been covered like an enemy,” he said. 
He pointed to several moments last week on the national United States evening news broadcasts of Azteca America, a Spanish-language television network. In one, an anchor said that Mr. Trump had nothing in his head but air, and in another, Armando Guzmán, a Washington correspondent, accused Mr. Trump of lying: “As in everything else, Trump is not telling the truth,” Mr. Guzmán said.

The last one-on-one interview Mr. Trump gave to a Spanish-language network was with Mr. Díaz-Balart on Telemundo, shortly after Mr. Trump announced his candidacy. The Trump campaign said it continues to give credentials to Spanish-language organizations for its events and treats them like all other news media.

Alex Nogales, the president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, a civil rights organization focused on American Latinos, said that the Spanish-language news media’s coverage of Mr. Trump has broad implications for the presidential election, whether or not he becomes the Republican nominee.

He said that for Latino voters, there will be a “reinforcement in terms of what they’re hearing, what they’re seeing, what they’re listening to” from the Republican candidates.

Lawrence Glick, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization who oversees golf, called Mr. Nogales this month, saying “he wanted to make peace” and set up a meeting with Mr. Trump, Mr. Nogales said. (The coalition has been calling for the suspension of all professional golf tournaments from Trump courses). But the two men seem to have reached an impasse, with no meeting imminent.

Mr. Ramos, for his part, sees a possible bright spot in Mr. Trump’s 2016 role.

“The only positive thing I might think of for Mr. Trump is that he brought immigration to the forefront of the 2016 campaign,” he said.

February 23, 2015

CNN Contributor Comes out Wishes her daughter would be Gay too



                                                                                 
                                                                      

Sally Kohn, a CNN contributor and progressive activist, says she hopes her 6-year-old daughter will turn out to be gay.
Kohn, who has previously described herself as a “butch lesbian,” copped to the preference in an opinion piece for the Washington Post.

“I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too,” wrote Kohn, who also contributes to The Daily Beast.
Kohn defended her position, arguing that it’s normal for parents to want their children to follow in their footsteps, whether it involves extracurricular activities, political outlook or sexual orientation.
“More often than not, we define happiness as some variation on our own lives, or at least the lives of our expectations. If we went to college, we want our kids to go to college. If we like sports, we want our kids to like sports. If we vote Democrat, of course we want our kids to vote Democrat,” wrote Kohn, who lives with her partner Sarah Hansen and their daughter Willa Hansen-Kohn in the “liberal bubble of Park Slope, Brooklyn.”



Kohn made it clear in the essay that though she ultimately wants her daughter to be happy whatever her sexual orientation, she plans to do everything she can to encourage her daughter to avoid adhering to gender norms.
“When my daughter plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad. Sometimes she changes her narrative. Sometimes she doesn’t. It’s her choice,” Kohn wrote.
The activist highlighted her dilemma with a story about how her daughter recently developed a crush on an older boy who rides her school bus.
“Time will tell, but so far, it doesn’t look like my 6-year-old daughter is gay. In fact, she’s boy crazy. It seems early to me, but I’m trying to be supportive,” Kohn exclaimed.
When Kohn’s daughter said she wanted to buy the boy presents and a card, the essayist asked another student’s mother for advice on what to do.
“Bet it wouldn’t bother you so much if her crush was on a girl,” the mother told Kohn.
“She was right,” Kohn wrote. “I’m a slightly overbearing pro-gay gay mom. But I’m going to support my daughter, whatever choices she makes.”
Kohn has displayed a penchant for making controversial statements.
In an essay for CNN last summer, she argued that using the word “illegal” to describe undocumented immigrants was like calling an African-American “the n-word.”
An in an essay at The New York Times last month, which Kohn advertised on her website as “Butch Lesbian Mom Takes Daughter To Princess Makeover,” the pundit lamented that her daughter gravitates towards dolls and dresses rather than jeans and sports.
“Even in the midst of our hyper-liberal and hyper-diverse neighborhood with girls and boys of all kinds on display every day, it happened,” Kohn wrote. “Did I do something wrong? Is feminism mysteriously skipping a generation? Meanwhile, I have to bribe her to wear jeans.”

Featured Posts

Is Trump Dancing to the Putin Orchestra? Put the “Точки вместе"

🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛ᙛᙑᙐᙏᙎᙅᙰᙩᙍᙇ ᐗ It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply wing...