Don't Overestimate Newspapers
There is more thoughtful opinion in most
daily newspapers than is readily available on TV or on the Internet. And much TV and Internet content is dependent
on those newspapers. Note how often the
participants on TV news shows are full time newspaper people. And newspapers aren’t interrupted by repeated
commercials. TV is. Now here’s the bad news.
The daily circulation of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel is about
106,000 copies. The daily circulation of
the Palm Beach Post is about 71,000
copies, adding up to about 177,000 newspapers distributed each day in Broward and Palm Beach Counties.
Amazing, isn’t it. That’s a real small number! Add to this an estimate of the number of
daily readers of out-of-town papers like the Wall Street Journal and the New
York Times in both counties, and most generously, the
total number of newspapers distributed in these two counties is probably around
225,000 at most. (Let’s ignore
the fact that some of these two newspapers go northward to Martin County and
Southward to Miami-Dade County, so the numbers for Palm Beach and Broward are
probably somewhat less.)
The combined population
of Broward (1,815,000) and Palm Beach (1,356,000) Counties is about
3,171,000. This
translates into the fact that only about 7% of the
folks in these two counties receive a daily newspaper. Even If we assume
that each newspaper distributed may be read by more than one person, and
somewhat greater circulation for the Sunday editions, the percentage of people
here who read newspapers is still pathetically low. Hopefully, more and more people are reading
online editions of these two papers, but I believe such readership is sporadic
at best. I know because I read the
online Post when I am out of
town. It’s not easy.
These leads to the question of what
sources the rest of the people, the ones who never see a newspaper, are accessing
to get their news. I suspect this is a
nationwide situation, not one just limited to South Florida. The answer, of course, is TV and the Internet.
Let’s face it. Those two sources just are not as
journalistically responsible as are daily newspapers. What standards are maintained by TV
outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, PBS, Bloomberg, etc.? Online, where are news sources like Politico,
RealClearPolitics, the Beast, Newsmax, KOS, Breitbart, Mother Jones, the Drudge
Report, and thousands more, coming from?
How objective are they? Do they
have an agenda?
Readers and viewers have to be very
careful these days when facts may not be facts and the questions raised by
journalists and pseudo-journalists (like me) may be answered obliquely with
unverifiable information. With that in mind, I occasionally include links on this blog to opinions of those
I believe to be reputable journalists. I
hope that people read them, particularly if they don’t have the opportunity to
be exposed to them in a daily newspaper.
Right now, here’s a column written by
Michael Gerson, a Republican who writes for the Washington Post and is syndicated nationally. It deals with sexism in the workplace as recently brought into the limelight by activities at Fox News. Just "click" right here to read it. Here’s a brief excerpt from the article to perhaps whet your appetite.
“The
ethos of a newspaper, cable network or website influences the final product. At
The Washington Post — reflecting its investigative self-image — the new motto
is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” At Fox, this ethos has involved, according to
The New Yorker’s Margaret Talbot, “the fetishization of hot female news
presenters.” And this, it seems, has doubled as a kind of conveyor belt for
bright new faces. Can it really be a coincidence that feminism is often
dismissed on Fox News as so much political correctness? Can a news organization
deal adequately with women’s issues when you would never allow your own
daughter to work there?”
I urge
you to read the entire article by clicking right here. Without newspapers, where would we be? (The Palm Beach Post carries a
Gerson column once a week.)
Jack Lippman
tRump's Diversionary Strategy
The more Donald tRump
attempts to divert the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of possible
connections between the Russian Government, or its agents, and individuals
involved in the Trump 2016 Presidential campaign organization, the more
suspicious Americans should be. Also
involved in investigating this are the FBI and the Senate Intelligence
Committee. tRump may be able to “divert”
Congressional committees but he will not deter the FBI.
It is clear that the
United States Government practiced surveillance of Russians during this period
as a “normal” part of intelligence operations.
In doing so, Russian contact with some Americans was incidentally
discovered, and where necessary, the identity of these Americans became known to
the investigators, and apparently appears in certain documents. This led to tRump’s inaccurate charge that
President Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower in New York. The FBI has categorically denied this and
tRump has backed off by saying that surveillance indeed did take place, (which
in his simplistic mind is inseparable from wiretapping) and contends that this
was illegal, particularly in that Americans who were in contact with Russians
were identified. To him, this is a far
greater offense that the basic purpose of the investigations, possible
connections between the Russians and his Presidential campaign.
Most recently, his
attacks have turned toward Obama Security Advisor Susan Rice, again aimed at
her handling of the identity of those whom the Russians had contacted,
contending she did it in a criminal manner.
Of course, a National Security Advisor has the power, within the purview
of her job, to do a lot of things when they are in the interest of national
security. This is a very difficult
concept for tRump to grasp. But the only
reason he is going down that path is to divert the nation’s attention from the
real purpose of the investigations. He
is very much afraid of where that might lead.
He is flailing around,
trying to change the subject of the investigation, diverting it from its designated
purpose to an investigation of how information obtained through surveillance of
the Russians was handled. The more he
does this, the greater is my suspicion that the information involved is of such
import that if revealed, it will destroy his Presidency, possibly resulting in
criminal action against some of his team.
In a recent interview, John Dean, who provided candid testimony during
the Watergate investigation during the 1960’s, resulting in Richard Nixon’s
resignation from the Presidency, commented that it probably is now time for
some people who were connected to the tRump campaign organization to “lawyer
up.”
With each diversionary
move on tRump’s part, the likelihood of these investigations coming up with
real evidence connecting the Russians to his 2016 campaign grows more possible. That’s why he
is trying so hard to divert the investigators. What also grows is the likelihood that the
full story of what happened, when it is discovered, will be classified in a
manner that will prevent its disclosure to the public for years.
JL
Foreign Policy to the Forefront
Taking action against
Syria’s President Assad for his horrendous behavior means going up against his
supporters, Russia and Iran, as well. If tRump
want to do this, to cross Obama’s “red line,” he must do so delicately. It might be best to ally the United States
with these two powers in acting against Assad, but that is extremely unlikely. And also, to some extent it would mean that
we would be on the same side as another critic of Assad, namely ISIS, which includes
itself among Assad’s Syrian rebel opponents.
And as for North
Korea’s nuclear program, tRump must act in cooperation with China to get
anything done. Acting on our own is not
an option. A “one shot” response, beside
what retaliatory damage it might cause to our South Korean ally, will not be
enough. Of course, China will have its
price which might not be in conformity with tRump’s views on trade and monetary
policy.
These are both problems
which I doubt tRump is capable of handling, let alone fully understanding. Advisors like General McMaster and Secretary
of Defense Mattis might offer advice, but will the President will listen to
them? Who knows? And acting without
putting many, many American lives in our armed forces on the line makes it even
more difficult. The country will not
stand for casualty lists. These are
serious times. They are not part of a
“reality” show.
And as I said earlier
in this posting, keep reading newspapers.
Don’t count on the Internet nor TV, especially Fox.
JL
Idea for a Screenplay
Jack Lippman
So there’s this senior citizen rich guy, a widower, who begins to feel that he
is finally losing it and decides to retire from the hands-on management of his
life. Two of his daughters agree to split his real estate holdings and
investment portfolio in exchange for a promise to take care of him in his
declining years. His other daughter, somewhat of a free spirit, won’t have any
part of what she sees as a sleazy deal on the part of her sisters. Dad promptly
disinherits her and she runs off to Paris with a Frenchman.
Before long the two daughters are fighting over which one can do less for Dad
and finally, fed up with them both, he sneaks out of the house in the middle of
the night in a driving rainstorm. One of his old buddies, whom he doesn’t even
recognize, manages to get him out of the torrent into a cheap motel and tries
to convince him to go back to his daughters, but the old guy refuses. He
realizes that he was wrong in disinheriting his third daughter and his old buddy
tells him that she is actually coming back from Paris to help him, having heard
of the shoddy treatment her sisters were providing.
While this tragic story was unfolding, a retired senior executive of the rich
old guy’s former business was having his own family problems with his two sons,
one of whom was a real bastard who spent his time lying, cheating and trying to
convince his father that he was a better son than his brother. It’s clear that
he’s after the full inheritance. This father also got involved in attempting to
shelter his old boss when he was out in the rain storm. For doing that, the
sadistic husband of one of the old man's daughters brutally beats and tortures
him, blinding him in the process, to which his bastard of a son quietly acquiesces,
allying himself with the two sisters who are just as greedy as he is!
Meanwhile, the sisters, tipped off as to their kid sister’s return from Paris
and fearing that they might lose their inheritance, heed the advice of their
new-found friend, the one whose father had been tortured and blinded, who helps
them call in some tough guys to take care of the situation. By then the third
daughter had found her father at a Motel 6, but sadly, the bad guys capture
them both. One of them chokes the girl to death, but the old man manages to
clobber him with a two by four and escape.
Then, mustering his last bit of
strength to carry her body out of the place in his arms, he dies. How sad.
As for the sisters, one of them had lost her husband in a fight with a servant
over how she was treating her father. The other sister’s husband files divorce
papers after he finds that she was having an affair with the rotten bastard
whose father was blinded. The two girls end up fighting over him before he is
deservedly killed by his brother. Finally, one of the sisters poisons the other
and then commits suicide.
A few weeks later, we find the old man’s old buddy and the surviving son of the
blinded man, also dead by this time, in a sleazy bar. After commiserating with
each other over a few drinks, they agree that life sucks and wonder if they
should tell this whole sad story to their writer buddy, Bill, who might even
use it for the plot of a screenplay or something.
(Okay! Bill loved the idea, wrote the screenplay ... which no studio would touch ... and ended up putting it on stage at a dump called the Globe Theatre in London. Did you catch it there, or at any of the other places where it has turned up since?)
HOW TO BE ALERTED TO
FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.
Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email
every time a new posting appears. If you wish to be added to that
Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an
Email.
HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S
POTPOURRI.
BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com YOU ALSO
CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR
COMMENTS. (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a
Comment" link at the blog's end.)
MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO
AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?
HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.
To view older postings on this blog, just click on the
appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right,
or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very
bottom of this posting. The “Search Box” in the
right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for
which you are looking.
HOW TO FORWARD
POSTINGS.
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for
that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the
envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below,
enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.
You might also want to let me know their Email
address so that they may be alerted to future postings.
Jack Lippman
No comments:
Post a Comment