Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for producing original reporting that makes a difference in our community. Their coverage of how the state of Texas funds public education has woken up lawmakers who are taking a serious look the way the school endowment is funded and what can be done to improve it.
When you include their other investigations, You understand the importance of going beyond the headlines and uncovering what is really taking place.
Abuse of Power
Heart Failure
Denied
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjyn Nielsen recently resigned. The besieged top person charged with protecting our borders often butted heads with President Trump and his desire to enforce tougher immigration.
“I hope that the next Secretary will have the support of Congress and the courts in fixing the laws which have impeded our ability to fully secure America’s borders and which have contributed to discord in our nation’s discourse,” Nielsen wrote in the two-page letter. “Our country — and the men and women of DHS — deserve to have all the tools and resources they need to execute the mission entrusted to them.”
What I find interesting is the timing of her resignation. It has been reported that Nielsen had no intention of quitting when she went to the meeting Sunday with the president and that she was forced to step down. The announcement of her departure came shortly after the meeting.
So why now? I wonder if Trump watched her interview with CNN’s Chris Como.
During the interview (which was not included by CNN in this clip), Como acknowledged the very difficult job border agents have and how he witnessed many of them showing compassion and working hard to keep everyone safe in the shelters. Como also pointed out how the current immigration laws often impede border agents from doing their job.
Nielson responded by thanking Como for recognizing the work being done and appreciated him making that point. She also agreed that immigration laws have to be improved to help solve this issue.
So was that the preverbal straw that broke the camel’s back? One has to wonder what Trump thought of his secretary appearing on CNN and thanking the host. The president and CNN have butted heads since he announced his candidacy and if history is any indication, it had to go over like a lead zeppelin.
Maybe it was time to for Nielson to go, but it sure seems like her CNN appearance did not do her any favors.
iHEARTMEDIA is at it once again, this time trimming down news departments at radio stations in what appears to be an attempt to reduce expenses as they prepare to launch their initial public offering. The company was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2018 and are planning to use the net proceeds from the offering to pay off its debt.
Now as an old radio guy, I could get on my soapbox and preach how radio isn’t what it used to be (I’d be right, but that’s not the point). Check out this promo from NewsRadio 740 KTRH…
The point is things change. Over the past 50 years, media has changed from people turning to print for their information, followed by radio, television and now the internet.
With each passing new phase, the demises of the former media channels has been predicted with great gusto. The internet alone has been predicted to kill off newspapers, radio and television as we know it!
The Washington Post posted an op/ed piece in 2018 written by Douglas McLennan, founder and editor of ArtsJournal and Jack Miles, a Pulitzer Prize and MacArthur “genius” award-winning author that in part said…
Thomas Jefferson saw newspapers as so fundamental a democratic institution that they were the only alternative to repeated violent revolutions: “This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution.”
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about radio, television or Twitter. Oh, and this was the same person who started a “partisan” (which is a nice way of saying “fake”) newspaper, the National Gazette, to attack his rival Alexander Hamilton and the policies of the Washington administration.
There is no doubt the newspaper industry is changing and faces serious challenges. In the same op/ed piece the authors claim…
Weekday print circulation has shrunk from a high of nearly 60 million in 1994 to 35 million for combined print and digital circulation today — 24 years of decline. Advertising revenue has cratered, falling from $65 billion in 2000 to less than $19 billion in 2016. Newsroom employment fell nearly 40 percent.
I do think it’s important to remember part of the issue is the growing number of media outlets in general. Long gone are the days when there were five – seven radio stations, three TV stations and one newspaper. The world of media has expanded to where nobody can get the kind of circulation or ratings they once enjoyed. It doesn’t mean they are going away, it just means that a Washington Post or CBS Evening News audience is being more and more split up and thus shrinking.
Which brings us back to IHEARTMEDIA and their plans to cut newsroom staff. The problem is, there is no money to be made in radio news. Many stations that brand themselves as NewsRadio, are mostly talk stations that offer a bare amount of morning news.
So, this should not come as a shock to anyone longing for the thrilling days of yesteryear when radio was king and and you turned on the receiver to find out what was happening in the world.
The Houston Chronicle printed an interesting story on Why the media stayed quiet as Houston integrated it’s counters. The article talked about how Houston media basically buried any negative integration stories in an attempt not to inflame protests and riots.
The author (Mike Snyder) wrote “today, ignoring or playing down a major news story like the integration of lunch counters would be unthinkable”. In a more recent example, Snyder pointed out that The New York Times delayed publication of an explosive story about warrantless wiretapping for a year in response to concerns about national security expressed by President George W. Bush’s administration.
What I think the author missed was that the major media outlets at the time were owned by either the Jones or Hobby family who were very much part of the community. I don’t think you would see this happen in today’s world of consolidation and big corporate media.
That being said, it’s still worth reading about how the times continue to change.
“I never worked for Russia”
Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.
I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.
As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.
Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.
Remember these lines…
In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.
Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.
Bridge Ratings, who provide station-based on-demand music streaming data, released some interesting analysis. They report that traditional radio missed 40 percent of the most-streamed music by their listeners in December 2018.
According to their data, over 80 percent of Americans stream music in an average month. Unlike traditional methods of music research such as phone surveys, auditorium testing, etc., on-demand streaming accurately measures how much a song is being listened to.
Bridge Ratings points out that radio listeners who stream have different tastes than radio non-users or radio “lite-users”, but the research begs the question; could over-the-air radio stations perform better in the ratings if they play more of the music being listened to via the internet.
This chart compares each format’s “hit-delivery” with its 2017 performance…
(How to read: Urban radio missed or underplayed nearly 50% of the songs that were most-streamed by the format’s P1 or heavy listeners. Country radio missed 26%)As anyone who has ever listened to traditional radio knows, increased commercial loads are reducing time spent listening, a key factor when calculating ratings. This increase in advertisers are causing more and more listeners to go to streaming sources for their music.
Factor in they are not hearing songs they like on the radio and you can start to see a formula for trouble. According to Bridge Ratings…
We know from our own experience over the past four years, that an increasing number of commercial radio programmers are using on-demand streaming research in some form to better-align their music playlists and to properly reflect the tastes of their listeners. Yet, there are far more programmers who do not believe in the data and do not use it either on its own or in combination with other forms of research they may be comfortable with.
It could turn out that streaming and not video will kill the radio star.
As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.
A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.
The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)
The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…
Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:
People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.
So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.
In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.
Newspapers have long been seen as a dying medium, but it may soon be joined by broadcast television. The New York Times is reporting that viewership continues to fall. Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are snatching up younger demos left and right.
The Wall Street Journal reported more than 1 million consumers cut the cable in the past quarter (May-Aug. 2018), and moving to streaming services so what is going on? (Streaming services can include broadcast television and cable programming, but makes it harder to count the number of viewers) .
Much of the programming offered on broadcast TV these days are “re-boots,” shows brought back from the past that get a face lift (Murphy Brown, Hawaii 5-0, Will and Grace and show formally known as Rosanne). While this strategy worked for a while, it is becoming clear that audiences are looking for more.
Broadcast television can still tout franchises like Law & Order, and medical shows still are able to pull in decent ratings, but at much smaller audience sizes. Reality shows are also not immune from this trend. Dancing With the Stars has fallen by more than 31 percent this season and Shark Tank has loss of 33 percent causing us to wonder when the investor hosts bail on a sinking ship.
Re-boot shows that were relevant 20 – 30 years ago no longer fit the today’s millennial lifestyle. Take a look at what programs won an Emmy in 2018. While not a good way to measure ratings, cable outlets and streaming services dominated with wins which you have to believe is due to superior programs.
There’s another challenge for broadcasters. Long gone are the days when viewers only had two to three choices. Jack Benny ruled Sunday nights with enormous shares having President Kennedy quipping that he was too busy to watch most television but that he made the time to watch The Jack Benny Program each week.
There’s still some good news for broadcasters, it’s called football. The ratings for the week of Nov. 5, 2018, saw 6 of the top 10 programs tied to football programming (not just the games, but pre/post game programs). The rights to broadcast the games continue to soar, but so far, over the air broadcasters are able to hold on to them.
As we used to say in the biz, content is king or put another way “if you build it, they will come”.
There continues to be a blurring of the lines in the fourth estate. The most recent incident involves CNN reporter Jim Acosta who had his credentials removed after a testy exchange with President Trump. The White House claims Acosta made contact with an intern when he refused to give back the microphone. CNN has sued the White House in an effort to reinstate Acosta. A judge issued a court order to temporarily reinstate his pass, but it’s going to be tough for viewers (especially of Fox News) to accept Acosta can remain objective in his reporting.
This is not about whether or not the White House has the right to revoke a reporters credentials (I do in fact believe they have that right under the proper circumstances). There are other CNN reporters that have access to the White House, so it’s not like the entire news organization has been banned. My problem with all of this is when a reporter becomes part of the story.
Having reporters like Acosta appear on programs such as Anderson Cooper 360 puts them in a tough spot. Any time a reporter shows up on a talking head show, they run the risk of delving into the land of speculation which can lead them down the slippery slope of offering an opinion. Now he has become part of the story which in the minds of many, (myself included) casts doubts on his ability to be objective in his reporting.
And this issue is not exclusive to CNN. The White House promoted Fox News broadcaster/journalist Sean Hannity was scheduled to appear with President Trump at a campaign rally before November’s election. That immediately set off an uproar about journalistic integrity. Hannity later said he was broadcasting his show from the rally, but was not there to make an appearance, although when the president invites you up to stage, what are you going to do, say no? Even Fox News called it an “unfortunate distraction” and Hannity, who was advertised to appear on Fox News election coverage ended up being a no show.
I personally don’t consider Hannity a journalist in the true sense of the word. I also don’t find Anderson Cooper one either, but that’s okay, talk show hosts can play an important role in updating and educating their audience, but I do think we need to hold reporters and news anchors (not talking heads) to a higher standard and have them report the news, not be a part of it.
I’m Back (maybe)
Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.
It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.
Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.
Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.
Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.
Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.