The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: policy
Network Evening Newscasts Have Abandoned Policy Coverage For 2016 Campaign

Network Evening Newscasts Have Abandoned Policy Coverage For 2016 Campaign

Walking away from a long-standing tradition of covering issues and presidential policies during campaign season, the network evening newscasts have all but abandoned that type of reporting this year, according to recent tabulations from Tyndall Report, which for decades has tracked the flagship nightly news programs.

Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.

Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates’ platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”

And here’s how that kind of in-depth coverage breaks down, year to date, by network:

ABC: 8 minutes, all of which covered terrorism.

NBC: 8 minutes for terrorism, LBGT issues, and foreign policy.

CBS: 16 minutes for foreign policy, terrorism, immigration, policing, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:

No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates’ terms, not on the networks’ initiative.

These numbers are staggering in terms of the complete retreat they represent from issues-orientated campaign coverage. Just eight years ago, the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House, the network newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage, compared to only 32 minutes so far this year. (CBS Evening News went from 119 minutes of issues coverage in 2008 to 16 this year.)

Note that during the Republican primary season alone, the networks spent 333 minutes focusing on Donald Trump. Yet for all of 2016, they have set aside just one-tenth of that for issue reporting.

And look at this: Combined, the three network newscasts have slotted 100 minutes so far this year for reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails while she served as secretary of state, but just 32 minutes for all issues coverage. (NBC’s Nightly News has spent 31 minutes on the emails this year; just eight minutes on issues.)

Indeed, this approach used to be a hallmark of presidential campaign reporting; outline what candidates stand for, describe what their presidency might look like, and compare and contrast that platform with his or her opponents. i.e. What would the new president’s top priorities be on the first day of his or her new administration?

It seems clear that the media’s abandonment of issues coverage benefits Trump since his campaign has done very little to outline the candidate’s core beliefs. Clinton, by contrast, has done the opposite.

As the Associated Press reported, “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on Clinton’s ‘issues’ page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”

Tyndall’s findings echo what other media researchers have found this campaign season, and what commentators have been noting for months:

A study released last month from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy confirmed that during the time of both parties’ conventions this summer, just eight percent of news coverage centered on policy and issues.

“During the convention period, even though questions of policy and leadership were on the agenda within the halls of the national conventions, they were not on journalists’ agenda,” wrote Harvard University professor Thomas Patterson. “Polls, projections, strategy and the like constituted about a fifth of all coverage, whereas issues took up less than 1/12 and the candidates’ qualifications for the presidency accounted for less than 1/13.”

Part of the purpose of campaign coverage, including at the flagship network newscasts, is to help inform voters about key issues of public concern. It’s troubling that the networks have decided this year to walk away from that responsibility.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters. 

Photo: A combination photo shows U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (L) and Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump (R) in Los Angeles, California on May 5, 2016 and in Eugene, Oregon, U.S. on May 6, 2016 respectively. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson (L) and Jim Urquhart/File Photos

Clinton To Press Trump To Spell Out Policy Plans In U.S. Presidential Debate

Clinton To Press Trump To Spell Out Policy Plans In U.S. Presidential Debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrat Hillary Clinton will press Republican Donald Trump to provide more specifics on his policies in their presidential debate on Monday, two top Clinton campaign aides said ahead of a face-off that could set U.S. television audience records.

On the eve of the debate at Hofstra University in suburban New York, aides to Clinton have sought to cast Trump, a New York businessman and former reality TV host, as lacking the temperament and experience to serve as president.

Trump’s aides for their part have sought to reinforce voter doubts about Clinton’s trustworthiness.

The debate, the first of three face-to-face matchups between the two candidates, will begin at 9 p.m. on Monday (0100 GMT on Tuesday). It comes as opinion polls show a tight race between Clinton, a former secretary of state, and Trump, six weeks before the November 8 election.

“We’re going to have a lot of people really tuning into this election for the first time. They’re going to see these two candidates onstage,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday in an interview with ABC’s “This Week.” “I think they’re going to see that Donald Trump is unfit, unprepared, and over his head. I doubt he will have a command of the issues.”

Mook said Clinton would challenge Trump at the debate “to reveal what his plans are. You know, for example, he has not revealed any plan whatsoever to defeat ISIS (Islamic State) militants.”

Trump has said he would work closely with NATO allies to defeat Islamic State and vowed to wage a “military, cyber and financial” war against the militant group.

“Donald Trump’s been all about himself. But she’s got to tell people what she wants to do for them,” John Podesta, chairman of Clinton’s campaign, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, in a separate “This Week” interview on Sunday, attacked Clinton’s trustworthiness.

“You know, if you’re running against a Clinton, veracity is certainly always on the table,” she said. “Hillary Clinton’s casual relationship with the truth is well known to Americans. I’m sure we’ll see it on full display tomorrow night.”

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS

The Trump campaign put to rest on Sunday the prospect that he might invite Gennifer Flowers, who had an affair with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, to attend the debate.

After Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, a Clinton supporter and vociferous critic of Trump, tweeted that he had a “front-row” seat to watch the Hofstra debate, Trump raised the possibility in a tweet of inviting Flowers to the debate.

But Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, told “Fox News Sunday” that Flowers would not attend the debate.

“Donald Trump was using the tweet yesterday really to mock an effort by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to really distract attention from what the American people are going to be focused on tomorrow night, which is on the issues, on the choice that we face,” Pence said.

Supporters of both candidates sought to manage expectations before the debate.

Mook said the moderator of Monday’s debate, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, should fact-check candidates’ statements, although Trump’s campaign said it should be up to American voters to gauge who they thought was telling the truth.

To prepare for the debate, Clinton has been holding mock debate sessions where longtime aide Philippe Reines plays the role of Trump.

Trump aides said their candidate, who like Clinton participated in numerous TV debates during their respective parties’ nominating races, was preparing for Monday’s event but not doing mock debates where someone plays the role of Clinton.

Trump’s advisers said the Republican presidential nominee was going up against a highly seasoned politician.

“He’s the outsider, he’s a person who has never run before, let alone be in a presidential debate, but he’s going to be ready,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “And I think one of the things Donald Trump has going for him is he’s got very good instincts.”

(Additional reporting by Amanda Becker; Editing by Caren Bohan and Peter Cooney)

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks with a member of her staff inside of her campaign plane as she flies back to White Plains, U.S. September 21, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Donnie’s Little Lies are Huuuuuge

Donnie’s Little Lies are Huuuuuge

An old saying asserts that falsehoods come in three escalating levels: “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Now, however, we’ve been given an even-higher level of intentional deception: Policy speeches by Donald Trump.

Take his recent highly publicized address outlining specific economic policies he would push to benefit hard-hit working families. It’s an almost-hilarious compilation of Trumpian fabrications, including his bold, statesmanlike discourse on the rank unfairness of the estate tax: “No family will have to pay the death tax,” he solemnly pledged, adopting the right-wing pejorative for a tax assessed on certain properties of the dearly departed. Fine, but next came his slick prevarication: “American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death.” Workers? The tax exempts the first $5.4 million of any deceased person’s estate, meaning 99.8 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing. So Trump is trying to deceive real workers into thinking he’s standing for them, when in fact it’s his own wealth he’s protecting.

What a maverick! What a shake-’em-up outsider! What an anti-establishment fighter for working stiffs!

Oh, and don’t forget this: What a phony!

Sure, The Donald sounds like a populist on the stump, bellowing that the systems been jerry-rigged by and for the corporate and political elites, which is killing the middle class. Well, he’s right about that, but what’s he going to do? Don’t worry, he says smugly, I’ll fix it, I’ll make the system honest again — trust me!

As Groucho Marx said, “To know if a man is honest, ask him — if he says he is, he’s a crook.” Or, in the case of this phony populist, just look at the specific policies he laid out as his fixes for our economy. Trumpeting the package as his blueprint for the “economic renewal” of America’s working class.

But Trump’s idea of “working class turns out to be millionaires and billionaires, for that’s who would get the bulk of benefits from his agenda — rewarding the very corporate chieftains he denounces in his blustery speeches for knocking down middle-income families and grabbing all of the new wealth our economy is creating. His proposed tax cuts, for example, don’t benefit low-wage workers at all and provide only a pittance of gain for those with middle-class paychecks, but corporations are given a huuuuuuuge windfall with over a 50 percent cut in their rate. His tax giveaway will also take $240 billion a year out of our public treasury — money desperately needed for such basics as expanding educational opportunities and restoring our nation’s dilapidated infrastructure.

In his policy speech, he offered a new tax break to help hard working people reduce their cost of child care “by allowing parents to fully deduct [such] spending from their taxes.” Trump even gave this push a personal touch, saying his daughter Ivanka urged him to provide a helping hand to working parents because “she feels so strongly about this.” Before you tear up over their show of dad and daughter working-class empathy, however, note that 70 percent of American households don’t make enough to warrant itemizing tax deductions. Thus, the big majority of Americans that are most in need of child care help get nothing from Trump’s melodramatic gesture. Once again, his generosity is for his own elite class, for the tax benefits would flow uphill to wealthy families like his who can purchase the platinum packages of care for their children.

What we have here is the same old failed, establishmentarian, economic elitist hokum that Republicans have been peddling for decades, only bigger and more extreme. Rhetoric aside, the reality of Trump’s plan is to replace Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down theory with his own arrogant, anti-worker scheme of tinkle-down economics. As an early 19th Century labor leader noted, “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.” That fits The Donald perfectly.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

How Donald Trump’s Doublespeak Really Works—And Is Highly Calculated

How Donald Trump’s Doublespeak Really Works—And Is Highly Calculated

Published with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump’s speaking style is said to be off the cuff and spontaneous. Far from it. He’s actually using a very sophisticated doublespeak.

One of the obligations of a candidate is to commit to policy solutions. You review a public problem, decide what you will do when in office, and report in detail how you will address the problem. You make yourself accountable for your position.

Instead of doing this, Trump practices what one might call “multiple-choice communication.” Whenever he speaks on a given topic, he gives multiple options on what he might mean.

For instance, at a recent rally in Fresno, Trump stated that, despite five years of low rainfall in California, “There is no drought. They turn the water into the ocean. If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive.”

Now, this is a very confusing statement. What could he mean? Go ahead and choose your answer to this multiple-choice problem. Does Trump mean that:

  1. There never was a drought (perhaps the drought was a myth?)
  2. There was a drought, but it has ended naturally.
  3. There was a drought, but somebody’s fixed it.
  4. There is no drought, because what others call a drought is simply their inability to drain the Sacramento River Delta and use its water for farming.
  5. There is drought, but as president of the United States, Trump will singlehandedly change California water policy. The fact that a huge engineering project, like draining the Sacramento River Delta, is theoretically possible, is the same as there never having been a drought in the first place.

Do you see how many options Trump gives us to believe? Which answer did you choose?

Now imagine some attendees at Trump’s rally. They get to choose their own answers, just like you. Some people simply feel reassured by Trump’s words there is no drought. Whew! What a relief.

Some are farmers who hear Trump say he will send them water. Thank you, Donald Trump!

Some are anti-government and are happy that climate change is a myth. No further government intervention needed. Amen!

Some are pro-government and welcome a huge engineering project. This would destabilize the ecology, the water table, real estate values, and would have countless other consequences. If you want this option, you want heavy government intervention.

These different listeners at the Trump rally are not in agreement on what needs to be done. However, because the speech is given in multiple-choice format, each hears a different promise. It may seem they’re cheering together, but they’re cheering for different results.

Back in the Republican primaries, Trump got massive media coverage by making extreme promises about immigration, trade and religious discrimination. This won him the loyalty of political extremists such as anti-foreigners and white supremacists. At this point in the campaign, Trump needs to expand his share of the American voter base by appealing to more moderate voters.

How does he appeal to moderates without losing his early extremist fans? Multiple-choice communication. This enables him to speak separately to the different listeners without changing his tune. He still speaks to the racists. But he now he’s also speaking to the moderates.

Here’s how it works.

At a rally in San Diego Trump spoke publicly about a judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University. After calling him a “very hostile judge” and a “hater,” Trump adds, “What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine.”

In fact, the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, was born in Indiana.

So let’s do the multiple-choice. Which of these is Trump saying?

  1. Anyone who gets in my way, I can single them out in a speech and focus the crowd’s hate on them.
  2. I can single out any American at any time and bring public focus on their ethnic or religious heritage.
  3. I can describe any American as foreign (as “Mexican”) rather than as an American.
  4. My racist fans may follow my lead and also single out other Americans based on their ethnic, cultural or religious heritage.
  5. Judge Curiel’s professional behavior may be based on his being Mexican.
  6. Judge Curiel’s ethnic heritage is up to my approval, and I think it’s great that he is Mexican (even though he’s not Mexican).

Let’s imagine how this sounds to the different listeners.

Say one of the people in the audience is a man named Tim, who is a white supremacist. As he listens, he hears Trump say that this American-born judge is essentially a “Mexican.” Tim thinks, “I can’t believe Trump can say this out loud! A candidate after my own heart.”

Another listener, Maria, hears this: Anyone who gets in Trump’s way might suddenly be singled out and labeled as a non-American. Especially if you’re “Mexican.” You could lose your citizenship rights. Scary! Keep your head down.

A third listener, Steve, is a moderate independent who came because he was curious. When he hears Trump saying, “it’s great to be Mexican” he thinks “Gosh, I was worried Trump was a racist. But he says Mexicans are great. I guess he’s not racist.”

You see, if Trump communicated his proposed policies (build the wall, deport, ban Muslims) like a normal candidate, we would be seeing him as an extremist and as a cruel man. That would not be very fun and would not win more voters. It’s smarter for Trump to court moderates and undecided voters by confusing them with multiple-choice statements.

Multiple-choice communication is not unique to Donald Trump. You may also have seen it in advertisements, especially when the advertiser doesn’t intend to deliver on their promises. For instance, you may see shampoos that promise men “thicker hair.” Men buy it thinking they will solve their hair loss. Nope. The shampoos make your individual hairs thicker, but don’t stop hair from falling out. The shampoo maker knows customers will make this mistake, but it’s not false advertising. You simply heard the wrong option.

The problem, of course, is that people at a Trump rally each leave having heard a different promise. And if Trump should become president, there is no way he can fulfill all of those different expectations. Which reminds us that the people who would be most let down by a Trump presidency are the people who believe in what he says.

Mark Peysha is CEO and cofounder of the Center for Strategic Intervention.

Photo: U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Sacramento, California, U.S. June 1, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson