adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Trump townhall was just a taste of the 2024 media nightmare to come

Published

 on

 

300x250x1

FILE – Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Saturday, Sept. 3, 2022. The Trump Organization is going on trial accused of helping some top executives avoid income taxes on compensation they got in addition to their salaries, like rent-free apartments and luxury cars. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

Not even the boldest bookies would have made odds a year ago that Donald Trump would do an extended interview on CNN. The cable news network was for years at the head of the “Trump resistance,” cheerleading his impeachments and hectoring him at press conferences. But despite condemning shrieks that CNN should not give an interview platform to the former president, the telecast happened. And the world remains on its axis.

The event came off about as expected. Trump displayed his usual brash and untethered rhetorical style. CNN’s interviewer, Kaitlan Collins, for her part, stood toe to toe with the former president, challenging him on multiple fronts. Trump fans thought he did great at the town hall and were angry with Collins for her scrutinizing approach. Anti-Trump viewers had their blood pressure readings spike. And centrist viewers … well, there are no centrists when it comes to Trump.

In the end, little real news emerged, and this event will have little long-term impact on anything.

Much of the pre- and post-forum flak directed at CNN comes from colleagues in other media outlets. They accuse CNN of making a gross grab for ratings, and boosting Trump’s primary campaign with a platform from which to make his Trumpian proclamations. While it is noteworthy that CNN did the event at all — surely it recognizes that Trump remains a controversial figure, deeply despised by various corners of the establishment and the electorate — Trump remains a player on the American political scene, and in that regard, he is newsworthy. Critics who don’t think Trump remains a political newsmaker have apparently not noticed that he is leading the GOP primary polls and measures up polling-wise in a possible rematch with President Biden.

Eliminating Trump from the news agenda would be journalism of omission (presuming that a news void would even make him go away). But covering Trump doesn’t necessarily advance him politically. His performance on CNN hardly put him in the category of JFK or Ronald Reagan as an oratorical dynamo. If anything, the CNN forum cemented that the Trump of today is the same Trump of yesteryear. Voters need to see that, for whatever they want to make of it.

Journalism is better off when it takes on controversial politicians, as opposed to ignoring them. CBS’s Edward R. Murrow knew that when he reported on Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy during the “Red Scare” of the early 1950s. Murrow reported his own version of McCarthy’s tactics in a broadcast, and later gave McCarthy a full half-hour to explain himself in an unedited rebuttal. McCarthy was exposed and journalism served its function.

Just about as zany and unpredictable as Trump showing up on CNN, the press-shy President Biden recently did a sit-down interview with a major news outlet — a rare happening, indeed. A highlight of the interview was the president attacking the media for his dismal polling, apparently unaware of the fawning news coverage he has received throughout his presidential campaign and White House years. Perhaps even more shocking, Biden took reporters’ questions after his unproductive meeting this week with Republican congressional leaders. Given Biden’s performance in those respective venues, his handlers might well relegate the president back into his cloistered existence, leaving the press to again complain about lack of access.

Such is the warped and whacky political sphere in which America suffers. The establishment news media, for its part, contributes to the din with a confusing, sensational and polarizing agenda, not to mention a crass concern for clicks and ratings. News outlets wrestle with trying to stifle one prominent politician while begging for access to another.

Doing responsible journalism has never been more challenging in American history than it is today. The reporting choices to be made in the runup to the 2024 presidential election will become even tougher than what CNN just experienced with the Trump interview. No doubt those choices will affect the political landscape and possibly the outcome. Here’s hoping the news media are up to the task.

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter @Prof_McCall.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Vatican singles out bishops in urging reflective not reactive social media use

Published

 on

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Monday urged the Catholic faithful, and especially bishops, to be “reflective, not reactive” on social media, issuing guidelines to try to tame the toxicity on Catholic Twitter and other social media platforms and encourage users to instead be “loving neighbors.”

The Vatican’s communications office issued a “pastoral reflection” to respond to questions it has fielded for years about a more responsible, Christian use of social media and the risks online that accompany the rise of fake news and artificial intelligence.

For decades the Holy See has offered such thoughts on different aspects of communications technologies, welcoming the chances for encounter they offer but warning of the pitfalls. Pope Francis of late has warned repeatedly about the risk of young people being so attached to their cell phones that they stop face-to-face friendships.

The new document highlights the divisions that can be sown on social media, and the risk of users remaining in their “silos” of like-minded thinkers and rejecting those who hold different opinions. Such tendencies can result in exchanges that “can cause misunderstanding, exacerbate division, incite conflict, and deepen prejudices,” the document said.

300x250x1

It warned that such problematic exchanges are particularly worrisome “when it comes from church leadership: bishops, pastors, and prominent lay leaders. These not only cause division in the community but also give permission and legitimacy for others likewise to promote similar type of communication,” the message said.

The message could be directed at the English-speaking Catholic Twittersphere, where some prominent Catholic figures, including bishops, frequently engage in heated debates or polemical arguments that criticize Francis and his teachings.

The prefect of the communications office, Paolo Ruffini, said it wasn’t for him to rein in divisive bishops and it was up to their own discernment. But he said the general message is one of not feeding the trolls or taking on “behavior that divides rather than unites.”

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Russia says U.S. Senator should say if Ukraine took his words out of context

Published

 on

MOSCOW, May 29 (Reuters) – Russia on Monday said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham should say publicly if he believes his words were taken out of context by a Ukrainian state video edit of his comments about the war that provoked widespread condemnation in Moscow.

In an edited video released by the Ukrainian president’s office of Graham’s meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv on Friday, Graham was shown saying “the Russians are dying” and then saying U.S. support was the “best money we’ve ever spent”.

After Russia criticised the remarks, Ukraine released a full video of the meeting on Sunday which showed the two remarks were not directly linked.

