Category Archives: Social Issues

Is America becoming a news desert?

Posted on by

Facebook is once again changing the media landscape. The social media giant has announced it is creating Facebook News, a new section of content available that will feature a variety of different news articles.

The stories will come from outside sources, not Facebook employees and will use algorithms to deliver personalized recommendations for further reading. News Corp, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed News, the Los Angeles Times, CBS and Fox’s owned-and-operated local stations are the first media outlets to provide content.

Not everyone is impressed by this announcement.

“It’s great that Facebook is willing to pay The New York Times and Washington Post, among other national news organizations,” Larry Gilbert, Jr., the audience engagement editor for the Sun Journal newspaper in Lewiston, Maine told CNN.com. “But while the tech giant is doing that, newspapers in smaller markets across the country are closing up shop and every day more of America is becoming a news desert.”

There is no doubt the landscape of news is changing. Local newspapers struggle to survive leaving communities with little or no information on what is taking place.

The Pew Research Center reports 71% of U.S. adults think their local news media are doing well financially. However, the study also revealed 41% of Americans say they prefer getting their local news via TV and the 37% prefer it online which is dramatically different to those who favor a printed newspaper or the radio (13% and 8%, respectively).

All of this does not bode well for local newspapers. According to an Associated Press analysis of data compiled by the University of North Carolina, 1,400 cities and towns across the U.S. have lost a newspaper over the past 15 years.

Much like other media industries, local ownership is fading with companies like Gatehouse Media Inc. (the nation’s largest newspaper company) buying up the mom and pop shops. Many of these large newspaper companies are owned by hedge funds or other investors who have no interest in anything other than the bottom line.

While print maybe out of fashion, one still hopes that local communities can take advantage of and even embrace new media to keep citizens up to date on news that have a direct impact on their lives. Perhaps it might even be Facebook News.

Could you pass this test?

Posted on by

While the immigration debate continues, an interesting study was conducted Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. It found only 1 in 3 Americans would pass the citizenship test which is administered to people interested in becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

National polling found only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of the government (down from 38 percent in 2011). If you think that’s bad, 33 percent of Americans surveyed were unable to name even one branch of government.

Another poll performed by Lincoln Park Strategies found…

  • Seventy-two percent of respondents either incorrectly identified or were unsure of which states were part of the 13 original states
  • Only 24 percent could correctly identify one thing Benjamin Franklin was famous for, with 37 percent believing he invented the light bulb
  • Only 24 percent knew the correct answer as to why the colonists fought the British
  • Twelve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War; 6 percent thought he was a Vietnam War general

Not surprisingly, the poll found significant gaps depending on age. Those 65 years and older scored the best, with 74 percent answering at least six in 10 questions correctly. For those under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed with the exam, with 81 percent scoring a 59 percent or lower.

Curious on how you would do? You can see the 100 possible questions with the answers by visiting USCIS.gov. The test is given orally with USCIS Officers asking the applicant 10 of the 100 civics questions listed. You’ll need to get six out of ten to pass.

Good luck!

Texas law goes up in smoke

Posted on by

“Marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas”

So reads the letter, signed by Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, and Attorney General Ken Paxton. It may not be decriminalized, but it sure has taken an interesting turn with the passage of House Bill 1325 this past session.

The so-called “Hemp Bill” took the drug off the list of controlled substances in Texas, as long as products such as CBD oil contain no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient that gives users their buzz.

So what’s the problem? It seems measuring the difference between legal (0.3 percent) and illegal (0.4 percent) requires very special equipment which is not readily available and expensive. Some estimates projected the equipment and training for 25 new employees to be around $5.5 million annually. Since no funding was provided, many district attorneys are delaying, or even dropping low-level marijuana cases.

The letter signed by Abbott, Patrick, Bonnen and Paxton went to say…

“Since H.B. 1325 did not repeal the marijuana laws of Texas, as Judicial Branch Members, you should continue to enforce those laws by ‘faithfully executing the duties of the office of the [District or County Attorney], of the State of Texas, and … to the best of [your] ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.”

The problem is lawmakers were told before they voted that H.B. 1325 was going to make prosecuting marijuana a lot tougher. The Texas Department of Public Safety testified to state budget officials the bill would need to be funded to work.  Democratic state Rep. Tracy King’s office was told that, without funds for new lab testing, the legislation would “essentially legalize marijuana.”

It’s all part of the “un-funded mandate” game. Austin makes the rules, then wants to local jurisdictions to figure out how to pay for it. Texas lawmakers take great pride passing tax cuts, implementing new laws, then screaming foul when local authorities try to figure out how to make it work, or worse don’t try at all.

With lawmakers approving a $250.7 billion two-year budget, could someone in Austin have listened a little more carefully to the people testifying and come up with $5 million?

