About Wanderings

Each week I will post my current syndicated newspaper column that focuses upon social issues, the media, pop culture and whatever might be interesting that week. During the week, I'll also post comments (a few words to a few paragraphs) about issues in the news. These are informal postings. Check out http://www.facebook.com/walterbrasch And, please go to http://www.greeleyandstone.com/ to learn about my latest book.



Saturday, September 24, 2016

Readers Want News Not Fluff


by Walter Brasch

      The New York Post, a Rupert Murdoch tabloid publication that isn’t likely to win a Pulitzer Prize anytime soon, splashed a full page picture of a smiling Jennifer Anniston on its Sept. 21 front cover. In the upper left-hand space it placed all-capitals text: “BRANGELINA 2004–2016.” Inside the Post were four full consecutive pages, and a half page and part of a column deeper in the newspaper, all devoted to one of the most critical social issues facing the country—Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are getting a divorce.
      People magazine put the multi-million dollar couple on its cover, and teased us with the text: “WHY SHE LEFT” and “THE REAL STORY.” US magazine had an “EXCLUSIVE.” ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, and NBC evening newscasts all devoted air time to the divorce. “Entertainment Tonight,” “TMZ,” dozens of entertainment-fueled TV programs, Reuters and AP news services, hundreds of daily newspapers and countless online blogs all had coverage of the epic event. The news also dominated the social media, especially Twitter and Facebook. 
      Barely covered that day by the establishment media was in-depth coverage and analyses of President Obama’s speech the day before at the United Nations general assembly. Also lightly covered was a petition to the UN Human Rights Council by
the Standing Rock Sioux sovereign nation to halt construction of a $3.8 billion 1,150 mile pipeline that would not only disturb that nation’s sacred burial grounds and could possibly pollute the Missouri River, but would be built on ground seized by eminent domain by Energy Transfer Partners of Dallas, Texas.
      Why there was negligible coverage of public affairs issues and maximum coverage of a celebrity divorce is based upon economics and poor business practices.
      Media profits, once running anywhere from 5 to 30 percent, depending upon the medium, declined significantly in the Great Recession during the last two years of the Bush–Cheney administration. Businesses significantly cut their advertising budgets; consumers stopped subscriptions.
      It wasn’t long before consultants, not editors, were making decisions about ways to increase profits. The consultants, some making $500 per hour, advised owners to compensate for the decline of profits, they needed to cut back on the news staffs, as well as the budgets for in-depth coverage and salaries. With the decline of newsroom positions came more work for those who stayed on news staffs but, overall, fewer locally-produced stories, and increase in errors because of fewer copyeditors. The cuts in circulation now came not just from those who couldn’t afford the newspaper or magazine, but from those who saw a diminished news product and turned to other media for their information. With the decline in circulation came a forced decline in the cost of an ad leading to further declines on advertising revenue. The consultants often recommended turning to syndicates for news and to increase entertainment and celebrity news. The consultants were wrong.
      Studies by the Pew Institute and the American Society of Newspaper Editors revealed that consumers wanted news not fluff. A Pew Study showed that during the first decade of the 21st century, only 17 percent of consumers who turned to mass media for news followed personalities, entertainment, and celebrity scandals “very closely.” Of the 19 categories, only coverage of other nations and science/technology ranked lower. Studies by the ASNE of interest in the current decade place celebrity news and scandals at the bottom of all categories.
      The evidence is obvious—Americans want, and need, news. Hard news and not fluff. They want to know about weather, crime, and politics. They also want to see and read stories about health, the environment, and social issues that directly affect them.
      But editors and media owners, for the most part, still believe entertainment and celebrity news is the way to restore circulation. And that’s why celebrity marriages, divorces, and scandals seem to be at the core of so many publications—and a major reason why circulation is declining for print newspapers and viewership in non-print media is not as strong as it could be.
      Journalists and owners can blame the rise of digital and social media for stealing readers, but they are wrong. When news returns to newspapers, readers will follow.
      [Dr. Brasch is professor emeritus of mass communications/journalism from Bloomsburg University. His latest book is Fracking America: Sacrificing Health and the Environment for Short-Term Economic Benefit.]

      

Saturday, September 17, 2016

The 24/7 Sneeze Factor



by Walter Brasch

      Hillary Clinton is recovering from a mild case of pneumonia. However, shortly after she collapsed at Ground Zero while part of the 15th annual memorial of 9/11, her campaign staff said she was just exhausted and suffered heat exhaustion. It took a couple of days for her to reveal the extent of her medical issue.
      Donald Trump, who had many times this past year questioned Clinton’s health and suggested she should leave politics, now tweeted he was hoping his Democratic opponent would have a quick recovery. However, the Renegade Republicans, fueled by scandal-makers of the conservative media, think Clinton is a piƱata, and are hitting her hard—she has Parkinson’s disease; she suffered from a concussion; the Democratic National Committee is working on how to replace her because she is so ill; she is on her death-bed, and a body double is the one the public is seeing.
      Prior to Clinton’s bout with pneumonia, she had released a two page letter from her physician stating medical specifics about her health; he concluded Clinton is in excellent health.
      Donald Trump is still bobbing and weaving on releasing his medical records. Long after Clinton provided her medical statement, Trump released four paragraphs of juiced-up superlatives that read more like a campaign PR release than something a physician would write—Trump is “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency . . . [His] strength and physical stamina are extraordinary . . .  [his] laboratory test results are astonishingly excellent . . .  [his] his blood pressure and lab results were astonishingly excellent.” He followed that up with an appearance on the Dr. Oz TV show where he deposited more PR poop.
      Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who had said Clinton’s medical problems should not be an issue, declared, “I will be the fittest president of the United States ever.” Jill Stein, the Green party nominee, isn’t questioning anyone about personal health care problems, but may know more about medical issues than all the candidates—she’s a physician.
      All presidents had medical issues, but were still effective. Among the maladies, George Washington had recurring infections and malaria, Thomas Jefferson suffered from severe headaches, Woodrow Wilson had several strokes, Warren G. Harding had congestive heart failure, Franklin D. Roosevelt suffered from polio, John F. Kennedy had severe colitis and back problems, and Ronald Reagan had severe eye and ear problems, colon polyps, and early-onset Alzheimer’s Disease while in office.
      However, the 24/7 news media, desperate to fill time and pretending to be investigative journalists, have spent more time in the past decade peeling away layers of presidential candidate health histories than they have spent in asking tough policy questions. No matter who becomes the next president, one thing is clear—the media will be milking every detail for at least a week before finding some other story to report. Here is a scenario of how the media will probably deal with a president’s health issues.
 
      TV Anchor: This is Clyde Sparrow. The President sneezed about 2:45 this afternoon. We understand it lasted about three seconds. We have team coverage for this urgent and breaking news. We now take you live to the emergency room of the Bethesda Naval Hospital. Standing by LIVE with an exclusive you’ll hear only on Eye Witless News is Lance Redux.
      Lance Redux: The President hasn’t yet arrived, but in the meantime we’ll be interviewing bystanders, orderlies, and maybe even a nurse or two. Security is extraordinarily tight, and only the 237 accredited reporters have been allowed into the ER at this point. Back to you, Clyde.
      Clyde Sparrow: With an exclusive live interview, heard only on our network, we go to Susie Sweetwater with Sen. Porkbelly Pineapple at the Capitol.
      Susie Sweetwater: Sen. Pineapple, we just heard that the President’s sneeze was in sympathy with the plight of Americans everywhere. Do you agree?
      Sen. Pineapple: While all of us Americans are concerned about the President’s health, this particular sneeze was the result of a President who has disregarded the wishes of the people and the Congress.
      Clyde Sparrow: For an opposing view, we turn to Rep. Horace Sludgepump.
      Rep. Sludgepump: While I don’t wish to disagree with my esteemed and most distinguished colleague from the other side of the capitol, I should point out that the cretins from the other party filibustered the death of so many of our great and glorious programs which were designed by our party to help the working class, and that’s why the president put a chicken in every pot in this glorious country, sneezed, and—.
      Clyde Sparrow (interrupting): The President’s personal physician is about to make an announcement. We now go live to the White House.
      Dr. Alfred Chiu: The sneeze was probably caused by a pollutant in the air, but we haven’t identified it as yet.
      Reporter 1: Harry Hotlips. ABC News. Doctor, can you identify that pollutant?
      Dr. Chiu: As I mentioned, we haven’t yet identified that pollutant.
      Reporter 2: Judy Jumpstart, CBS-TV. Just how serious is this pollutant?     
      Dr. Chiu: We can’t determine how serious the pollutant is until we can identify it, but we’re pretty sure the sneeze poses no problem to the president’s health or threatens anyone near the president. I classify it as insignificant.
      Reporter 3: Darla Dazzling, NBC-TV. Doctor, what kind of pollutant could that have been? And does it have long-term effects?
      Dr. Chiu: I don’t know, but we will try to find out.
      Reporter 4: Sid Serious, CNN. Doctor, could you indicate what you believe would be the world consequences of this particular sneeze, and is the president or the Secretary of State notifying world leaders?
      Dr. Chiu: The president doesn’t believe this is important enough to notify anyone.
      Reporter 5: Polly Prattle, New York Post. What kind of illegal drugs has the President been taking?
      Dr. Chiu: The sneeze doesn’t call for drugs at this time.
      Reporter 6: Suzy Tanktop, Fox News. Can you identify the illegal drugs? And, how long has the president been snorting cocaine brought into the White House from the Colombian cartel?
      Dr. Chiu: The president is healthy and no drugs are necessary.
      Reporter 7: Edie Excrement, TMZ. So, the sneeze is the result of taking too many drugs. Is it because the president is in the process of a divorce or is it because the president is nervous because of preparing for a screen test?
      Dr. Chiu: I think I’m becoming ill . . .
      Clyde Sparrow: We have breaking news. LIVE from Dubuque, Iowa is Pauly Populist.
      Pauly Populist. In an exclusive you’ll only hear on the Eye Witless News Network, we are live from Dubuque, Iowa. Again, we are LIVE in Dubuque with breaking news. With us is Creepshot Commoner, an assistant night shift manager at McDonald’s. The entire world wants to know your opinion of this cataclysmic event.
      Creepshot Commoner: I think this latest health crisis is so severe that the president needs to step down for the good of the country. And, whoever the vice-president is should not become president because he’s probably also been infected.
      Clyde Sparrow. We temporarily interrupt our own in-depth team coverage to return you to the White House where the president’s physician appears to be babbling incoherently.
      [Dr. Brasch isn’t making any guesses about anyone’s health condition. But, he does recommend his latest book: Fracking America: Sacrificing Health and the Environment for Short-Term Economic Benefit.]

     


Friday, September 9, 2016

O Say Can You See the First Amendment?



by Rosemary and Walter Brasch



      Before a football game against the Green Bay Packers two weeks ago, Colin Kaepernick, San Francisco 49ers quarterback, refused to stand for the pre-game patriotic ceremony that is wound around the singing of the “Star Spangled Banner.” Kaepernick later said he was “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” and said his stance, a quiet form of civil disobedience, was to him “bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” Several professional athletes had previously protested what they saw as police brutality directed against Blacks; about 70 percent of NFL players are Black. However, Kaepernick’s actions received far more attention because he was the quarterback to a Super Bowl championship team and the 49er–Packers game was televised to a national audience.

      The NFL, many of Kaepernick’s team mates, and civil rights activists across the country supported his right of protest; that right was burnished into the First Amendment. Others said he was unpatriotic, a disgrace, and a hypocrite for taking a six year $114 million contract, with $61 million guaranteed and the rest based on various bonuses. The Santa Clara police union issued a threat—its officers might not wish to work at future 49er games if the team’s management didn’t discipline Kaepernick. About 70 police are security for each of the home games.

      Before the game against the San Diego Chargers this past week, Kaepernick said “The media painted this as I’m anti-American [but] that's not the case at all.”

      During the 1960s, hippies often sewed flag patches to their jeans to cover up holes. The establishment coiled up in fear that those who looked and acted different from them not only were unpatriotic but posed a threat to God, mother, and apple pie.

      Today, just about every sub-group of society, from homeless teens through affluent senior citizens wear T-shirts, shorts, bandanas, and every kind of clothing imaginable with the American flag depicted on it. At the Olympics, American athletes even wrapped themselves in oversized flags. And no one complained about their disrespect.
      During the late 1940s to the 1970s, thousands of persons, mostly in the arts, were subjected to Congressional hearings that were ways to ferret out those whose political beliefs did not match the two major political parties’ idea of what a “true American” should be. Businesses and numerous governmental bodies demanded workers to sign loyalty oaths. Those who had no allegiance signed; thousands who were patriots did not and stood up to the politicians and business owners, risking their own careers but knowing such oaths were unconstitutional and discriminatory.
      In the 1960s, a few million Americans sat down at lunch counters or on the streets to demand that state and the federal governments adhere to the Constitution to allow all citizens the right to vote and to receive equality under the law.
      In thousands of classrooms in 26 states, the day begins with an obligatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, written by a socialist in 1892 and adopted by Congress as the national pledge in 1945. Those who refuse to stand or who stand and remain silent or who don’t mouth “under God,” are exercising their First Amendment rights.

      Colin Kaepernick repeated his constitutional right of dissent this past week when he kneeled down during the ceremony. Next to him was safety Eric Reid who also took a knee rather than stand.

      Kaepernick did not rant and rave; he did not destroy property or threaten anyone’s life. He just refused to stand.

      Those who condemned him for what they mistakenly saw as his anti-American action might be the ones who defame the flag and American patriotism. Here’s are some questions that need to be answered.

      The Flag Code suggests that when the National Anthem is played, persons should stand and cover their heart with their right hand. There is no federal law that requires anyone to stand, but how many who do stand take off their baseball caps and put their right hand over their heart?

      How many Americans fly tattered and weather-worn flags in front of their houses, businesses, and municipal buildings, also Flag Code violations?

How many Americans get rid of the worn-out flags, according to the Flag Code?

      June 14 is Flag Day. How many American newspapers run full color, full page depictions of the flag—and tie advertising blocks to it?

During the first Gulf War in 1991, how many Americans flew the flag to show American pride, but were intolerant of minorities and those who rightfully protested that war or who didn’t put a flag in their house windows or by their mail boxes? It was during that war that thousands of businesses flew flags, believing the larger the flag, the greater the patriotism, but still treated their workers shabbily or outsourced jobs to other countries. Just how patriotic is that?

How many Americans are willing to send their youth to war, but when they return home don’t give them jobs, counseling, or adequate medical assistance? Shouldn’t that be unpatriotic?

How many Americans who flew flags after 9/11 thought it was acceptable to violate the Constitution by rallying behind a government that was engaged in overt practices to deny American citizens their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights? How many Americans disregard the part of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion, and attack American citizens who are Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, or any religion other than Christian?  

How many Americans don’t know much about history, political science, or current events, yet screech bar-room ignorance about what they think is wrong with the country, while doing nothing to improve it?

In the last two months of a presidential election, how many Americans follow politicians who stand in front of large American flags, wear tiny metal flags on their lapels or collars, and condemn other politicians who don’t wear flags?

      How patriotic is it when a millionaire politician hides money in an off-shore account to avoid paying his or her fair share of taxes?

About 94 percent of all American flags are produced in China, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. How many Americans buy flags and all kinds of merchandise made in other countries, while neglecting American-made products?

The American flag is material. It is not who we are or what we believe, nor is singing or standing for the “Star Spangled Banner,” which became the national anthem only in 1931, 155 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Constitution allows for divergent beliefs. Those who don’t recite the Pledge or sing the Anthem are no less of a patriot than those who are determined to make their voice the loudest in the room, while their own actions show them to be nothing more than jingoistic opportunists.

      Patriotism can mean standing up—or sitting down—for social justice.
      [Rosemary Brasch before retirement was a secretary, Red Cross family services national disaster specialist, and university instructor in labor studies. Walter Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist, patriot, and professor emeritus of mass communications from Bloomsburg University, who refused to sign a loyalty oath to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His latest book is Fracking America: Sacrificing Health and the Environment for Short-Term Economic Benefit.]