Pressurizing?

It's been a while since I called out any of the news readers and commentators on NPR on matters of language or use of a questionable word form   So here's my seasonal contribution.
Driving home today I had the BBC's OS program (Outside Sources, for the uninitiated). They were reporting on today's press announcement that the Democratic House intends to write and approve two articles of Impeachment. In describing the first article involving Trump's effort to get Ukraine's president to damage Biden's campaign with charges of corruption in Ukraine. In explaining this the BBC reporter said that Trump will be charged with "PRESSURIZING" the government of Ukraine to announce such an investigation.  Why would the Brits believe that word was interchangeable with "PRESSURING". I had always assumed PRESSURIZING more accurately applied to situations where pressure such as air or gas was injected into a finite space to be eventually used and/or released at a later time. A tire is pressurized  A driver might be pressured to apply pressurized brakes to slow a vehicle.  But how could Trump pressurize Zelenski to take a desired action?

Trump tax returns

Random thoughts on Donald Trump. The Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media:

Who prior to 2017 could have imagined a scenario in which any politician, much less the President of the United States, would feel compelled or emboldened to declare on national that he was a “stable genius”?

Since some time in 2015 or 2016 Donald Trump has claimed that he couldn’t or wouldn’t release his federal income tax returns apparently for any year because he was in an ongoing status of being “under audit”. Never mind that there is apparently no law, no legal justification for this claim. Nowhere does anything assert that being under audit represents a valid justification for wrapping his data in a cloke of secrecy. A few tepid justifications have been offered by him and his lawyers and supporters claiming that the great unwashed public would simply not be equipped to understand his returns without jumping to erroneous conclusions. The questions raised by this situation are many. Is EVERY year involved in an unresolved audit? Has IRS not been able to wrap up any of the specific audits? If some specific years have had their audits concluded and closed out, why can’t the returns for those years and the audit findings be revealed? How does the fact that each year an audit is opened relate to prior years? Why doesn’t the media press the president on the public’s right to know what public officials’ finances looks like? How is concealing this in the best interests of the nation?

And this week Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has bought into the administration’s claim that Congress cannot compel release of this information absent a clear “legislative purpose” to Congress’s demand. I do predict this defense will eventually crumble before the third equal branch of the federal government, the Judiciary. But this three years+ of “running out the clock” is at a minimum frustrating. And the claim by Trump and his supporters that the entire question was rendered moot by the 2016 elections is insulting and one that the media and the Congressional Democrats should not let stand unchallenged.

Television Coverage of News Events

Recently on a Sunday morning a friend of a friend woke up, turned on the TV intending to get his daily fix of the “Kavanaugh saga”. But this friend was particular. He wanted to watch it through the lens of those who produce “Meet the Press” on NBC. Sadly he discovered that the morning's NBC shows had all been preempted by the Ryder Cup Finals. So he lamented to my friend or on social media his distress over being denied this week's “Meet the Depressed”.

I know how he felt. Three days earlier I had been denied my regular dose of “Price is Right” because CBS decided to preempt their entire day's programming with the Senate Judiciary Hearing concerning Justice Kavanaugh's suitability for confirmation. I had already decided to wait on the news bunnies' recap of the riviting testimony. So I tried to substitute “Price is Right” with a local news segment on ABC or FOX or even something on public television. No such luck. Every local channel, plus public TV, plus all the cable news channels, including BBC and C-Span had all decided that only they separately and individually could produce the true, “fair and unbalanced” peek into the Senate chambers I needed. So the same hearings were broadcast simultaneously on at least 5 local and 7 national cable channels.

Was this collusion to ensure that if I watched TV Thursday daytime that I would for sure watch Senators Grassley, et al at their “finest”? Did CBS not trust its “Price is Right” viewers to record the Senate proceedings on another channel and dutifully watch it after “Price” ended? I obviously don't understand the thought processes at work here. I understood all three channels covering the Kennedy funeral in 1963. I understood however many (7 or 8?) channels covering the events of 9/11/2001. But from my humble point of view things have gotten out of hand. We shouldn't have to settle for Home Shopping Network in order to find a TV show we want to watch that differs from the topic du jour.

But I triumphed. I clicked around until I landed on the Golf Channel's presentation of the opening round of the Ryder Cup competition.

It did make me chuckle on Sunday, however, to ponder how all the news junkies would have felt if the Ryder Cup Finals had been broadcast on ten or twelve channels simultaneously and deprived them of reactions from the White House.

Presidential Rally Coverage

It is time, maybe past time for the “FAKE NEWS” to put up or shut up. As has been suggested by a responsible, respected Republican media operative, all the members of the MSM (mainstream media) excluding FOX should immediately begin boycotting Trump rallies or at a minimum agree to using a solitary pool reporter to cover these pep rallies. This would deprive 45 of the visible punching bag he relies on to receive his hurled invectives. It would reduce the free coverage Trump covets. Important news elsewhere could once again receive appropriate coverage.

Living Biblically?

Maybe I'm misjudging the teaser trailers I've seen for the new "comedy" series coming later this month on that ole stalwart standard broadcast TV network, CBS.  Maybe they don't intend to ridicule and rip on the slim majority of Americans who claim Christianity as their religion. Maybe they won't be going to the lunatic fringes of various Christian denominations for their stereotypical cliches to seek a laugh.  Maybe.

But I, for one, have no intention of seeing for myself this latest effort by an anachronistic media form to grab the elusive brass ring and stop their decades long ratings slide.  If they are still around Season Two I'll tune in and see what clever, original humor they have to offer.

National Public Radio

They've just not given this sufficient thought. Sometimes a communications shortcut that is arguably reasonable in one medium becomes much less so in others. Abbreviations and acronyms make sense in written communications, especially when the acronyms are clearly identified early in a news story or editorial. One shouldn't have to write out National Collegiate Athletic Association multiple times in an article when it can be identified as such initially and then referred to as NCAA following times. But what's true in print does not necessarily hold for use on the radio or TV.
But rather than lay additional groundwork, let me go straight to the specific example that prompted my screed. Today I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR). The reporter on the program commented on an email to the program complaining about this very issue. The listener declared she was annoyed when “they used acronyms and abbreviations without ever clarifying and identifying what some of the letters represented.” . The specific abbreviation that piqued her was BBC-OS. In this case she was not objecting to the BBC. Everybody hearing the program and everybody on NPR knows that BBC stands for the British Broadcasting Corporation or Company. The caller was pretty sure, though, that the “OS” was seldom or never explained. This gave the NPR person the opening to answer the question at some length. Seems “OS” is short for “Outside Sources”. As painfully explained, this meant virtually all sources since BBC doesn't internally create much news. But other than providing this definition, the NPR person never adequately responded to the complainer's complaint. Why couldn't they refer to this little news niche program as “Outside Sources” every time instead of the “OS” abbreviation? When speaking it, two syllables are required to say “O” and “S”. Only four syllables are expended in mouthing “Outside Sources”. The time savings orally fails to match the economy of abbreviating in writing.
It was mentioned in the excuses offered up by NPR that the habit of using abbreviations internally within all organizations, be they broadcasting corporations or government bureaucracies, at times represented merely “insider lingo”. They do allow those in the know to freeze out the unwashed.
I could wrap this up admitting that some acronyms can provide the same useful time savings orally that they do on the paper. This is especially true where the acronym does not dictate each letter being voiced if the acronym is also a recognizable word. It made sense for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties of the 70s and 80s to be referred to both in writing and on television as START treaties. But, having said that, I stand with the e-mailer that “inside baseball” abbreviations are often lazily used at the expense of clarity.

RNC "New King" Christmas Declaration

RNC Exhibits Genius in “New King” Christmas declaration

Whether or not it was calculated, the Republican National Committee produced a Christmas declaration that benefited them at least four ways with little or no down side.  The statement they issued was as follows:

 "Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King.”

For starters,  it does make one wonder why the national committee of the political party that recently won the White House for the first time in eight years chose to issue such a statement.  Is this routine? Do they always acknowledge universally commemorated religious events? Or were there specific causes of this year’s effusion?

Of course, the RNC claims innocent motives and surprise at the reaction on social media, in the mainline media, and among their political opponents. The notion that they issued this statement to draw any kind of comparison of their president-elect to the Son of God gives them several ways to try to profit from the controversy. I would suggest they get to benefit as follows:

1.     For those Americans inclined to make the same connection between Trump and Christ the RNC statement becomes a validation or affirmation.

2.     The RNC is seen as “pro-Christian” if anybody had doubted it.

3.     They get to position themselves as victims of petty, small-minded opponents who appear to protest every Republican utterance.

4.     They get to keep alive the fiction of religious persecution in this country without having to address any legitimate religious issue.  

If this was calculated, it was truly genius. If, as the RNC claims, it was innocent, then their streak of positive, lucky benefits continues unabated.

Newspaper writing for the public

Not sure why, but I feel compelled to criticize the writing of some professional newspaper reporters and writers. This Washington Post article with a tri-person byline concerned Trump’s transition and selection of Whitehouse aids. It included the following sentence. They said:

“As the seriousness of governing subsumes the vitriol of the campaign, a dozen national security experts interviewed said they believed experienced people will resume their roles as apolitical professionals and be willing to join the administration.”

Did whichever writer who penned this sentence actually believe that most of their readers or even ANY of their readers actually talk like this? “The seriousness of the campaign subsumes the vitriol of the campaign . . .”   REALLY?

Rather than trying to impress their colleagues, they should work harder on using plain language that clearly makes their point.

Publisher's Clearinghouse is majorly annoying

Back when it was done all hardcopy, I enjoyed receiving the mailing from Publisher's Clearinghouse concerning their big annual sweepstakes drawing for a million bucks.  I would take some time and look through the several pages of little stickers for potential magazine subscriptions.  The subscription prices usually looked pretty good compared to regular nondiscounted subscription rates.  And more often than not I would choose some new magazine to take for a year.  I normally balanced this out by dropping one of the subscriptions I had for some magazine that didn't get read cover to cover when it arrived in the mail each month.  And each year when they had the TV show where they showed the Grand Prize winner I made like the Cubs and said to myself, "Wait until next year!"

But now, in 2014, I am annoyed with Publisher's Clearinghouse.  They may still have the hardcopy version  I've paid no attention.  But I know that they have gone mostly to online entries and communication.  And the way they have done this leads me to scream, "No mas"!  The first time I signed up on their website for the drawing they took me through some 15 or 20 screens of having to tell them "No' on selecting products and services to purchase as part of the entry process.  And while they did have the obligatory disclaimer that no purchase was required for  valid entry, they then overrode that with multiple guilt-laden suggestions that I was a fool for not spending a bunch of money with them.

But that was not enough.  No!  They then proceeded some 5 days a week after that to send special cryptic messages mandating that I reconfirm my entry or risk having a "winning entry" disqualified or cancelled.  And every one of these followup messages also involved paging through many screens of goods and services that I would obviously want to purchase. 

I have now gotten to the point where I definitely will not watch the nationally televised award presentation the end of August.  And I no longer even open any of the daily messages I get from PCH.  I have entered the sweepstakes for the last time.   Is this the result they were intending?

Les Miserables

I admit, this screed is born of a desire to focus momentarily on something other than the 20 precious children and 6 adults murdered at Sandy Hook last week. But I’m sure my mind will return to it in due course. Today I question the editing/selection skills of the advertising people who are promoting “Les Miserables”. The full trailer as seen in the movie house as a preview is quite powerful and makes one eager to see the film. The TV commercials, on the other hand, are insipid and fail to command attention or elicit interest. Yet the TV commercials use the same cuts as was used in the full preview. They simply move way too quickly from one snippet to the next scene. And the voice over does nothing to encourage the public to want to watch this movie. Don’t be mistaken, I will be seeing this film probably the first week it is out. (Noon-time “senior” matinees are usually not too crowded.) But were I financially invested in the success of “Les Miz” I would be thinking about changing publicists/editors.

Commercials on TV

As a reasonably well-educated man who has lived and observed life for several decades, I am puzzled. What puzzles me is the thinking behind many of today's television commercials. The ones that annoy me the most are those that tell some alleged memorable or supposedly amusing story but that have little or no relation to the product they are selling. Even if I get or appreciate the vignette or story, what makes the creators of these commercials think I will transfer those warm and fuzzy feelings to their product? Or that I will even mentally connect the point of the commercial to their product,their company? "Ah yes, I just love that commercial about the dancing squirrels. But what are they selling?"

Hypocricy

So, where's the wall-to-wall coverage of Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch? Why aren't FOX and Nancy Grace (CNN) all over this?

NPR Covers "Carmageddon"

I am only occasionally annoyed by news coverage on our local NPR station. But today's coverage of this weekend's "Carmageddon" in Los Angelas was definitely one of those rare occasions. They spent too much of their valuable air time on a nothing story - the anticipated traffic gridlock that will occur when the 405 is closed for a couple of days while DOT widens a lane or adds some space to make traffic flow more smoothly. The way overblown reaction of southern Californians would be amusing if there weren't so many more deserving stories that NPR could have been covering. I don't even feel the need to offer examples. Anything would have been better than this tripe.
The NPR people even referenced the moniker poorly. They declared that the name came from a modern day video game or movie. Here's what the NPR story actually said:
"DEL BARCO: Yes, Carmageddon, a name taken from a graphically violent video game inspired by the cult movie "Death Race 2000." L.A. County supervisor Zev Yarovsavsky coined the term for what essentially will be a widening of the road."
Are we to believe that NPR thought this was indeed the origin of the term? Are they totally unaware of "Armageddon" from the Book of Revelation in the New Testament as an example of the ultimate battle, the worst possible conflict?
And what makes the narcissistic people of southern California think that the other 300 million people in America or the 6.5 billion inhabitants of the earth care that a few thousand cars might be stuck in slow traffic this weekend if they ignore warnings. WE DON'T CARE !! Give it a rest!

COMPROMISE

The networks and cable news channels won't do it. But somebody ought to remind everyone of the meaning of and the rightful place of "compromise" in the political setting.
This weekend the US Senate has apparently reached a compromise on the health care bill that is claimed to be backed up by 60 Democratic votes. We'll see. The actual votes are scheduled later today and in the coming days.
But even if the Senate bill passes, we are a long way from final legislation getting signed by the president. The Senate compromise contains provisions that liberal House Dems had previously said would be deal breakers. So there is still some compromising to occur if agreement is to be reached.
And if those who are commenting are accurate and honest then the chasm still to be bridged is quite wide. Several important votes on opposite sides of the debate have declared that they will not move beyond certain specific lines drawn in the sand. And the "No Man's Land" appears large.
So, do people on both sides prefer no bill to one that violates whatever mandate they've declared must be met? Perhaps. They seem to act as if a "no decision" is a valid fall-back position if they can't round up enough votes to support their preferred position. Such thinking, however, seems to me to be faulty. Keeping the status quo in the absence of a bill is not a "no decision". It is a conscious action to allow current unencumbered powers to proceed as they wish. Costs will rise without the benefit of extending coverage. Insurance companies will feel empowered to act with impunity. (After all, if they were not suppose to protect their own interests and profits then Congress would have passed something addressing the question, right?)
It reminds me of football teams that play a weak zone defense. They are fine as long as the other team runs pass plays where they have adequate coverage. But the other teams don't play fair, do they? No, they run the play to the "seam" of the zone coverage. They throw the pass to right where the zone defenders each think his neighboring partner defender will take over.
But, back to the health care debate. I hope a compromise does get worked out. A compromise bill, even if called a "bad bill" by extremists on both ends of the debate, would represent an improvement over the status quo. Take what the defense gives you. Kick your field goal and wait for a later opportunity to sneak in a touchdown. That's my game plan.

Another Media Lament

It happens with cable talking heads and news bunnies. It happens with local affiliate news personalities. It may happen with the "major broadcast network" people as well, though I don't see it there as much.
I'm talking about the strained efforts by those mentioned to demonstrate to their public and to whoever they are interviewing that they have done their homework.
"You say in your book that . . . blah, blah, blah . . . Why did you say that ?? "
Don't get me wrong. I do want them to actually do their homework. I just don't want them to be so obvious that they are trying to prove to everyone that that's what they are about.
And in this vein, I would offer a recommendation to the culprits who are not as smooth and professional as they shouold be. They should spend several hours observing, listening to Diane Rehm on NPR (I think it's called "the DR Show") midmornings on your favorite NPR station. Diane is the absolute best radio interviewer in the business today.