Words matter

Posted on by

Racist

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another – Dictionary.com

Do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable – AP Stylebook March 29,2019

The word “racist” has been widely used recently following President Trumps recent tweets about four Congresswomen who came under attack…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the past, the AP Stylebook (the holy bible for reporters and editors) urged journalists to not use a derogatory term in a story that has racial overtones unless “it is crucial to the story or the understanding of a news event”. It goes on to suggests to “flag the contents in an editor’s note”.

My how times have changed. The news agency now says terms such as “racism” and “racist” can be used in broad references or in quotations to describe “the hatred of a race, or assertion of the superiority of one race over others.” Journalists are now encouraged to report an incident racist if it is such, rather than tread softly around the word.

One example given by the AP was…

Mississippi has a history of racist lynchings, not a history of racially motivated lynchings.

So why does that matter? You need to understand that making a change to the AP Stylebook is like the Catholic church updating the canon law, it does not happen very often. Still, why should the public care?

If you still believe that not all news is fake and reporters are attempting to accurately describe what is taking place, using the right word is critical to eliminating as much confusion as possible (knowing that nothing is ever 100 percent fool proof) when it comes to telling the story.

The words journalists use can have a profound effect on people and, in today’s world of social media, blogs and other so-called news outlets, accuracy is more important than ever.

Shared experiences

Posted on by

Before I begin, I would like preface this by acknowledging that the world does not stay still and is forever changing. Whether for the good, or bad is up to the beholder to decide, but as the saying goes “the only thing that is consistent is change”.

One big change that has taken place in the past 50 years is the loss of shared experiences. With a limited amount of media outlets, less entertainment options and fewer choices, more people tended to share in the same events.

The Jack Benny Show is just one example. The program made its network television debut back in 1950. At the time, there were only three major television networks (NBC, CBS and ABC), which of course meant there were not a lot of choices.

In the 14 years it aired, The Jack Benny Show averaged a 33 rating (the 2019 Super Bowl achieved a 41 rating). Compare that number to the 7.5 rating NCIS earned the week of April 15, 2019 and you begin to see what huge difference there is in audience share. It’s also important to note The Jack Benny Show was not always the most watched program every week.

What would happen is a very large part of America tuned in to The Jack Benny show every Sunday night and then talked with co-workers, neighbors and friends about the show. It was a shared experience.

Fast forward to today with 100’s of television/cable stations, DVR’s and streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and you can see that type of shared experience is harder to come by. There are still examples of where the nation gathers to witness something in large numbers (the Super Bowl, awards shows, etc.) but those are getting harder and harder to come by.

And it’s not just television. Radio stations and formats have multiplied over the years. Add in satellite radio, Pandora and Spotify and well, you get the picture (nod of the cap to Charles Osgood and “see you on the radio”).

Researchers at Brigham Young University carried out a series of studies that showed those who shared positive experiences with others felt happier, claiming their life was more meaningful, and reported greater life satisfaction.

In study conducted by Harvard, 68 participants were split into 17 groups of four: one participant in each group was randomly assigned to watch what they were told was an ‘interesting’ video, while the remaining three watched a ‘boring’ video.

Afterwards, those who watched the ‘boring’ video felt better than those who had seen the more entertaining offering, but watched it alone.

In his 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow stated that humans share certain needs, and that these needs can be arranged in a hierarchy, from the most basic ‘deficiency’ needs (those that make us feel anxious until they’re met) to the higher level ‘growth’ needs (those that make us feel happy and fulfilled).

As our lives continue to be more invested online searching for that next offering to keep our attention, the internet that once promised an end to isolation is now forcing people to re-examine the importance of the shared experience.

Return with us to those thrilling days of yesteryear

Posted on by

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.

Exonerate

Posted on by

Here is a question for you; what do  President Trump and actor Jussie Smollett have in common? The word “Exonerate”.

Merriam-Webster defines it is as…

  1. to relieve of a responsibility, obligation or hardship
  2. to clear from accusation or blame

When the long awaited Mueller report came out (we’re still waiting to see exactly what it said), U.S. Attorney William Barr, in letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote…

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The president immediately took to Twitter saying…

It is not surprising the president would interpret the memo to his advantage, while others have looked at this saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute collusion, which people much smarter than me say that charge is very difficult to prove in court.

Now let’s head from Washington D.C. to Chicago where Empire actor Jussie Smollett claimed to have been attacked by two people in what was thought to be a hate crime.

When Chicago police investigated the attack, they determined he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.” Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly  conduct, but the story does end there.

A representative for Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office was prosecuting Smollett, said,

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

This of course led to the actor saying (through his attorneys)…

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.”

After the evitable fire storm hit the internet, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Mages (the lead prosecutor) told CNN affiliate WLS that dropping the charges did not mean the actor was exonerated. When asked whether he considered Smollett to be innocent, the prosecutor said “No.”

So where does that leave us? I would suggest on the road to nowhere.**

**a plan, project, development, or course of action that appears to have or offer no meaningful, desirable or useful conclusion.

 

News that is not fit to print?

Posted on by

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.

Fear and loathing on the border

Posted on by

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

Posted on by

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.