For much of the last twenty years - especially since the internet blossomed beyond simple websites and bulletin boards - communicating news and facts successfully through mass media has become a task of near constant repetition.
For local television stations this has been a large part of why stations that once had noon, five, and ten o'clock newscasts keep expanding, and now feature news at eleven in the morning, noon, four, five, maybe six, and a nine or ten o'clock newscast as well.
On the radio, news and infotainment programs - especially the ones filled with hate and based in propaganda - have taken to using the same techniques. As President Bush once said, "...you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
To the detriment of people all over the world - including themselves - the extremists who currently lead the Republican party have gotten very good at beating their propaganda drums on issues like cutting funding to social programs and giving unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthy.
Sadly, the latest drum beat from the far right is one they began quietly during the Presidential contest at the end of the last Bush Administration, four years ago - that America may need to go to war with Iran.
The ignorance of facts and blustering cocksure stupidity of the right when it comes to nuanced topics like diplomacy in the Middle East has been proven over and over again during the last ten or eleven years. Wisdom and concern for accurate intelligence should have been truly considered, and followed through, before the U.S. jumped from Afghanistan into Iraq. If that had been the case, then maybe a U.S. soldier who had been through four tours of duty in those war zones in the last eight years wouldn't have murdered two Afghan families in their homes over weekend, killing sixteen people - including nine children.
Maybe thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis would still be alive or un-maimed, and American diplomacy in the Middle East might be given more respect.
Those obvious failures haven't prevented the right - including three of the four Republican candidates for President - from beating war drums and using dog-whistle politics to signal to their base that they'd like to take on Iran.
Americans, however, are in no mood to go to war again. They don't even want to finish the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan right now.
In fact, last week, President Obama blasted the Republicans for talking so casually about potential conflict with Iran. This President has multiple reasons for not wanting war, not the least of which include the cost - both in dollars and blood - of what such a conflict would bring.
Obama also has significant support for not going to war with Iran from someone who knows the Iranians far better than any American - the former head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. Ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said in a weekend interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that Iran's current leadership is not only rational but logical. Dagan also points out that if anyone wants the price of oil and gas to go up quickly, nothing will do that faster than sabre-ratling against Iran - which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing.
We understand why the current leaders of the Republican Party keep doing this. GOP leader Mitch McConnell said himself, more than once: their top goal is to make Obama a one term President. If that means they have to beat the drums of war with Iran and drive gas prices up, so what? To them, that seems to be a small price to pay to win the White House.
To many moderate Republicans, however, that kind of drumbeat may have put the radicals who currently control the Republican Party in the same category as their rhetorical leader, Rush Limbaugh - and is already leading moderate and sane Republicans to abandon their party.
If we're lucky, this fall, moderate Republicans may join the rest of us, including President Obama, in silencing the insane noisemakers at the polls.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Friday Funday: Singing The Praises Of Women
While today may be Friday, we thought it important to focus on yesterday - or more importantly, focus on women.
In case you missed it, yesterday was International Women's Day, a date set aside to specifically point out the disparities between women and men, and to celebrate the successes of women. While the day is less a holiday, and more a day of awareness, we have to admit - we're incredibly proud of the women we work with and those we know in our lives.
Over the last few years - and especially over the past few months - the kinds of political and media attacks being thrown at women in general, and even specific women, have reminded us of how recently the idea of gender equality has come even anywhere close to reality.
Even saying that things are close is still exaggerating quite a bit.
According to the OECD, women perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food, earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property. While we're not sure exactly how the categories break down, we certainly agree with the fact that women get less compensation than men for the same amount of work.
Even though the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn - a pay gap that remains statistically unchanged in the last decade.
There have been a number of successes for women, however - and we're very proud of these numbers.
Eighty-seven percent of women in the U.S. now have at least four years of high school education, and often significantly more education than that. In fact, nearly 60% of all college degrees awarded in 2010 were earned by women, while half of all women in the U.S. are now college educated.
The women in our own lives and on our staff all have their own successful careers, and have at times been more successful than the men on our staff. We're pretty proud of women, in general.
We still think there are some things persons of each sex can generally do better - but we're all in favor of treating everyone with the same level of respect, and giving everyone the same opportunities, regardless of what sex they may be.
That commitment to equality is one of the many reasons it's been so disgusting to hear the loud, pompous, arrogant, misogynist Rush Limbaugh denigrate and trash women day after day. The only consolation we have for the disgusting display by Mr. Limbaugh is the number of his advertisers who have abandoned him.
Still - as fellow media member Keith Olbermann noted on his Countdown show earlier this week, if any good can be salvaged from Limbaugh's actions, it may be that Rush pointed out a low bar many of our media colleagues have ignored for too long.
We made a commitment at the beginning of 2012 to be better, and hold ourselves to higher standards, for you, our readers. Olbermann himself took a similar oath, and expanded on it this week, saying, "...from now on, we all need to be extra vigilant and dial the filter up [on being civil] a few more notches."
We firmly agree, and proudly join him in that effort. The women - and men - who enjoy our work deserve that kind of respect.
You can't expect to help everyone to soar if your're bogged down by throwing mud.
In case you missed it, yesterday was International Women's Day, a date set aside to specifically point out the disparities between women and men, and to celebrate the successes of women. While the day is less a holiday, and more a day of awareness, we have to admit - we're incredibly proud of the women we work with and those we know in our lives.
Over the last few years - and especially over the past few months - the kinds of political and media attacks being thrown at women in general, and even specific women, have reminded us of how recently the idea of gender equality has come even anywhere close to reality.
Even saying that things are close is still exaggerating quite a bit.
According to the OECD, women perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food, earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property. While we're not sure exactly how the categories break down, we certainly agree with the fact that women get less compensation than men for the same amount of work.
Even though the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn - a pay gap that remains statistically unchanged in the last decade.
There have been a number of successes for women, however - and we're very proud of these numbers.
Eighty-seven percent of women in the U.S. now have at least four years of high school education, and often significantly more education than that. In fact, nearly 60% of all college degrees awarded in 2010 were earned by women, while half of all women in the U.S. are now college educated.
The women in our own lives and on our staff all have their own successful careers, and have at times been more successful than the men on our staff. We're pretty proud of women, in general.
We still think there are some things persons of each sex can generally do better - but we're all in favor of treating everyone with the same level of respect, and giving everyone the same opportunities, regardless of what sex they may be.
That commitment to equality is one of the many reasons it's been so disgusting to hear the loud, pompous, arrogant, misogynist Rush Limbaugh denigrate and trash women day after day. The only consolation we have for the disgusting display by Mr. Limbaugh is the number of his advertisers who have abandoned him.
Still - as fellow media member Keith Olbermann noted on his Countdown show earlier this week, if any good can be salvaged from Limbaugh's actions, it may be that Rush pointed out a low bar many of our media colleagues have ignored for too long.
We made a commitment at the beginning of 2012 to be better, and hold ourselves to higher standards, for you, our readers. Olbermann himself took a similar oath, and expanded on it this week, saying, "...from now on, we all need to be extra vigilant and dial the filter up [on being civil] a few more notches."
We firmly agree, and proudly join him in that effort. The women - and men - who enjoy our work deserve that kind of respect.
You can't expect to help everyone to soar if your're bogged down by throwing mud.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Jobs, By A Nose
We hope that our loyal readers don't think we're crossing the line today, if we talk a little about the horse race. We're aware of the promise we made at the beginning of the year - but we don't think today's topic breaks that spell.
Because the kind of horse race we're talking about today has nothing to do with Mitt or Rick or Newt. And while we may be talking about the shifting winds of technology and industry, we're not talking about that blowhard Rush Limbaugh either.
We're actually talking about horseracing, as an industry - one that like so many industries, is struggling to stay alive, relevant, and affordable in 2012 and beyond.
Like so many industries - including the media industry we work in - technology has made things both easier and harder in the horse racing industry. Tracks in some states - like some in New York and New Jersey - have used new technology like remote track and historical racing to bolster and even improve the status of the horse racing industry in their states. Tracks in those states have also added other kinds of digital gambling, like video lottery terminals.
Those two states are the exception, though - not the rule.
From Maryland, to Kentucky, to Florida and Nebraska, horse racing has been on a long slide, like many other American industries. Like so many other industries, the costs of the business have just kept rising, while the profit on the business just isn't there anymore.
So, like many other short-sighted business sectors in America, those who own the horse racing industry have closed facilities, cut back amenities, cut back staff, and cut wages and benefits whenever they could. Unsurprisingly, the austerity business plan of cutting everything hasn't led to better profits for the horse racing industry any more than it's led to successful economic recoveries in Europe, or at the state level in many American states.
So-called "free market conservatives" always claim that when an industry is on a severe decline, what's needed to bring the industry back to life is innovation.
That's exactly what the horse racing industry in Nebraska has been attempting to do with an amendment to a bill before the state legislature. The amendment went through heavy debate for two days this week. Folks like well-known Nebraska Republican Scott Lautenbaugh - the sponsor of the bill - teamed up with powerful Nebraska Democrats like Health Mello, Amanda McGill, and Danielle Conrad to fight for its passage.
Opponents were worried the bill would expand gambling temptations in Nebraska. Supporters were hoping that it might expand opportunities back to what they once were in Nebraska for horse racing fans - and in doing so, keep or even create a few more jobs.
The amendment passed last night, around 7:30 - by a nose, as they say in the horse racing industry. Its passage is a testament to what can be achieved by working together across the aisle - instead of labeling all members of the opposing political party as enemies who need to be taken out back and put down.
Even with Wednesday's vote, we're not sure if the Nebraska Legislature gave an horse racing one more shot at the prize - or if their efforts will only help serve up a dying industry on a platter to banks and creditors who are always chomping at the bit. The bill itself still needs to be voted on, and we have doubts it'll even get out of the gate.
What we do know is that those senators who voted in favor of the amendment did it in an attempt to save and create jobs, while many of those who voted against the amendment let their unproven fears of gambling stampeding throughout Nebraska drive their decision making.
In an economy still trying to shake off the memories of the last few years, we'll place our bets with those willing to try and save local jobs, over those driven by fear, just about every time.
Because the kind of horse race we're talking about today has nothing to do with Mitt or Rick or Newt. And while we may be talking about the shifting winds of technology and industry, we're not talking about that blowhard Rush Limbaugh either.
We're actually talking about horseracing, as an industry - one that like so many industries, is struggling to stay alive, relevant, and affordable in 2012 and beyond.
Like so many industries - including the media industry we work in - technology has made things both easier and harder in the horse racing industry. Tracks in some states - like some in New York and New Jersey - have used new technology like remote track and historical racing to bolster and even improve the status of the horse racing industry in their states. Tracks in those states have also added other kinds of digital gambling, like video lottery terminals.
Those two states are the exception, though - not the rule.
From Maryland, to Kentucky, to Florida and Nebraska, horse racing has been on a long slide, like many other American industries. Like so many other industries, the costs of the business have just kept rising, while the profit on the business just isn't there anymore.
So, like many other short-sighted business sectors in America, those who own the horse racing industry have closed facilities, cut back amenities, cut back staff, and cut wages and benefits whenever they could. Unsurprisingly, the austerity business plan of cutting everything hasn't led to better profits for the horse racing industry any more than it's led to successful economic recoveries in Europe, or at the state level in many American states.
So-called "free market conservatives" always claim that when an industry is on a severe decline, what's needed to bring the industry back to life is innovation.
That's exactly what the horse racing industry in Nebraska has been attempting to do with an amendment to a bill before the state legislature. The amendment went through heavy debate for two days this week. Folks like well-known Nebraska Republican Scott Lautenbaugh - the sponsor of the bill - teamed up with powerful Nebraska Democrats like Health Mello, Amanda McGill, and Danielle Conrad to fight for its passage.
Opponents were worried the bill would expand gambling temptations in Nebraska. Supporters were hoping that it might expand opportunities back to what they once were in Nebraska for horse racing fans - and in doing so, keep or even create a few more jobs.
The amendment passed last night, around 7:30 - by a nose, as they say in the horse racing industry. Its passage is a testament to what can be achieved by working together across the aisle - instead of labeling all members of the opposing political party as enemies who need to be taken out back and put down.
Even with Wednesday's vote, we're not sure if the Nebraska Legislature gave an horse racing one more shot at the prize - or if their efforts will only help serve up a dying industry on a platter to banks and creditors who are always chomping at the bit. The bill itself still needs to be voted on, and we have doubts it'll even get out of the gate.
What we do know is that those senators who voted in favor of the amendment did it in an attempt to save and create jobs, while many of those who voted against the amendment let their unproven fears of gambling stampeding throughout Nebraska drive their decision making.
In an economy still trying to shake off the memories of the last few years, we'll place our bets with those willing to try and save local jobs, over those driven by fear, just about every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)