Russia’s foreign ministry said Western media had sought to shield the senator from criticism and said that Graham should publicly state if he feels his words were taken out of context by the initial Ukrainian video edit.

300x250x1

“If U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham considers his words were taken out of context by the Ukrainian regime and he doesn’t actually think in the way presented then he can make a statement on video with his phone,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a video posted on Telegram.

“Only then will we know: does he think the way that was said or was it a performance by the Kyiv regime?”

Graham’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial video of Graham’s remarks triggered criticism from across Moscow, including from the Kremlin, Putin’s powerful Security Council and from the foreign ministry.

Graham said he had simply praised the spirit of Ukrainians in resisting a Russian invasion with assistance provided by Washington.

Graham said he had mentioned to Zelenskiy “that Ukraine has adopted the American mantra, ‘Live Free or Die.’ It has been a good investment by the United States to help liberate Ukraine from Russian war criminals.”

Russia’s interior ministry has put Graham on a wanted list after the Investigative Committee said it was opening a criminal probe into his comments. It did not specify what crime he was suspected of.

In response, Graham said: “I will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin’s corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor.

“…I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.”

A South Carolina Republican known for his hawkish foreign policy views, Graham has been an outspoken champion of increased military support for Ukraine in its battle against Russia.

Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Nick Macfie

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals bring identity quotas to Canada Media Fund

Published

 on

In 2021, the Liberals said they would dramatically boost funding for the Canada Media Fund. And they did — but that funding came with diversity quotas and a new emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

It’s another bald-faced example of the Liberals infusing identity into public (or publicly-funded-but-government-adjacent) media programs to craft Canada in their image. Now, the program is beholden to diversity-based budgeting (with diversity “targets” in its largest funding branch), an identity tracking system for content producers and a “narrative positioning” policy that guides how stories about certain groups are told.

The Canada Media Fund is supposed to oversee a funding pool that supports the creation of Canadian media projects in the areas of drama, kids’ programming, documentaries and even video games. According to its most recent annual report, about half its revenue ($184 million) comes from the federal government through the Department of Canadian Heritage (another near-half comes from broadcasting companies through the country’s broadcasting regulator, the CRTC). The department also has the power to appoint two of the fund’s board members.

It’s a lot of money, but there’s a good rationale for domestic media production behind it. Canadian producers might not be able to secure funding for homegrown projects without it, which would make Canadians even more dependent on the U.S. for entertainment than we are already.

300x250x1

The Canada Media Fund is doing a lot more than broadly funding content creation, though. With more federal funding brought in after the past election, it is now responsible for greenlighting projects to meet identity quotas set out by the Liberals.

According to the Canada Media Fund’s contract with Canadian Heritage, which has been obtained by the National Post through a previously-completed access to information request, the number of projects funded with government-sourced dollars and led by “people of equity-deserving groups” will have to amount to 45 by 2024. The number of “realized projects” for people of these groups must amount to 25 by 2024. Finally, by 2024, a quarter of funded “key creative positions” must be held by people from designated diversity groups.

These funding quotas are similar to the CBC’s new diversity requirements for budgeting. When the CBC’s broadcasting licence was renewed by the CRTC last year, it was required to dedicate 30 per cent of its independent content production budget to diverse groups, which will rise to 35 per cent in 2026. While the CRTC is arm’s-length from government, a Liberal-appointed CRTC commissioner appeared eager to impose quotas that were on par with the governing party’s agenda on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

The government’s agreement with the Canada Media Fund also sets aside $20 million of the new money explicitly for people considered diverse enough to check a box — anyone from “sovereignty-seeking” and “equity-seeking” groups.

“’Sovereignty- and Equity-Seeking Community’ refers to the individuals who identify as women, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Racialized, 2SLGBTQ+, Persons with disabilities/Disabled Persons, Regional, and Official Language Minority Community,” reads the Canada Media Fund’s explainer on who gets diversity status.

For the most part, everyone other than straight, white, non-disabled men get special treatment by the fund.

Aside from getting mandatory coverage through the use of quotas, the groups listed above are shielded with “narrative positioning” policies that took effect this year. If the main character, key storyline, or subject matter has anything to do with the above groups, creators must either be from that group or take “comprehensive measures that have and will be undertaken to create the content responsibly, thoughtfully and without harm.” These can include consultations, sharing of ownership rights, and hiring policies from the community. While narrative requirements weren’t mandated by the Liberals in their grant to the fund, they complement the overall DEI strategy.

Storytellers vying for certain grants have to sign an attestation form agreeing with the narrative policy and write a compliance plan if their works have anything to do with the above groups. Plainly, it’s a force of narrative control.

This doesn’t go both ways; women can make documentaries about men consult-free, non-white people can make TV dramas about white people consult-free, and so on.

Statistically, diversity is being tracked on a internal system that logs the identities of key staff and leadership on every Canada Media Fund project. The diversity repository was rolled out this year. Internal documents indicate these stats will be used to monitor program progress and adjust policy going forward.

These changes are all directly linked to a Liberal platform point on media modernization. In the 2021 Liberal platform, the party committed to doubling the government’s contribution to the fund. Since then, the Liberal platform has been cited directly in internal documents outlining the Canada Media Fund’s three-year growth strategy (which explains how the new money will be used, in part, to ramp up DEI efforts).

Together, it looks like both the fund, and the party responsible for doubling its taxpayer support are more concerned about the identities of filmmakers and TV producers than the actual media being produced.

Creators should be able to tell stories about others without the narrative department’s oversight — the more narrative control, the more it starts to sound like propaganda. Good creators wanting to tell an authentic story should conduct research and be respectful of the people they cover — but they shouldn’t be bound to consultations and ownership agreements.

National Post

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending