The Press and the 2016 Election

The Idiosyncratist is not an avid follower of American politics, but did write and publish these observations in October 2016.   As another dismal presidential election season heats up, not much seems to have changed.  

-----

This year, we have a divided electorate and two divisive candidates, each of whom seems to want to claim the populist mantle.  One promises to "fight" for us, and the other to "make America great again."

My sense is that most people are eager for the election to be over, perhaps especially members of the press, which seems to have lost its way in the two-year-long campaign season.


How We Got Here

Start with Donald Trump.  At the beginning of the Republican primary season, the party had 17 potential candidates, but 16 of them struggled in the shadows while the "news" network, CNN, gave Trump his own reality show.  For CNN, the ratings were great -- it was like the disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370, all day every day.  It went on for months.
        Trump didn't raise campaign funds until just before he got the Republican nomination because he didn't need money.  He got so much more coverage from CNN and other broadcast outlets that disapproved of him that no other Republican really had a chance. Trump is now the Republican candidate.
         My impression is that CNN now has taken up the cudgel to slay the monster it created.  Even so, it has much to answer for.

Continue with Hillary Clinton.  She's not a natural gasbag like Trump, but she is canny.  Her path to the nomination was paved by the raising of a $2 billion slush fund -- er, charitable foundation -- that scared all the credible challengers out of the Democratic primaries.  Even at that, it took a heavy Democratic National Committee thumb on the scale to help her defeat a 74-year-old socialist.

Clinton also has received many assists from the press.

        --In exchange for the opportunity to interview her, reporters have agreed to submit their questions ahead of time.  These interview opportunities were valuable because many of Clinton's speeches were at fundraisers closed to the press and because she spent more than six months of her campaign without holding a single press conference.

        --In one case, a reporter from an ostensibly serious publication exchanged emails with a Clinton campaign official to make sure the wording of his "news" posts were acceptable to the candidate.

        --In another case, a DNC operative obtained and shared with Clinton the exact wording of a question to be asked in one of the three televised debates.  Some reporter or editor apparently gave out that question, allowing one candidate the opportunity to prepare for it but not the other candidate.

        -- In August, the New York Times ran a front-page story, written by a "reporter," announcing that Donald Trump was so terrible that the traditional objectivity in coverage needed to be jettisoned in the more important effort to assure that he lost the election.  Asked later, the paper's executive editor said he shared the sentiment.

I used to be a reporter, and I sometimes covered elections, albeit smaller contests and against my oft-expressed preference to report on any other topic.  If I had committed any of the acts described above, I would have found myself looking for a new job in public relations.  Or possibly shoe sales.


Downstream Effects

A Harvard study released this summer confirmed what people already sensed about press coverage of the primaries -- that it paid little attention to candidates' platforms and suitability and spent more attention on so-called "horse races" -- who was ahead and who behind at any given point. This gave Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, who had the greatest name familiarity, an early advantage that just kept growing.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on election day.

If Trump wins, it is fair to expect that everything he does will be scrutinized closely and, even if he has a good idea, that it will be given a full scrubbing.

If Clinton wins, it seems fair to expect that news coverage will continue to support her -- not to do so would discredit the press after its no-holds-barred promotion of her candidacy.


 Institutional Confidence

Americans now lack faith in many national institutions.  This is demonstrated in the Gallup chart below, released following polling in early June.

Television news and newspapers are rated ahead of only "Congress" and "Big Business" when it comes to public trust.  If I ran one of those news zoos, I'd be concerned.

MovieMonday: The Clark Sisters

This is the story of an accomplished musical group, five sisters who are well known among churchgoing African Americans and fans of gospel music but only to a few of the rest of us.   It's about time we learned about them.

Lifetime released this movie in April, and it was hugely popular.  It still can be found on various streaming services. 

Great as the sisters were and are, however, the plot belongs to their mother, the indomitable Dr. Mattie Moss Clark, played with distinction by Aunjanue Ellis (who has been cast to play the mom in King Richard, a 2021 Will Smith movie about the father of Venus and Serena Williams.) Mattie is a rigorous woman, always attired in handsome but modest suits with lovely brooches and tasteful hats.

She is also a devout member of the Church of God in Christ, and she sees her music as central to her devotion to Jesus.  She is exacting in both spheres, and not least with her daughters.

The film opens with a Clark Sisters' a capella performance of "Halleluja" -- not the Handel one.  Its harmonies are lovely and joyful and infectious, even in a country ever-less receptive to people who believe in redemption and strive sincerely to achieve it. 

Then we see some of the tensions.  Mattie's second husband, a minister, wants her at home, and she can't always be there, and so the marriage ends.  When Mattie has worked out a new vocal arrangement for her daughters' voices, she pulls them out of bed before dawn to practice it.  When an adult daughter shows up at the family home wearing pants, Mattie closes the door on her.  (This is not that long ago, when serious Christian women like Mattie wore skirts and dresses.)

Mattie and her daughters' work is moving and beautiful. Over time the Clark Sisters' fame spreads from their Detroit home across the country.  They are nominated for Grammy awards, release fine albums and, after their mother's 1994 death, continue to dazzle audiences with their religious-inflected songs, many of them written by Twinkie, the second daughter who for a time was estranged from her family.

In fact, much of this film is melodrama.  A devout, devoted parent who is also a martinet will provoke rebellion in children.  Longtime followers of the Clark Sisters know much of the story, but it is somewhat less approachable for those who are not. 

What is approachable is the music.  Its religious message is heartfelt and ennobling; it carries the whole enterprise.  It's worth a watch.

Note: 

One of the sisters withdrew from the group long ago.  The remaining four (one at the keyboard) performed this moving number at Aretha Franklin's funeral in 2018. 

Banjos and folk music are fine, but African American music -- from jazz to swing to soul to hip hop -- have defined American music more than anything else, and not least because of the redemption themes of music from Black Christian churches.  Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Whitney Houston, John Legend, the Staples Singers and many others got their starts in churches where the Jesus message gave them their voices during and after not-so-distant Jim Crow era. 
         

MovieMonday: Into the Wild

I went looking for something new to watch last week and found this movie.

It interested me for several reasons.  It was the film version of the second Jon Krakauer book I had enjoyed.   (The first, Into Thin Air, is the sobering account of a tragic Everest climbing season.)

What drew me to the book was its focus on Alaska, a state I have visited several times and that figured more in my family's life than in the lives of most Americans.

But my memory of the book was limited.  Most broadly, it is the story of a young man whose 62-pound corpse was discovered in 1992 by moose hunters in an abandoned bus in the wilderness north of Fairbanks and within view of Denali, the tallest mountain in North America.  The book covered some of Christopher McCandless' history, including his post-college abandonment (with some cause) of his family, and his adventures between then and his death.  These included stops in rural South Dakota, Mexico, a desultory downtown Los Angeles and a hippie trailer park.

The movie was made well in 2007 by Sean Penn, who is a bit of an iconoclast himself and whose story valorizes McCandless' search for freedom as emphasized by at least one song in its Eddie Vedder-informed score.

This search for freedom, discussed in book and film, has made McCandless an emblem.  His flight to the west is an idea urged first by Horace Greeley in 1865 but one that still resonates and especially in Alaska.  But the freedom he seeks, informed by Tolstoy and Jack London, is not defined. And his careful preparation for life alone in the great white north is not enough to protect him from nature itself.

I watched this movie because of a personal wish to get out of the house this year.  But I get the impression that the story appeals most to young people grappling with their futures.  They project their own views of who Chris McCandless was onto what they know of his life, and they are moved by his courage and his willingness to risk all.  Especially in the movie, he lives on as a tragic hero.


 Note:

So many Into the Wild fans have endangered themselves trekking to the storied bus (and needing rescue) that it finally was  removed just about exactly one month ago to prevent more deaths like the one suffered by Alex McCandless.

MovieMonday: The Wizard of Oz

This 1939 movie was well-regarded at the time of its release, but it didn't turn a profit until 10 years later.  Then, starting in the 1950s with annual television releases over a half-century, it became one of the most loved films of all time.  Strange how things work.

Its plot comes from a popular children's book published in 1900.  In it, a girl named Dorothy (Judy Garland) is swept into a different world with good witches and bad witches, and where she sets out with three new friends (scarecrow, tinman and lion) to find a wizard who will grant their wishes -- a trip home to Kansas,  a brain, a heart, courage, respectively.  After frustration and a battle with the Wicked Witch of the West, they learn that each of them had what was needed from the get-go.

There are all kinds of lessons here:  Friendship, courage, self-reliance and skepticism toward even the most benevolent fakery.   And, perhaps, a less resonant theme today:  There's no place like home.

For Dorothy, there are parallels in the two worlds:  The three farmhands on her aunt and uncle's farm become her friends in Oz. The mean woman, Almira Gulch (Margaret Hamilton,) who seizes Dorothy's dog becomes the Wicked Witch of the West.   Doctor Marvel (Frank Morgan), a kind charlatan who performs at county fairs, turns out to be the Wizard of Oz.

It is likely that this film never would have been made if Walt Disney hadn't established there was a theater market for full-color children's movies two years earlier with the laboriously assembled  Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. 

This was only the second MGM film with full-color scenes.  In it, Dorothy's Kansas farm home is rendered in black and white while Oz is in full of brightly dressed munchkins, a good witch who travels in a big pink bubble, blooming red poppy fields, a dreamy emerald kingdom and a dreadful witch's castle patrolled by green-skinned goons.

The film was well done, but its delayed popularity also may have to do with demographics.  The Wizard of Oz was released toward the end of the Great Depression, when people had delayed marriage and family formation for economic reasons.  Should we be surprised that that it found its audience only after the adoption of home television and the birth of the baby boom generation?

Now The Wizard of Oz is broadly available on streaming channels.  I hope parents are continuing to share what they remember with their children.  The only reservation, already known to adults, is that the scenes in the wicked witch's castle still frighten young viewers.

Monday: Hamilton: The Movie

This film of the original Broadway play became available  for television viewing  Friday, just in time for the Fourth of July.   It had been scheduled for theatrical release in October 2021, but nobody knew if movie theaters would re-open by then or if audiences would be willing even to go to theaters.

So the film opened on Disney+, the entertainment giant's new streaming effort.  No, you cannot watch it on one of those free trials that Hulu and other services offer.  But look at it this way: A month or three of streaming is much, much cheaper than a ticket to the play ever was.

I saw the Hamilton in New York in late 2015 with the same cast and loved it.

But I was wary of this filmed version.  I wondered whether it could convey the enthusiasm that Hamilton generated in Broadway audiences.  In fact, it can't.  But what makes up for that is a three-camera production that shares all the full-stage scenes and also close shots of actors' faces in key moments.  And the actors in this are great.

We all know the story.  If you want detail, you can read my discussion or, better, Ron Chernow's  absorbing biography, Alexander Hamilton.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, a Puerto Rican immigrant, read that book and made the material his own by writing this play, scoring it with hip-hop songs and nods to operatic recitative dialogue, and then casting African American, Hispanic and Asian actors in the key roles.  The effect is so powerful that it is impossible to imagine Hamilton with a white cast. 

Think of it as a huge 21st-century expansion of the idea of Woody Guthrie's song, "This Land Is Your Land."  Most Americans can trace their ancestry to immigrants or Native Americans who were treated badly or worse, but the message we have for each other now is this:  This land belongs to you and me -- to all of us.

It's a generous theme, and I hope we will keep it in mind as a pandemic foments emotional  frustration and rage, and, worse, anarchy by people aiming to burn down the whole foundation without offering a better alternative.  This too shall pass.

Meanwhile, watch Hamilton.  It's just right for this moment.


Notes

If you are under the age of 30, you probably know the Hamilton score by heart.  If not, this highlights video will bring you up to  date.

-----

Hamilton creator Miranda was one of those high school theater kids (musical theater in his case), and he has said that he knew from an early age that if he wanted to make a career of his passion, he needed to come up with new productions that told stories about people like him.  His first play, In the Heights, set in the neighborhood where he was raised, was very popular in New York theaters and has been made into a film that is waiting to be released.

-----

7/11/2004 -- Today is the 196th anniversary of the Hamilton-Burr duel. Last week, David Crow at Den of Geek examined the antagonism between the two men and what was at stake and asks whether Hamilton really did "throw away my shot." 

Free Speech in Troubled Times

(An old colleague, Jeff Unger, brought this piece to my attention.  Jeff makes a daily practice of posting interesting bits of writing on his Facebook page.) 

“To an Anxious Friend”  

William Allen White 

July 27, 1922

You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free entertainment of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people – and, alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is proof of man’s kinship with God. You say that freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in times of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice. 

-----

This is the beginning of an editorial White published in the Emporia Gazette, the Kansas daily he bought as a young man.  He seems to have written it at a moment of national stress (between the end of World War I and the beginning of the Depression.)  The implication is that the "anxious friend" wants the suppression of free speech and the imposition of order.  In some ways, we are at a similar junction today.  Here are some of the protest signs I saw in news reports last month.   I'm not sure I understand all of the messages, but they all are speech.

-----

Here is  the final paragraph of White's piece: 

So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold - by voice, by posted card, by letter, or by press. Reason has never failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world.


Note 1-- Here is the full editorial.

Note 2 -- After dark, July 4: We are back in our staid suburb after spending the early part of the year in a major urban area.  The noise of fireworks going off, previously an annual event only on this day, has lost its charm.

Sleeping at night was difficult this spring.  The Sinaloa cartel moved a major amount of meth into Southern California, which meant low prices for addicts who enjoy long walks and screaming, irrational epithets from midnight till dawn.

Plus this:  explosions.  The first time, these woke me at midnight and I called 911 to report what I feared were gunshots or bombs.
           Silly me.  "They're fireworks," said the police dispatcher.  "What do you want us to do?"
           The effect, besides wakefulness, is a certain air of menace or dread, which seems to be the intended purpose.  I understand the fireworks, like the shootings, have been much more common in New York City.