WHY I HATE CNN

It wasn’t always this way.

Breaking News! Breaking News!

A celebrity has died. We will be covering this exclusively for the next forty-eight hours. We will talk to everyone who ever worked with him, all his relatives, with special coverage of people that he went to school with over fifty years ago! We will examine all his accomplishments from grade school through college and also his professional achievements, then scroll them in a loop across the bottom of the screen. Our legal experts will talk about his will and what this means going forward. And a team will be sent to give live coverage of people leaving flowers outside his estate. This will be non-stop unless there is a plane crash or a terrorist attack. Breaking, breaking, breaking News!!!

Breaking News! Breaking News!

We resume our campaign coverage looking forward to when Donald Trump is speaking at a rally later this evening. Here are actual pictures of people setting up the stage and the seats. We have an exclusive interview with one of the volunteers who will be handing out signs for this rally. This morning Trump criticized one of his opponents for what he had for breakfast, calling him “soft boiled like his eggs” and “toast” like his campaign.  A new Donald Trump surrogate will be available every hour for comments on every bit of everything we talk about all day!

Breaking News! Breaking News!

Another poll came out today showing who is ahead and who is behind. We have the best team of analysts on television to explain what it all means. Our panel of six women and six men include three Blacks and two Latinos, senior and junior CNN political analysts, Republican and Democratic strategists, campaign spokespeople, recycled advisors to the last four presidents, a liaison to our corporate headquarters, plus John King – master of the Magic Board, hosts Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, and on the side, two unnamed blond bimbos borrowed from Fox News. The race is entering the backstretch and we provide the call.

From History.com:

                “On June 1, 1980, CNN (Cable News Network), the world’s first 24-hour television news network, makes its debut. The network signed on at 6 p.m. EST from its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, with a lead story about the attempted assassination of civil rights leader Vernon Jordan. CNN went on to change the notion that news could only be reported at fixed times throughout the day. At the time of CNN’s launch, TV news was dominated by three major networks–ABC, CBS and NBC–and their nightly 30-minute broadcasts. Initially available in less than two million U.S. homes, today CNN is seen in more than 96 million American households and in over 212 countries and territories.”

Ted Turner was out to change the world and he did.  “The very definition of news was rewritten – from something that has happened to something that is happening at the very moment you are hearing of it. … CNN demonstrated that politics can be planetary, that ordinary people can take a deep interest in events remote from them in every way – and can respond to reportage in global rather than purely nationalistic terms.”

In 1986 CNN was the only TV network that provided live coverage of the Space Shuttle Challenger that blew up shortly after takeoff. In 1991 its 24 hour coverage of Operation Desert Storm, broadcast from inside Iraq, made its reputation as the go to station for news. And of course the events of September 11, 2001 demanded full time coverage. CNN can be relied on to cover historic events for days at a time. Yet not every event is historic or worthy of that level of coverage.

Often CNN is unable or unwilling to handle more than one story at a time. If it a tragedy like a plane crash or a mass shooting occurs, that one event is examined by teams of reporters, experts, analysts and witnesses, often more to evoke feelings than understanding. Rarely do they get to underlying issues without a pairing of people with opposing views less there be some accusation of bias. (Gun violence is one example of this. Immigration is another.) While this one story is being beat to death, everything else happening in the world is virtually ignored. Even on days when there is not one catastrophic event I can learn more about what is happening in the world by watching a half hour showing of BBC World News America than by watching twenty four hours of CNN. (And a shout out to Katty Kay for the probing questions she asks her guests.)

I am particularly disturbed/incensed about 2016 Presidential election campaign coverage. My frustration has been growing every day and finally reached a point where I had to scream out from my mountaintop, blasting into the Ethernet a blog post about Why I Hate CNN.

For quite a few years now my network of choice has been CNN, almost a default channel on my TV. It’s like background music as I do other tasks around the house. I subconsciously pay attention and I am on a first name basis with most of the anchors on my screen. (Hello Kate, Carol, Ashleigh, Brooke and your colleagues.)

Once upon a time, in November 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President and immediately CNN started speculating about Hillary Clinton and others for 2016. I consciously ignored all this talk until the election was less than two years away. There was no Kentucky Derby style announcer yelling “They’re off,” no gates opening and a mad shoulder to shoulder sprint forward, but one by one, starting with Ted Cruz, candidates declared their candidacy and the horse race coverage intensified.

First it was how much money they raised and from whom. Then it was the plethora of polling. Daily, analysts and commentators are brought in to discuss poll after poll about who is ahead demographically, regionally, even by county, and in potential matchups; partisan strategists are put on to run through talking points and spin every event to favor their candidate or party; vignettes are shown of candidates interacting with potential voters, usually in diners or coffee shops from Iowa to Pennsylvania as the primaries progressed. Iowa has 3.09 million people, less than one percent of the country’s population and it dominated the political news for months, because it was the first primary. Seventeen candidates crisscrossing the state, stopping at fairs and coffee shops and chased by packs of reporters asking the same, stupid, trivial questions.

Nightly on CNN: Who is winning in each state before the primary? Who is winning nationally? What are the statistics for potential matchups? What are the delegate counts?  This was as true when there were seventeen candidates as when there are five. This would go on constantly from four in the afternoon with Jake Tapper, or earlier, to eleven at night with Anderson Cooper. Even longer on debate or primary days. And the countdown clock in the corner – Arrrgh!

What is the point analyzing and scrutinizing so much data to predict a winner a few hours before the actual results will be known? A few weeks or days ahead it might be of use to campaigns and how they might want to strategize or allocate resources. But of what use to me and millions of other voters is knowing who is ahead and who is projected to win? Am I supposed to base my vote or even decide whether I need to show up and vote based on this information? It’s so superfluous that it’s ridiculous. Worse than the pop music charts we used to discuss as teenagers.  More like an attempt to make politics into a sporting event and copy sports analysis. But politics is not a sport. “It ain’t beanbags” but it is not a sport.  It does not have gambling where you need such predictive analysis and it does have serious real world consequences much greater than how your favorite team is doing.

Also annoying, as the phenomena of Donald Trump emerged, he became the reference point for all coverage and all questions. At first it was an understandable curiosity; whenever he said something outrageous, almost every day, this became the hot news item, like the ‘man bites dog’ story. Conversations with other candidates and their surrogates always began with the question of what they thought about Donald Trump’s statement. He was the shiny object that lured all the news coverage, to the point of absurdity. When Donald Trump was going to address a rally they cut away to it as breaking news, sometimes a day in advance to show an empty hall. Actually it was brilliant on Trump’s part. No other candidate got that kind of coverage; millions and millions of dollars’ worth of free air time.  He alone was allowed to phone in to news shows enabling even more pervasive coverage.  He was breaking all the rules and conventions of presidential politics which was interesting and the MainStream Media, including CNN, ate it right up creating even more interest; a vicious cycle to attract more eyeballs and higher ratings. Informative? Not really.

As the debates got into full swing, the name calling and insults became the focal point of most of the questions to the Republican candidates. They were played against each other, asked about what Donald Trump thought, and little attempt was made to drill down into positions on important issues. Democrats were virtually ignored, particularly Bernie Sanders. He was an extreme Socialist. Hillary was anointed and boring. “Who cares?” seemed to be the policy. There was no coverage of Sanders’ early rallies until they too became something of an unavoidable phenomena.

From Wikipedia:

          “In October 2015, CNN and Facebook hosted the first 2016 Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada. CNN conducted an online poll asking viewers to select which of the participants they believed won the debate. Despite the fact that the poll ended with Bernie Sanders holding 75% of the vote, and Hillary Clinton holding 18% of the vote, and the fact that Senator Sanders took the lead in CNN’s focus group, CNN published several articles declaring Secretary Clinton as the winner of the debate. After the poll appeared on television after the debate, it was never shown again and was removed from CNN’s website. Following these events, supporters of Senator Sanders have claimed that CNN attempted to bury Bernie Sanders’s victory in an effort to support Hillary Clinton because of the fact that Time Warner (CNN’s parent company) is Hillary Clinton’s seventh largest financial backer. “

                The Republican debates got unprecedented ratings, primarily due to Trump and the tone that he set. It was like a WWE cage match and people tuned in to watch, like sharks circling blood in the water, like drivers rubbernecking by a car crash. There were accusations of lies going every which way; accusations of small penis size; questions about gaffes and alleged scandals; you know, all the important things one should know when choosing a President.

Is something missing? D’uh! Something like discussing issues?

The atrocious debate format with its one minute answers, thirty second rebuttals and provocative questions eliciting insults and taunts is a corollary issue for another time. I want to refer to the daily shows and news coverage that voters should rely on for information. Where are the proposals for dealing with present foreign and domestic policy? Where is the objective analysis, beyond the sound bites and spin of partisans? What are the consequences of those policies? And could any of the policies realistically be accomplished considering the fact that Congress is divided and polarized to the extreme?

Would a Democrat, if elected President, actually be able deal with things like tax reform, income inequality, climate change, big money in politics, strengthening social security, comprehensive immigration reform, particularly in a divided Congress? If a Republican were elected along with control of Congress, what would be the consequences of their promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act, eliminate environmental regulations, repeal Dodd-Frank, deport eleven million undocumented immigrants, cancel the Iran Nuclear deal, increase military spending and weaken the safety net for the poor? So many scenarios and options and consequences for candidates to place before the voters. So much more than bumper sticker quips and sound bite smears.

Maybe a lot of people do not want to think about these aspects of an election. Maybe potential policy shows like “Honesty Hour” or “Going Deep” or “Consequential Wonk” featuring academics and neutral pundits would not be as glamorous or entertaining as the currently partisan “He Said, She Said”, “Balanced Ignorance,” or the most popular “It’s Only a Race, Dammit.” CNN should be capable of producing shows that feature candidates and/or surrogates that don’t let them get away with spin and sound bites. Ask real questions. Ask what’s important to them. When they say they’ll create more jobs, ask how. When they say repeal job killing regulations, ask them to name five. Ask why these regulations were originally enacted and what would be the consequences of their repeal? Drill down, baby, drill down! News and policy and citizenship do not have to be pure entertainment. They have to be mentally nutritious. They have to inform. There is a difference between politics and entertainment.  Entertainment is a bonus, “the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.”  Politics and policy can be interesting and informative without being dumbed down. Not everything has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Mr. Turner’s vision for CNN: “To act upon one’s convictions while others wait, to create a positive force in a world where cynics abound, to provide information to people when it wasn’t available before.”

CNN is not providing the leadership role it could. It tries so hard not to be partisan, like MSNBC on the Left or Fox News on the right, that truth is often subsumed by moral equivalence. Comedy shows do more to spotlight political hypocrisy and incompetence than CNN. And that’s not funny.

“Even if the ratings weren’t the greatest. If you had the most prestige and you were the network that everybody turned to in times of a crisis, that that was the most important position in the news business to hold.”  5/3/2012 interview with Piers Morgan.

And where is CNN today compared to Ted Turner’s vision? Does it subscribe to Ted Turner’s original vision of CNN bringing peace to the world? In my opinion it seems that CNN’s main mission is bringing more profits to its shareholders. There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders (full disclosure: I am a Time Warner shareholder), but to what extent do you have to make sacrifices to your mission, your integrity, your corporate good citizenship to maximize profits?

The News supposedly brings information to people; it educates them about current events and the consequences of various courses of action. It makes them better citizens. A more sophisticated and politically educated population will make better choices of leadership and demand more from their leaders. This is good for all of us and even for Corporations in the long run. Unfortunately the present management is using CNN as a tool to boost short term corporate profits. It is trivial; it is not prestigious; it is erasing the legacy of a bold entrepreneur. This is why I hate CNN.

Howard Flantzer 4/28/2016

The Times They Are A-Changin’

“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’..”

Above is the fourth verse to the Bob Dylan song from 1964, “The Times They Are A-Changin’” but you can take any of the verses and apply it to today. (Hear Bob perform it Here.)

In the late 1960s I used to sing this song, along with the record and while playing my guitar, and had in mind my parents and my friends’ parents. These were people who lived through the Great Depression, fought in WWII, worked hard at blue collar jobs, scrimping and saving to buy a house in the suburbs and raise a family. They sent their children to college to get an education so they would not have to do manual labor and could make more money and have better lives. But there were many cultural and political changes taking place in the 1960s and the mothers and fathers throughout the land could not understand what was happening. And they did not understand their children. And it was impossible for us to explain it to them. Their old ways and beliefs were rapidly aging.

We wanted peace, love, drugs and music. We didn’t want a colonial war where thousands of our peers were being killed. We didn’t want discrimination. We did want prosperity. We wanted it all. And to get it we had to exercise political power. Demonstrations and marches to start. Then organizing around political candidates. The pressure was on LBJ and he decided not to seek reelection in 1968.  Bobby Kennedy’s campaign was surging and young people were inspired by him. When he was assassinated it was up to us to get Eugene McCarthy nominated to take his place. But the fix was in. Protests led to a police riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Young people were bloodied and gassed, Hubert Humphrey was nominated and he lost the election to Richard Nixon, a corrupt and bigoted Republican who eventually resigned in disgrace. The Vietnam War continued for six more years with an additional 21,000 American military deaths.

In 1971 the Constitution was amended giving eighteen year olds the right to vote. In 1972 the Democrats nominated a liberal, George McGovern, who ran on a platform of ending the Vietnam War and instituting a guaranteed minimum income for the poor. In a landslide he lost every state except Massachusetts.

The political times were certainly not a-changing.

Move ahead almost half a century and here we are today. Now I and my friends are the mothers and fathers and our children are the Millennials. Our old road is rapidly aging. The young people have embraced Bernie Sanders for President. They are enthusiastic; they are passionate; they go to big rallies; they donate money; and most of all they overwhelm social media with their confidence and certainty that Bernie can win the nomination, he can win the Presidency, and most of all he can change the country. The times they are a-changin’.

An article was posted recently on Facebook: “Most Clinton Voters Like Bernie Sanders. Most Sanders Voters Don’t Like Hillary Clinton.”  They feel she is “not qualified for the presidency because of her interventionist foreign-policy instincts and for her participation in the corrupt campaign-finance system that allows the billionaire class to stifle democracy.” The Millennials, as well as other anti-Hillary Democrats, say they will never vote for Hillary. They’ll sit home or write in Sanders or vote Green Party. They would be willing to risk a President Trump or a President Cruz rather than vote for hated Hillary! I find this astounding.

While there is some difference in the policies of Sanders and Clinton it is obviously far less than the difference between either Democrat and any Republican.

Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best.  — Otto Von Bismarck

Since we started this post with a song lyric, how about continuing with this gem from The Rolling Stones:

“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find
You get what you need”

All political candidates campaign with promises about what they are going to do, yet once elected many factors influence whether those promises are kept. John Kennedy famously promised to put a man on the moon “before the end of the decade” and it happened. Richard Nixon promised he had “a secret plan to end the war” in Vietnam. Turns out he expanded the war by bombing Laos and Cambodia. Barak Obama promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He’s still working on it. Most politicians promise to cut taxes, increase prosperity, make us safe from crime and keep us safe from our enemies.

The 2016 campaign promises seem more extraordinary than usual. The Washington Post lists 76 promises made by Donald Trump, from the infamous wall across our southern border that Mexico will pay for, to start winning again.  He promises to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. That’s a lot of court hearings for our judicial system. Bernie Sanders wants to offer free college tuition, breaking up the big banks and raising taxes substantially. It ain’t going to happen. Both candidates promise a political revolution and they have a substantial number of fervent supporters that believe it. If you want to live in a country where a president can get elected on the basis of calling for a revolution, then do whatever he wants, this is not that country. If you want to pass laws to take money out of politics, it’s hard when most of Congress depends on that money to get elected. Republicans proved that they will stick together to oppose everything a Democratic president proposes. Unfortunately some Democrats also will not support the President; that is why there is no Public Option in the Affordable Care Act.

In Foreign Policy the President has more flexibility. Hillary’s experience in this area also leans toward active US involvement in the affairs of other countries. It is the one area where there is a clear difference between what she would be able to do and what Bernie Sanders would do. But I believe a Republican will keep us even more engaged in endless, often senseless wars. To say there is no difference between Republican foreign policy and what Hillary would do is like not learning the lesson of the 2000 election when people were saying there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush so they were going to vote for Ralph Nader. Are we doomed to make the same mistake?

So are the times really a-changing? Socially, technologically, culturally, incrementally – yes. They always do. But politically? Not so fast. In a stable society the political pendulum swings from conservative to liberal and back over time; it oscillates around a central point of equilibrium. When a radical movement enters the equation, often violently, the shift is more profound; civil rights for example. In the dialectics between liberal and conservative, young and old, experience and impetuousness, things move very slowly, often like tides, and old questions remain unsettled.

You can’t always get what you want. It is hard to move entrenched interests and it cannot be done quickly. But you keep trying. You can’t always get what you want, but you might find that you can sometimes attain the next best thing.

IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER…

They had better pick the right candidate for Vice President

As far as the November 2016 election, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate. My preference for either Bernie or Hillary is not yet fully determined and not all that important until June 7, the date of the New Jersey primary. I have heard both candidates speak; I have heard the arguments of their surrogates; and I have heard the passion and logic of my Friends, for both candidates.

One candidate is more idealistic, the other more pragmatic. One wants radical change, the other incremental change. One candidate is willing to compromise, the other stands firm. One candidate appeals more to young, passionate, enthusiastic supporters; the other to more moderate, older, and minority supporters. One candidate has more executive and foreign policy experience yet has made a major mistake of judgement. One candidate Has Issues, the other has issues. (This is of course an oversimplification and not entirely accurate but it seems to flow pretty well.)

One candidate is closer to my personal political positions but I question whether those would fly in moderate Middle America. I remember George McGovern’s disappointing defeat and also Hubert Humphrey’s disappointing nomination. Bill Clinton was elected with help from H. Ross Perot; George Bush with help from Ralph Nader.  Both current candidates claim to be stronger against the Republican opponent based on polls and assumptions. However, I respect and fear the Republican smear machine that will be unleashed in the fall. This is not calculated into current polls. I am apprehensive about the MainStream Media as it chooses their favorites more on form and friendliness than substance. They want narratives, conflict, eyeballs and ratings and don’t give a crap about what is best for the country or the majority of people that live here. They want a horserace and treat the Election as a sport, as entertainment, as a way to make money, and not as a serious event with profound consequences. (The Corporate Media is a whole issue unto itself and will be treated and trashed in a future post.)

One candidate I will promote is my choice for Vice President: Joe Biden. Joe Biden has spent eight years as Vice President and before that thirty six years in the US Senate, several as Chairman of Committees. He has enormous executive and legislative experience and knows how to get things done. Joe Biden can legitimately compete for the votes of white blue collar workers, he exudes likeability and authenticity, he has great integrity, and he can bring more of the country together than any other candidate. Most compelling is the narrative that after eight years as Vice President he would run to continue on in that position, bring continuity and stability to the country. He is liked and respected by the media and I believe they would love to promote this unique and history making political story; guaranteed hours and hours of analysis and coverage. Like a wild card in a poker game Joe Biden could change an imperfect combination into a winning hand and winning is what is most important now.

Joe Biden coupled with either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would represent a ticket with so much experience and competence as to overwhelm anything the Republicans can put together.

From Wikipedia:

“As Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden oversaw the infrastructure spending aimed at counteracting the Great Recession, and U.S. policy toward Iraq up until the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His ability to negotiate with congressional Republicans helped bring about legislation such as the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 that resolved a taxation deadlock, the Budget Control Act of 2011 that resolved that year’s debt ceiling crisis, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 that addressed the impending “fiscal cliff”.”

He’s been involved in everything from negotiating with Congress to the tensest times in the Situation Room. He’s even been assigned to lead the fight in finding the cure for cancer.

Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic; a man of strong faith. He has endured terrible personal tragedy and suffering. In 1972, shortly after being elected Senator, his wife and one year old daughter died in a traffic accident. In 2015 his 46 year old son died of brain cancer. This will resonate in a campaign across the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Florida.

No one is perfect. Joe Biden has made a number of ‘gaffes’ which are often joked about. He also supported the 2003 Iraq war, a huge foreign policy disaster. But compared to the radical right wing agenda of the Republicans, or their leading candidate’s bigotry and divisiveness and total lack of political experience, I think the average American who takes the country seriously will have to respect Joe Biden and what he brings to the office.

I also believe that having an experienced non-controversial leader on the ticket will also help the down ballot candidates. There are ten Democrats and twenty four Republicans running for the Senate this year. Seventeen of these seats are competitive with seven considered a “tossup”. The Democrats have to swing at least five seats to take back control of the senate. Joe Biden campaigning for these candidates as he campaigns for the top nominee and himself could be a significant factor.

There are a lot of people who hate Hillary. There are a lot of people who are intimidated or frightened by Bernie’s “Socialist” label. But if the Democrats are going to run on the accomplishments of the Obama administration and on the premise that the country is so much better off now that it was eight years ago, there is no better way to exploit this than to have the same Vice President. He would be working and advising right alongside the new President, ready on day one, not having to learn on the job.  It is a compelling argument.

So I urge Democrats, those who are committed to a candidate and want to win in November, as well as those who fear the Bern and those who hate the Hill, to speak up, to promote a groundswell of support for Joe Biden to run for extending his job, for signing on for four more years as Vice President.

Why Me Blog?

“I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord…Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous–“

Like J. Alfred Prufrock I am not an introspective genius, but sometimes I get my dander up and have some things I want to get off my chest. Sometimes they are creative and unusual, sometimes humorous, often arising from a seething pool of political bile, I like to have my say. Facebook is an easy outlet for sharing these thoughts. Find a funny or obnoxious meme, sprinkle it with some nasty, bitter, or witty comment and let the mysterious FB algorithm share it with some seemingly random selection of my friends.

Any one of these posts may either get ignored or make a minor splash, evoking some back and forth interaction for a few hours or a few days. Then it is forgotten, dumped into some digital dustbin of FB history, i.e.,  your timeline, unlikely to be seen again. How many illusory solutions to the world’s problems are sitting buried like pirate treasure or lost arks on FB timelines? One is as unlikely to ever set eyes on these gems as the hallucinations from a purple haze.

Secondly, having a blog will require more discipline. Arguments will have to be better organized and cohesive, less personal and insulting (regarding friends). Instead of just a few words or a quip, the writer will usually expand on his thoughts and will probably want to proofread before posting. I say writer because…

Thirdly, this blog will accept contributions from friends. Some of you may be too busy or lazy to start a blog, yet have significant things to say that you don’t want buried on a FB timeline. Maybe I can help you out. Through the miracle of email, you can send a potential blog post to me, and if it passes my editorial scrutiny, I  will deem it worthy and post it on this blog, giving you full credit. Then you can link to it on Facebook.

This is a no frills blog. Since I am just starting out and wary about making any time or monetary commitment, I chose the free version. I don’t expect circulation beyond a few immediate friends; there is no financial upside at this point in time.

So let the experiment begin.