During the primaries, the cable TV networks virtually handed a free microphone to Donald Trump, while giving other candidates a small fraction of his attention. By February, Trump had “earned” nearly $2 billion of free media, more than six times that of his closest Republican competitor, Ted Cruz, and almost nine times the next closest candidate, Jeb Bush.

The tens of millions of Americans who most often get their news from television, 57 percent of U.S. adults according to the Pew Research Center, had been fed a steady diet of Trump PR.

TV gave scant attention to the long history belying Trump’s claims that his personal successes would surely “Make America Great Again.” Instead, the all-Trump-all-the-time media attention permitted the presidential candidate to perpetuate the myth he had built as the savvy billionaire who would be America’s savior.

Millions of Republican voters fell for it. Even during Republican primary debates, many of the questions were Trump-centric, focusing on his statements and positions. While Trump sucked up air time, little was left for other candidates, a huge disadvantage in their efforts to connect with the American public.

As ratings soared, CBS CEO Les Moonves said of Trump’s dominance in the election coverage, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.… The money’s rolling in and this is fun.”

Indeed, the Trump ratings boost has been manna for an industry that had been under assault from the internet, suffering years of shrinking audience, a rapid aging of viewer demographics and declines in profitability.

So, why shouldn’t TV executives be celebrating? Because the news business is about more than making money, more important things like ensuring the public is well informed. An informed electorate is crucial in a democracy where citizens are responsible for electing their leaders.

Unfortunately, millions of Americans who rely upon television as their primary source of news were misinformed; TV news coverage of the primary season, particularly cable TV news, failed the American public.

It’s true that earning a profit is important to sustaining any business. The days of news as a prestige loss-leader for the TV networks are long gone. But, the news business must measure itself by factors other than ratings and revenues because of its responsibility to the public.

So, it’s high time for TV news organizations to take a look in the mirror, commit to a serious review of their coverage of the presidential race and determine how they can better serve the viewers who depend upon them for accurate information.

Here are a few suggestions for starters: http://www.newsweek.com/blame-rise-trump-failure-tv-news-516162

During the primaries, the cable TV networks virtually handed a free microphone to Donald Trump, while giving other candidates a small fraction of his attention. By February, Trump had “earned” nearly $2 billion of free media, more than six times that of his closest Republican competitor, Ted Cruz, and almost nine times the next closest candidate, Jeb Bush.

The tens of millions of Americans who most often get their news from television, 57 percent of U.S. adults according to the Pew Research Center, had been fed a steady diet of Trump PR.

TV gave scant attention to the long history belying Trump’s claims that his personal successes would surely “Make America Great Again.” Instead, the all-Trump-all-the-time media attention permitted the presidential candidate to perpetuate the myth he had built as the savvy billionaire who would be America’s savior.

Millions of Republican voters fell for it. Even during Republican primary debates, many of the questions were Trump-centric, focusing on his statements and positions. While Trump sucked up air time, little was left for other candidates, a huge disadvantage in their efforts to connect with the American public.

As ratings soared, CBS CEO Les Moonves said of Trump’s dominance in the election coverage, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.… The money’s rolling in and this is fun.”

Indeed, the Trump ratings boost has been manna for an industry that had been under assault from the internet, suffering years of shrinking audience, a rapid aging of viewer demographics and declines in profitability.

So, why shouldn’t TV executives be celebrating? Because the news business is about more than making money, more important things like ensuring the public is well informed. An informed electorate is crucial in a democracy where citizens are responsible for electing their leaders.

Unfortunately, millions of Americans who rely upon television as their primary source of news were misinformed; TV news coverage of the primary season, particularly cable TV news, failed the American public.

It’s true that earning a profit is important to sustaining any business. The days of news as a prestige loss-leader for the TV networks are long gone. But, the news business must measure itself by factors other than ratings and revenues because of its responsibility to the public.

So, it’s high time for TV news organizations to take a look in the mirror, commit to a serious review of their coverage of the presidential race and determine how they can better serve the viewers who depend upon them for accurate information.

