Media matters: Fighting back against the bullies

        Keep in mind, I was a newspaper person for decades. So, yes, I'm partial to the media. I know the job isn't as easy as you might think, especially when you deal with jerks.
      And there are media people I did not respect all that much. But attacks on the media -- or disdain toward media people -- I don't like it. This has been a previous subject in this blog, so maybe you know how I feel.

      I find it disgusting, a copout, a poor excuse. But don't get the wrong idea. This is about football coaches, not politics. 

      Oh, I'll touch on politics -- but only for a moment.

      I don't agree at all when I hear the President -- making great use of his (appropriately named) bully pulpit -- attack the "dishonest, lying" media, just as he did as a candidate and then as President-elect. I think it is BS, Nixon-like paranoia, and we know how Nixon's political career ended.

      It takes a dishonest, lying person -- a bully -- to use those words. And it's every darned day; it gets old. It is a declared war.
      Media people are doing their jobs. If they don't agree with the President's actions and words, they are labeled "dishonest" and "lying." They are being told, by the President's top advisor, to "shut up."
      Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's not what the First Amendment is about.

      You don't like what I'm writing, you don't agree ... tough. Take it elsewhere. You are not going to convince that I am off-base, and I'm not going to convince you how ignorant you are to believe everything that's being said and done.

      I could do another whole blog on this (but I already have). Repeating what I said then: When I hear "mainstream media," it is a glittering generality. Be specific, give me names. Don't just say "the media."

      OK, I am going to leave it there. Back to football.

      Media access for those covering the NFL and college football is as limited as it ever has been. It is ridiculous; it is paranoia-plus. It is an undeclared war. 

Nick Saban: Election? What election? He's friendly and
 cooperative with the media only when he wants to be.

      Head football coaches, almost without exception, are running a secret society. They are a bunch of bullies. Yet we -- fans and, yes, sportswriters and talking heads -- glorify them, treat them like rock stars, like gods.

      Some of these coaches are being paid millions and millions of dollars -- that's the market now -- and it's all too much, in my opinion. Football should not be that important ... but in America, it is. And so are the coaches, unfortunately.

      When I wrote about this at the start of the 2015 football season -- http://nvanthyn.blogspot.com/2015/09/ready-for-football-except-for-those.html -- a man I was about to interview first admonished me for that blog piece. I did not apologize, and I'm not apologizing now.
      And because we all look for affirmation of our beliefs (as we do about political matters), I found mine in a Sports Illustrated article by its media columnist Richard Deitsch posted Jan. 19.
      His main point is this "one voice" aspect that is almost universally followed now by head football coaches (NFL, college). Only one person -- the head coach -- speaks to the media. Access to the players is severely limited.
       These media-limited policies began, I believe, with Bill Parcells, an interesting guy and also a bully who passed it on to his cronies -- the unsmiling Bill Belichick (great friend of Nick Saban), Tom Coughlin, Al Groh, and on down the line. Soon it became standard procedure.
      We still like watching the games, we like the competition, we accept that brutality -- injuries, especially concussions and long-lasting effects -- are part of football and always will be. There's only so much that can be done to make the game "safer."
       (I use "like" instead of "love" for football now; I am, as I wrote last week, enjoyed it less and less. And part of the reason for that is the coaches' attitudes.)
 ---
       Here is how Deitsch began his article: 
       "I know, I know. Nobody wants to hear about the complaints of the sport media. But this is something that impacts you as a reader.                            

       "As part of an NFL roundtable discussion on a number of NFL-related topics, I asked six beat writers what they considered to be the most absurd media restriction in their market. I’ve always thought one of the most foolish media restrictions in sports was college football coaches not allowing assistant coaches to speak to the media. The restriction always struck me as strange (yes, I know Nick Saban has won a billion titles with it), especially given how successful teams in other college sports have no issues with their assistants speaking (e.g. Auriemma, Geno). It’s also an odd message to send to student-athletes: Only one person speaks for the program. But I digress."

       Here are some of the writers' responses:
       • Les Bowen, Eagles beat writer/columnist, Philadelphia Daily News: "I could write until my fingers bleed on this. There are about a dozen things that make it hard to do our jobs, starting with the fact that last year, the Eagles moved us from the media room, next to the media relations offices, into an outbuilding at the far edge of the parking lot, next to the entry gate. We have less access to the main building than we had previously. Also, we also only watch warmups and a brief bit of individual drills during the season; most of practice, we don’t see. And after games, the coach takes so long to come to the postgame press conference, if you go to that, you miss the players in the locker room. Then there is accessibility when it comes to the GM and the owner."                             

       • Mike Freeman, NFL writer, Bleacher Report. "The most ridiculous restriction of all time is not allowing journalists to cover practice. You hear from coaches and players how writers don’t understand football. So the logic is then to let us see less football?                            

       • John McClain, NFL writer, Houston Chronicle.  "Don’t get me started. How in the world did Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Noll and Bill Walsh build dynasties while they allowed reporters to watch practice and interview their assistant coaches? Most coaches are so paranoid today. Not allowing assistants to talk to the media except when it’s required by the league is preposterous. I think these restrictions on assistant coaches are ridiculous. I value relationships I built with players and coaches with the Oilers that I never will be able to forge with the Texans because the rules are so different. You can’t just talk and get to know them anymore because access is so limited. And who decided so many players talk once a week and players don’t have to do but a few conference calls with visiting media? Why were those rules implemented?"

       • Armando Salguero, NFL columnist, Miami Herald. "I covered Don Shula. And the way it worked was, after practice he’d come over and speak to reporters. And if, during that time, I preferred to go an speak with an assistant, I could do that — all the time recognizing I was missing what DON FREAKIN’ SHULA was saying. The point is Don Shula didn’t keep his assistants off limits. He had no fear that their message would be different than his message. (Maybe because he put out a message and everyone fell in line). I find that keeping assistants off limits to the media is about fear by head coaches and organizations. They are afraid someone might say something that doesn’t agree with the “one voice” message. That’s not an attempt by an organization or the head coach to protect position coaches. That’s an attempt by an organization or the head coach to protect itself or himself."                             

       • Eric Branch, 49ers beat reporter, San Francisco Chronicle: "The 49ers’ highest-profile players -- NaVorro Bowman, Colin Kaepernick, etc. -- are typically only available to reporters once during the week and those sessions are often cut off prematurely as a member of the PR staff announces, 'Last question.' It’s very little access to the team’s top players, particularly when compared to those in other sports: LeBron James and Mike Trout routinely speak to the media twice in the same day.                            

       • Mary Kay Cabot, Browns beat reporter, Cleveland.com: "I dislike the fact that we’re not allowed on the field before the games. We used to be, and I always took advantage of it. In addition to running into some interesting people and celebrities, you can often the read the vibe of the team or the mood of a player heading into a game. You can glean something from pregame warmups and you can see how players interact with each other and their coaches. You see who the owner likes to talk to before games, and you have some great photo opportunities. There are tons of people on the sidelines before the game, from guests to corporate sponsors to people’s children and grandchildren -- and the media covering the team is not allowed down there. The other thing I don’t love is the once-a-week player designation. In the NFL, a few star players only have to talk to the media once a week, but lately it seems like too many players are only talking once a week. Here’s another way to solve the access issue. Once or twice a week, in addition to locker room access, let the media into the players’ lounge to have a more relaxed conversation with a player sitting on a couch, or over a game of ping-pong. Let us get to know the players and tell their stories. Don’t be afraid. It will be O.K."
--- 
     Of course, I empathize with these media people. Several of my friends and former co-workers are still covering college football and NFL teams, and I'm happy for them that (1) they're still employed and (2) doing what they love to do, and what needs to be done.
      I often have been critical in this blog about Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones. But I will give him this: As far as I can tell, he makes himself available to the media -- because he loves the camera and those mikes. Do I pay attention to what he says? I do not. But he's there for the media.
      Jason Garrett, however, I think is as bland, as predictable, as secretive and paranoid as any coach in the NFL. Fits right in.
      But let's go back to -- other than the eccentric and wound-tight Jim Harbaugh -- the most fascinating character in college football: Nick Saban. He can be cooperative with the media and often is, and when he feels like ranting and going off on somebody or some subject, he does. He's the king; he knows it, and he shows it.
      (And Dabo Sweeney of national champion Clemson has a charming side to his personality. But we've seen some Saban-like rants from him, on the sideline and with the media.)
      While I'm sure there were other low spots during this past football season, it was Saban who provided the low spot for me. Back to politics.
      When he was asked about the Presidential election the day after Mr. Trump's victory, Saban replied that he was unaware that Tuesday (Nov. 8) was Election Day.

      "It was so important to me that I didn't even know it was happening," Saban told the media. "We're focused on other things here."

      Oh, good god. How macho. Football is the only thing that matters. The rest of society be damned.
      I feel sure that Alabama had some football players who were eligible to vote. Maybe the head coach could have dealt in some civics lessons for his players. Or does that matter, as long as they win games?
      Give Saban credit, though. He followed up that inane comment with an explanation of why  he didn't want to talk about politics.
       "If I say I like one person, that means everybody that voted for the other person doesn't like me," Saban said. "So, why would I do that? I want what's best for our country. I'm not sure I can figure that out.
       "I want what's best for people who want to improve the quality of their life. I hope whoever our leader is will do all that he can do to make our country safe and improve the quality of life for a lot of the people we have in our country and I don't think I am qualified to determine who that should be."
      Of course, he's qualified to tell the media what they should think.
       As it relates to football and to the head coaches -- hello, Nick and Sabo and Gary Patterson and Harbaugh, Urban Meyer, Jim McElwain, Bobby Petrino and even (when he returns to the game) Les Miles, and all the rest, here's what I think can improve quality of life: Don't be such secretive, tight asses.
       As for the bully President and his buddies, attack the media all you want. Make it the enemy; it's a convenient, easy target. Throw all that general crap out there because a lot of people believe everything you say. And a lot of us don't believe much at all.
       Be sure that the media will fight back. Truth will win out.
 

Lambright, Part IX: Maxie and the media

      (Part IX)
      He was an outstanding football coach, no question. Maxie Lambright was far from a media star, and had no desire to be.
      He was -- honestly -- predictable and careful and, well, even dull. But never, to our knowledge, unwilling or uncooperative.
      It just wasn't a priority for him, and that was fine.
      Some coaches do well with the media and enjoy the tradeoff, some offer good material -- quotes, stories, barbs -- and merely tolerate it, some can be harsh, rude, curt or short and openly detest the time and effort it requires.
      Coach Lambright understood the media's role.
      "He was a dream to work with simply because he was so cooperative and allowed me to do my job," said Keith Prince, the sports information director at Louisiana Tech for 25 years, the first 10 (1969-78) with Lambright as the football coach and, for all but one of those years, also the athletic director.
      "In all the years, he was so cooperative and, with me, so gentle. I had so much admiration for him. He gave me such strong support. ... He was always in my corner if things came up."

Keith Prince

     Reporters knew that Lambright likely would not provide great insight to postgame analysis nor engage in much casual conversation.
     "From the media standpoint, he didn't cut them short," Prince said. "It seemed to me that he had less to say when we [Tech] won [games] than when we lost. He didn't want to seem like he was gloating, and that [the team] always had something to work on. He was cautious, and he was never derogatory to other teams. He always praised them.
      "It speaks of his character, his dignity, and his respect for other people."
      Prince knew Lambright so well that he could write stories with quotes from the coach, and that Lambright, when asked, would approve of them. 
      Part of the Lambright mantra, as we recall, was that the next game on the schedule was the most important game of the season.
      Larry White was a student assistant to Prince at Tech in the early 1970s, having returned from a stint in Vietnam. He would go on to cover Tech athletics for a brief time for the Ruston Daily Leader and the Shreveport Journal, then go into sports information with the Southland Conference, LSU, SMU and, for most of his career, the University of Alabama, where he was the SID for the final years of coach Paul "Bear" Bryant's career.
      Of Lambright, White said, "I remember him being so approachable and forthright in speaking with the media (of which there weren't many). I always felt his teams reflected his personality, on and off the field. He was a hard-nosed coach whose persona off the field was totally different. He was a true gentleman."

"Freeway Dave" Nitz

       Dave Nitz became the Tech play-by-play broadcaster for football, basketball and baseball in 1974, so he had five seasons with Lambright as football coach. But Nitz also worked in the Tech athletics ticket office and in sports information for a while.
      "He gave you something to do, and he expected you to do it, but he didn't look over your shoulder, he didn't make sure you had dotted the i's and crossed the t's," Nitz said. "But if it didn't go well, he wanted to know why. ... He was like that with the coaches, too.
      "He was a guy who let you do your job. I always respect that from anyone."
      Nitz got a dose of the Lambright wit related to a softball team that Nitz managed. When he came in after one weekend game and Lambright asked how the team had fared, Nitz replied it had won big. "You must've been playing the Little Sisters of the Poor," the coach cracked.
      Media people who dealt with him or occasionally traveled with him knew they'd have to carry the conversation or deal with mostly silence.
      Nitz, still doing Tech games 42 years later (I hesitate to call "Freeway Dave" a legend, although some do), also recalled driving Lambright to El Dorado, Ark. -- a 50-mile ride from Ruston -- to do a weekly Sunday television show during football season.
      "He didn't really want to do that," Nitz said of the show. But it was part of their job. The tough part was the interview.
      Nitz, as the William & Mary broadcaster in 1969-71, often had interviewed the football coach there, the very talkative, colorful Lou Holtz (now, of course, Nitz regularly talks with the current Tech coach, the son of the father, Skip Holtz).
      "If I asked Lou two questions [for a 30-minute show]," Nitz said, "that was one question too many."
      With Lambright he might have to ask 30 questions in 15 minutes. "Lots of 10-second answers," Nitz recalled. "I had to learn what to do [to interview him]."
      Longtime Ruston Daily Leader sports editor O.K. "Buddy" Davis recalled a similar traveling experience with Lambright on a ride back to Ruston from a mid-1970s game at Lamar in Beaumont, Texas.
      Assistant coach Mickey Slaughter, Davis said, had traveled to Beaumont with Lambright, and suggested after the game, "Buddy, why don't you ride back with Maxie? You will get some great insights on the game."
     "I am not exaggerating," Buddy recalled. "I bet Maxie didn't say four words the entire way back.
     "The following week, I go over to the fieldhouse and Mickey is grinning.
     "Well, O.K., how did everything go with you and Maxie?" Slaughter asked. "Did you get some good quotes?"
     I choose not to repeat Buddy's reply. But Slaughter and defensive coach Pat Collins enjoyed the laughs.

     (Next: Away from football, a friend)

 

 

One more time: the media and politics

       So here is my challenge for the readers today: When you say "mainstream media" or "liberal media," be specific. Tell me -- by name -- who you are talking about.
       Not by network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, whoever else you consider the main ones), not by just a newspaper name (The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.).
       Give me the TV reporters/analysts/and, well, entertainers you watch -- or don't watch. Give me the newspaper reporters/columnists you like -- and don't like.
       In other words, where do you get your news? Where do you get the information to confirm your opinions?    
       Don't just say the "liberal media" or the "conservative media." That's too easy. That's too general.
       I am not promoting any cause here, or criticizing one. I'm just curious to know what you think.
       I welcome the feedback to my blogs -- positive, negative. Whatever. I will post the comments ... if I think they're decent. If they cross the line into name-calling or if they're ugly, most often I will not post them. I might leave them on Facebook for a while, but not forever.
       The lack of civility in this campaign the past year and a half was the most galling aspect to me. Not only from the politicians, but all over social media. Disgusting. Enough already.
       So no bashing Mr. Trump, or President Obama, or Hillary.
--- 
       Before I return to the media scene, we interrupt our beginning message for a few thoughts:
       I keep seeing the Hate Hillary comments; I received a couple. Here is my view: She lost. She is no longer relevant. She is history. You don't have to keep beating a beaten candidate. It's piling on.
       On the other side, stop whining about the popular vote and 2.5 million. It doesn't matter; it's not what really counts. The Electoral College counts, and there's no reversing that. It wouldn't be right. And can you imagine the chaos in the streets if it was reversed?
       And when I see "sore losers," count me out.
       I was involved in athletics long enough to know that it's a competition; one side wins, one side loses. If you win, don't gloat too long. There is another game coming. If you lose, don't let it linger. Life goes on.
       An inside joke with some of my friends is that I am "a bitter man." I'm only bitter for a few moments, believe me. But if you want a list of the most painful sports losses, I did a blog on that.
       There are a thousand, ten thousand, games I wish would have come out differently. That doesn't happen.
       So this election is done, and as I wrote four years ago after President Obama's re-election, "get over it and move on." We have a President-elect, and we should wait and see what happens.
       Even if you're a Trump supporter, you might not  particularly like him, you might even admit that he is  unpredictable. You don't know what's coming next, what he's tweeting about at any moment. But you probably also believe his administration can fix what needs fixing.
       I was told by one friend that I must be a "Trump Hater." Nope. I try not to hate anybody; it's a waste of time.
       Didn't support Candidate Trump, but now that he's President-elect Trump, I wish him well. The Presidency should be respected, and if he and the Congress improve health care and immigration and veterans' needs, schools/education, inner-city issues, violence in the streets,  rising terrorism and its threats, etc., etc., we're all for it.
 ---
       Back to our regularly scheduled message ... 
       I believe that many people lose sight that many media people are paid to offer their opinions, whether in print or on television and radio. So you should not expect them to be unbiased. 
       You might expect reporters to be more straight-laced, factual. But they are human; they slant their stories through their own filters. And journalism/the media has changed over the years. It is more analysis-based now.
       This hit home with us as we listened to our latest audio book Tuesday. Early in This Town by Mark Leibovich (of The New York Times), published in 2013 and based on life and politics in Washington, D.C., he writes, "Punditry has replaced reporting as journalism's highest calling. ... " 
       After my most recent blog about Mr. Trump and his "war" with the media, one comment in particular triggered the idea for this blog.

Chuck Todd photo from nbcdfw.com

    John Dittrich, a baseball lover like me and a former Fort Worth resident, wrote: "Like you, I watch the Sunday morning political talk shows religiously (no church-related wisecrack intended). Although I continue to record and watch Meet The Press, it seems to me that [host] Chuck Todd is not very objective. He takes a very obvious hostile approach to the conservatives, particularly to anyone affiliated with Mr. Trump.
       "While I do not like President-elect Trump and consider myself left-leaning, I do feel that Todd gives credence to those in the right who accuse the media of being too liberal. He is so obviously argumentative toward certain guests that it actually makes me uncomfortable. This approach is exactly what damages the credibility of the mainstream media."
       We want to like Chuck, but I must add that I agree with John.
       I will stick with my contention that PBS has the best-balanced newscasts. I'd like to think that Meet The Press is also balanced, that Chuck Todd can be as tough with questions directed at Democrats, or left-leaning people -- as he was last Sunday with U.S. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- and that the panel discussions always have both sides represented.
       Same for Face The Nation, where host John Dickerson also asks the hard questions of both sides, but is more congenial than Todd.
       We do miss the late beloved, respected Tim Russert.
       We still see the old anchors from time to time. From left to center to right -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Fort Worth's Bob Schieffer. They are venerable.
       I think today's network news anchors -- Lester Holt (NBC), David Muir (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Judy Woodruff (PBS) and, say, Brian Williams (MSNBC) --  play it pretty straight down the middle, they don't take positions. You might not agree. They ask tough enough questions to people from both ends of the political spectrum.

Katy Tur photo from mediamatters.org

      But it's different for reporters. We mostly watch NBC, so Andrea Mitchell, Hallie Jackson and Katy Tur were following the Clinton and Trump campaigns. My view was that they were demanding of the candidates they covered, but I had to feel for Katy, only 33, when Mr. Trump named her  specifically in a rally or two, and she needed security at events and afterward after receiving threats.
       We like the CBS 60 Minutes regulars, especially the venerable Lesley Stahl. Anderson Cooper (also on CNN) is clearly slanted toward more liberal position.
       Maybe so are Jake Tapper (CNN) and fast-talking, loud Chris Matthews (MSNBC). They can be tough and argumentative interviewers. Matthews is a small-dose guy, but I loved his reverent commentary when Pope Francis visited his hometown, Philadelphia.
       If you want to go right, go FOX. We don't watch it often, but Chris Wallace seemed like a fair moderator in the first Republican debate and even better in the third Presidential debate, and I wasn't familiar with Megyn Kelly until she squabbled with Mr. Trump in that debate, and he helped make her famous.
       Then there's Bill O'Reilly. Read a couple of his books we liked. Funny guy, at least when he banters with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. His politics? Not for me, but he's entertaining. 
       You really want to go right, here's some names: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, George Will, Thomas Sewell. We think Mr. Will is an outstanding columnist (Washington Post), and I loved his baseball book Men at Work, but seldom agree with his viewpoint. He also did not back Trump or Clinton. 
       Step to the right with FOX anchor Sean Hannity and to the left with Keith Olbermann wherever he is. Neither one appears on my TV; they are too much. Didn't like Olbermann in the sports arena, either.
       And then there is -- spare me -- Rush Limbaugh ... ultra-right. Is he "media" or "entertainment" or "human?" 
       (Of course, in the sports world, I feel the same about Skip Bayless and Mark May, and a hundred others. You could not pay me enough to watch them. Rarely watch or listen to any TV/radio talkfests. I've blogged on this, too.)
       Two conservative "pundits" who we did not pay attention to before, but impressed us in this campaign with their reason and their calm: Hugh Hewitt and -- surprisingly -- Glenn Beck. Hewitt wasn't enthused about Mr. Trump; Beck flat-out rejected the idea.
       Columnists to the left: No one more left, more critical of the right, than Paul Krugman (New York Times). Leonard Pitts (Miami). We like the very smart Thomas Friedman and the acerbic, rip-'em-all Maureen Dowd (both NYT).
       Also far left: MSNBC's nightly hour shows -- Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell. We watch regularly because they give us perspectives (yes, liberal) that we think are well-researched.
       And even farther left: Jon Stewart. Master of satire and The Daily Show on Comedy Central for all those years. Outspoken liberal. Generous benefactor of so many comedians/show hosts/commentator.
       Stewart, of course, is more entertainer than politician. So is Bill Maher. If you are a conservative, either Stewart or Maher might be Public Enemy No. 1 (outside of politics). Think we know who No. 1 and 1A are in politics.
       We don't watch the morning TV shows; too early. So we're strangers to Morning Joe, but it must have balance with Mika Brzezinski (Democrat) and Joe Scarborough (Republican). Do they have verbal battles?
       But have there been better verbal battles than those between Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasselbeck -- political/social opposites -- on The View a couple of years ago? Sorry, I missed those (sounds good, but not really).
       Our favorite "pundit" is David Brooks, a New York Times columnist. He and syndicated columnist Mark Shields are regulars for us on the PBS NewsHour each Friday and for big political events.
       Brooks is conservative, but not overly so, and his columns are complex. On television his analysis is usually spot-on, but this campaign, he kept admitting that he was so wrong so often (as were the polls and so many other "experts). David consistently was not happy with either Presidential candidate.

Amy Walter, PBS photo

       Shields has been around forever and he's a liberal who seldom comes out of a left lean.
       Here is who I think provided the best, most balanced analysis of this Presidential race: Amy Walter, national editor of The Cook Political Report. She was a PBS regular, a political-panel regular who seemed to be on 25 hours a day. She is knowledgeable and insightful -- and cautioned to the very end that the Presidential race was wide-open. She was as correct as anyone we heard.
       Our favorite reporters/TV pundits are the Washington Post's veteran Dan Balz and young star Robert Costa (who covered the Trump campaign). They were often on talk/news shows. Two words for them: factual and fair.
       Away from politics: Mitch Albom, a sports columnist who ventures off into books and movies and plays on the real world, is always a good read. Dave Barry is the funniest read.
---
       My feeling is that all the honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, lying/truthful perceptions about media just depends on each individual and how they perceive it. There's no right or wrong.
       I don't like the attacks on the media -- especially from politicians. Media positions are jobs, and there are different ways to do the job.
       It is just people's opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
       If you are right-leaning, you likely think the media is mostly liberal. If you are left-leaning, you think the conservatives are off-base. If you're independent -- and I have friends who are -- you don't agree with the media, period.
       So I've given you a lot of names, and there are many more. If you've read this far, you're tired. And so am I.
       Here's a rule I try to live by: Don't let politics spoil friendships. Friends -- true friends -- are valuable.
       I welcome responses and your favorites/least favorites. Tell me who influences your thoughts. Just be civil about it. 

        

A war that's "rigged": Mr. Trump and the media

     A few days ago, I "shared" a post on Facebook and sent out the following message with a link to a speech by Washington Post editor Marty Baron.

Marty Baron, in the Washington Post newsroom, 2013
(photo by Steven Voss/Redux)

     I am converting this to a blog format, and adding a few thoughts about the media and the President-elect who has spent much time badgering it.
     OK, I am a former media person -- or still am, if certain blog pieces qualify for that.
     So honestly, I can't agree with Mr. Trump when he rails about the "dishonest, lying media."
     In my career, I never had anyone accuse me of that -- at least to my face. Had some people express their displeasure to me, directly or on the phone or in a letter or note, but it was rarely ugly. There was one shouting match I remember (no details necessary), and there was one well-known man who yelled at me (I've written about it).
     Look, I made some mistakes in judgement and had my share of fact errors. But if I had heard someone call me "dishonest" or "lying," I don't think I would have been so cool.
     Above all, my goal was to be as fair as I could.
     I was not unbiased when it was a school or team from my newspaper's coverage area playing a team from another area; you are trying to present the story from your area's viewpoint.
     I knew I was doing OK in the "fairness" department when in the early 1970s, a couple of people associated with Woodlawn High School in Shreveport -- my alma mater -- told me, based on what they'd read, how I "hated Woodlawn." True story.
---
     Here is the note I posted earlier ...
         I have had several friends tell me they thought that the media played a huge role in Mr. Trump's rise to President-elect, that they were not tough enough on him early on, that he was given too much "free" time by the media, or, if they were Trump supporters, he was exactly correct in his portrayal of the "crooked" or "rigged" media.

     You have to judge that for yourself.

     My opinion is -- whether you supported him or not -- Mr. Trump used the media brilliantly. He knew from the start that they could not afford to not cover him. So if he said or did something outrageous, it was going to play.

     I know a lot of media people -- some who are liberal-leaning; I know a lot that are conservative-leaning. I have friends both ways.

     (We regularly watch PBS NewsHour, Face The Nation and Meet The Press, and I think the balance between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints on those shows is very fair.) 

      But from years in newspapers, the media people I know (or knew) were very conscientious and tried to be objective, and they worked hard. And they were simply doing their jobs, with the intent of being fair.

      Sure there are some "self-promoters" in the business, but I would say those people are in the great minority.

      We all take stances that might not be popular, and we receive criticism. That's part of the job. Not many people like to be criticized, but you deal with it best you can.

      Here is the link to the speech by Baron, who was editor of the Boston Globe featured in the movie Spotlight when its investigative team uncovered the Catholic Church's coverup of children being sexually abused by priests.

      Read this speech. Maybe it will give you a different view of the media's role. Maybe not.

      It is, as Coach Adams used to say, "all in the way you hold your mouth."

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/washington-post-editor-marty-baron-message-to-journalists

--- 
      OK, suppose I concede that most of the "mainstream media" -- say The New York Times and Washington Post columnists and reporters, and the major, traditional television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) -- are left-leaning.
      I would say that's because those people are smarter, more studied than the rest of us. Maybe they can figure this out better. So there.
      Think about this, though: Mr. Trump received, what, a total of four newspaper endorsements across the country and the TV media mostly was critical of him. And he won. So much for media influence making a difference.
      The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary.
      Change is, my opinion, the major reason Mr. Trump was elected. The desire for change is why JFK was elected in 1960, and Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, G.W. Bush in 2000, Obama in 2008.
      Only one of those Presidents had a consistent "war" with the media. Care to guess? He had to resign because the media investigated and found he really was a crook.           
---
      Also, I am adding a link to another Washington Post piece regarding the media and Mr. Trump: 
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/28/trump-has-already-defeated-the-news-media-and-its-unclear-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.1e09c6c0ace6
      It is an analysis of the Trump movement in total and his use of the media in particular. Fair warning: If you are a Trump supporter, you probably won't like it.
      It is not right when -- with Mr. Trump's anti-media rhetoric stirring up people -- reporters on his campaign, trying to do their jobs, are threatened by crowds. Read another story on that this morning.
      Don't believe everything The Man tells you.
      I post these articles, not as sour grapes -- the election is done; Mr. Trump won it, and no recount or Electoral College flip-flop should change that. I post them because I think they're interesting reads.
       But, please, don't think that all or most people are "dishonest" and/or "liars." That's not right. That is a dishonest appraisal.   

          

 

It's still worth reading, but ...

(from mediaroomhub.com)

   I've thought about this for a long, long time -- almost a lifetime, really -- because sports journalism has been my business.
    Is sports journalism today better than ever? Yes, it is.
    Is sports journalism today worse than ever? Yes, it is.
    You can have it both ways, and in my opinion, we do. And let me draw a distinction right away ... I'm going to talk about the written word -- newspapers and Internet -- not spoken ones.
    That's because I am no fan of sports television -- be it play-by-play announcers, analysts, pregame/postgame analysis, newscasts (local, ESPN, whatever). More often than not I prefer to watch games without sound. To me, the announcers clutter what I'm trying to watch.
     (I will make an exception for radio announcers, especially for baseball. Maybe because that's where I started, but it's still a neat way to take in a game. Thank Irv Zeidman in Shreveport and Gene Elston of the Houston Colt 45s/Astros for that.)
     But I still love to read sports sections, and I'll read for news on the Internet. I am, however, pretty selective.
      I believe this: There are more good writers today than there have ever been; they are more versatile, more educated, they had more opportunities early in their careers; they have the advantage of a lot more technology than ever; and there are more ways to find those writers (thanks to the Internet).
      Look, I read for information and to try to stay current. I want to know what's going on with my teams. I do not read, necessarily, to be entertained.
      But this is where sports journalism has gone. Where it was once a news/facts business, the emphasis is now -- as David Humphrey, one of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's deputy sports editors, like to say so often -- on being "edgy."
       So columnists -- and even beat writers -- jump on any controversy they can find (with Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, that's easy). And while the columnists have the "in my opinion" tags on their pieces, I want to be able to form my own opinion. So put the arguments out there, but I resent the columnists who tell me what to think, who preach to me, who make it clear that their opinion is the only one that counts.
      I'm sorry, but some of the things I read are so far out there -- just for the sake of being sensational -- that they're just ridiculous.
       Don't tell me in August that the Cowboys are going to make the playoffs, period. Don't tell me that Dirk Nowitzki or Jason Kidd are washed up. Don't tell me day after day that the Rangers' starting pitching is going to be a problem (see spring training a year ago).
     Don't tell me the BCS is a sorry system (because you telling me that is a waste of my time). Don't tell me that Mark McGwire/Roger Clemens/Rafael Palmeiro, etc. will never make the Baseball Hall of Fame. You just can't know what future voters will do.
       Don't give me nicknames on every reference (Owner Jones, Cowsheep, Coach Wade, A-Fraud)   or gimmicks (the infamous Bottom Ten, interviews with fictional characters) or abbreviations at every opportunity (GP, CGP, MY, VY, RHG) or references such as Dallas Cowboys of Arlington, Hated Yankees. When I see someone referred to as "dude," I know I'm in the wrong generation.
      And I especially abhor seeing this in any form, in any section: The. Worst. Writing. Technique. Ever.
      Instant turnoff for me. End of my reading that piece.
     In summary, there's far too much "cute" in sections for my taste.
      I still see many excellent beat writers who cover their teams thoroughly, who know how to write, how to give the readers information on the everyday business of sports, who keep you up to date on one team.
     But I also see writers who can't find the best stories from a particular game, who are repetitive, who jump to conclusions, who have little substance in their copy, who don't make it very compelling to read, and who simply screw up the facts.
     And I know from being a copy editor for many, many years, that far too many writers are weak on grammar and punctuation. Unfortunately, some of that gets into the newspaper. Because I'm a copy editor, I probably see those things more critically. My wife's theory is that most readers aren't concerned with that; that it is a copy editors' thing.
      I can say that I wrote a lot of things over the years -- or edited them -- that I look back and regret, and offered some opinions that looked ill-advised afterward. So I shouldn't be too critical of today's sports journalism. It's changed, I believe, and "edgy" is in more than ever. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just not my thing.