Here are a few suggestions for starters: http://www.newsweek.com/blame-rise-trump-failure-tv-news-516162

Democrats are just better at this stuff: Obama used executive power for progressive ends — and Hillary Clinton will follow his lead
One overlooked aspect of this crazy campaign: How the president uses his (or her!) executive powers and for what

Even though the 2016 presidential election has become an all-consuming beast, eating up the nation’s time and attention, almost no attention has been paid to what the president actually does. A study released last week by the Tyndall Report shows that the flagship news programs of the big three networks devoted three times as many minutes to covering Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails — the same ones that have produced zero evidence of any illegal behavior — as they did covering real issues in the presidential campaign.

The larger media landscape, which takes in the televised debates, has delved a bit more into the nuts and bolts of presidenting and on occasion has dipped into substantive topics like picking judicial nominees, crafting a legislative agenda and conducting foreign policy. Even then, there has been little discussion about the executive duties of the executive office: building and maintaining the various federal bureaucracies that make our government work.

Only the FBI has really gotten extensive coverage this election cycle, and that’s only because the FBI’s director, James Comey, keeps making an unnecessary fuss over a bunch of Clinton emails that have yet to amount to anything.

That’s a shame because it’s in the execution of these executive duties that the president’s true power and influence can be seen. It’s not sexy, but the choices that the White House makes in staffing and directing various agencies can have deep effects on everything from health care access to reducing income inequality and making the justice system work better for everyone.

“Government is a game for wonks,” Ian Millhiser, the justice editor for Think Progress, told me via email. “It not only requires deep policy knowledge,” he wrote, adding that “it requires a creative understanding of where the levers of power are and how to work them to solve problems that aren’t often easily fixed.”

Even though Republicans control Congress and have prevented President Barack Obama from passing progressive legislation (or any other kind), he has been able to wield this executive power in a thousand little ways that don’t make many headlines but do change people’s lives for the better. There is every reason to believe that if Clinton is elected, that trend will continue.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump is elected, on the other hand, he will likely fill the federal bureaucracies with Republicans who, at best, distrust effective government for ideological reasons. At worst, he’ll fill many of these positions with unqualified cronies and yes-men, as he has done for his campaign. On top of that, as Bryce Covert, the economic policy editor at Think Progress, pointed out to me over email, Trump has also promised to reverse every policy that Obama has put into place as president.

What that would look like is terrifying because Obama got a lot done in eight years in the Oval Office, despite Republican obstructionism. What follows is a series of highlights to illustrate this legacy. It’s a legacy that Clinton is committed to preserving and expanding — and that Trump has vowed to destroy.


Continues: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/democrats-are-just-better-at-this-obama-used-executive-power-for-progressive-ends-and-hillary-clinton-will-follow-his-lead/

Democrats are just better at this stuff: Obama used executive power for progressive ends — and Hillary Clinton will follow his lead
One overlooked aspect of this crazy campaign: How the president uses his (or her!) executive powers and for what


Even though the 2016 presidential election has become an all-consuming beast, eating up the nation’s time and attention, almost no attention has been paid to what the president actually does. A study released last week by the Tyndall Report shows that the flagship news programs of the big three networks devoted three times as many minutes to covering Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails — the same ones that have produced zero evidence of any illegal behavior — as they did covering real issues in the presidential campaign.

The larger media landscape, which takes in the televised debates, has delved a bit more into the nuts and bolts of presidenting and on occasion has dipped into substantive topics like picking judicial nominees, crafting a legislative agenda and conducting foreign policy. Even then, there has been little discussion about the executive duties of the executive office: building and maintaining the various federal bureaucracies that make our government work.

Only the FBI has really gotten extensive coverage this election cycle, and that’s only because the FBI’s director, James Comey, keeps making an unnecessary fuss over a bunch of Clinton emails that have yet to amount to anything.

That’s a shame because it’s in the execution of these executive duties that the president’s true power and influence can be seen. It’s not sexy, but the choices that the White House makes in staffing and directing various agencies can have deep effects on everything from health care access to reducing income inequality and making the justice system work better for everyone.

“Government is a game for wonks,” Ian Millhiser, the justice editor for Think Progress, told me via email. “It not only requires deep policy knowledge,” he wrote, adding that “it requires a creative understanding of where the levers of power are and how to work them to solve problems that aren’t often easily fixed.”

Even though Republicans control Congress and have prevented President Barack Obama from passing progressive legislation (or any other kind), he has been able to wield this executive power in a thousand little ways that don’t make many headlines but do change people’s lives for the better. There is every reason to believe that if Clinton is elected, that trend will continue.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump is elected, on the other hand, he will likely fill the federal bureaucracies with Republicans who, at best, distrust effective government for ideological reasons. At worst, he’ll fill many of these positions with unqualified cronies and yes-men, as he has done for his campaign. On top of that, as Bryce Covert, the economic policy editor at Think Progress, pointed out to me over email, Trump has also promised to reverse every policy that Obama has put into place as president.

What that would look like is terrifying because Obama got a lot done in eight years in the Oval Office, despite Republican obstructionism. What follows is a series of highlights to illustrate this legacy. It’s a legacy that Clinton is committed to preserving and expanding — and that Trump has vowed to destroy.

Continues: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/democrats-are-just-better-at-this-obama-used-executive-power-for-progressive-ends-and-hillary-clinton-will-follow-his-lead/

The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign
If you agree with her on policy, vote with a clear conscience about the server.



Some time ago, Hillary Clinton and her advisers decided that the best course of action was to apologize for having used a personal email address to conduct government business while serving as secretary of state. Clinton herself was, clearly, not really all that remorseful about this, and it showed in her early efforts to address it. Eventually aides prevailed upon her to express a greater degree of regret, which they hoped would lay the issue to rest.

It did not. Instead, email-related talk has dogged Clinton throughout the election and it has influenced public perceptions of her in an overwhelmingly negative way. July polling showed 56 percent of Americans believed Clinton broke the law by relying on a personal email address with another 36 percent piling on to say the episode showed “bad judgments” albeit not criminality.

Because Clinton herself apologized for it and because it does not appear to be in any way important, Clinton allies, surrogates, and co-partisans have largely not familiarized themselves with the details of the matter, instead saying vaguely that it was an error of judgment and she apologized and America has bigger fish to fry.

This has had the effect of further inscribing and reinscribing the notion that Clinton did something wrong, meaning that every bit of micro-news that puts the scandal back on cable amounts to reminding people of something bad that Clinton did. In total, network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

This is unfortunate because emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election — overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way.

Why Hillary Clinton used a personal email account...

Continues in link: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit?utm_campaign=mattyglesias&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign
If you agree with her on policy, vote with a clear conscience about the server.



Some time ago, Hillary Clinton and her advisers decided that the best course of action was to apologize for having used a personal email address to conduct government business while serving as secretary of state. Clinton herself was, clearly, not really all that remorseful about this, and it showed in her early efforts to address it. Eventually aides prevailed upon her to express a greater degree of regret, which they hoped would lay the issue to rest.

It did not. Instead, email-related talk has dogged Clinton throughout the election and it has influenced public perceptions of her in an overwhelmingly negative way. July polling showed 56 percent of Americans believed Clinton broke the law by relying on a personal email address with another 36 percent piling on to say the episode showed “bad judgments” albeit not criminality.

Because Clinton herself apologized for it and because it does not appear to be in any way important, Clinton allies, surrogates, and co-partisans have largely not familiarized themselves with the details of the matter, instead saying vaguely that it was an error of judgment and she apologized and America has bigger fish to fry.

This has had the effect of further inscribing and reinscribing the notion that Clinton did something wrong, meaning that every bit of micro-news that puts the scandal back on cable amounts to reminding people of something bad that Clinton did. In total, network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

This is unfortunate because emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election — overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way.

Why Hillary Clinton used a personal email account...

Continues in link: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit?utm_campaign=mattyglesias&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter