July 10, 2018--Audiological Tale: Fox News (Concluded)

Ten days later, when I was scheduled to bring back my loaner hearing aid and pick up my new one, Rona and I drove up to Rockport.

In Dr. Schwartzberg's office, before he could fit me with the new device, Rona said to Gary, "I think I know what you're up to."

He immediately put on his blank face. Clearly he was moving to protect himself from who knew what.

"From the day we last saw you, less than two weeks ago, I've noticed changes in Steven's behavior." Rona paused to see if he would engage her or just keep on staring.

It was unusual for Rona to take the lead while at his office. After a moment she continued, "I could be wrong about this because I didn't keep notes of what I was observing."

Engaged now, Gary said, "This is sounding interesting. Please, tell me what you've been noticing and what you make of it." He slid his chair toward Rona but close enough to me so that I would be able to hear everything, even if either of them spoke softly. I thought so I wouldn't feel left out and think they were whispering about my condition behind my back. 

"Like you, Steven is progressive. Politically." Gary nodded, "On his blog he frequently writes about political issues." Gary rolled his eyes as he knew I was more than interested in what was going on--I was obsessed. "He is so involved with trying to figure out what is happening that in addition to gobbling up everything he can find that's critical of Trump and his supporters he even samples what's being broadcast on middle-of-the-night rightwing talk radio, especially Fox News."

I jumped in, saying, "It's not that I spend a lot of time listening to what they're saying, how they spin things, it's more as Rona says, to understand them better, to know what we're up against. So I check them out. There's just so much that I can take of the likes of Sean Hannity or the well-named Michael Savage, whose real name, by the way, also is appropriate--Michael Weiner."

"That's his story," with an edge, Rona said, shrugging in my direction.

"So then what's your story?" Now eager to hear, Gary slid closer to her.

"Since we saw you he's been doing a lot more than checking out what's on the conservative media. For example, he's been spending more time than usual tuned in to that Trump enabler, Laura Ingraham. Even at times watching her whole show." She folded her arms across her chest and vibrated her foot so violently I was afraid she was going to topple out of her chair. 

Gary was now smiling broadly. He asked me, "Do you have anything to report?"

"I don't agree," I waved toward Rona, "I'll admit that I tend at times perhaps to be a little over-involved," Rona snorted, "But there's no way I would watch more than a few minutes of Laura Ingraham's show. I find her to be part of the Trump propaganda machine. I maybe turn her on for five or ten minutes to see what's she's up to and to get a preview of what Trump's talking points will be the next day since Fox helps set his agenda."

"So what do you make of that?" he asked Rona.

"It's bogus. Baloney. Like I said, last night, I swear, he watched her entire show. And worse, I saw him nodding his head. Nodding his head because of something she said! Next thing you know he'll be wanting Fox to rehire Bill O'Reilly."

A tense silence descended between Rona and me. We had never spatted while with Gary. Some of the hearing loss issues are tense and emotional. I hate to be so hard of hearing and as a result need hearing aids. Depend upon them. It's an aging thing, and always Rona has been beyond sensitive to my frustrations about the inevitable lose of some of my powers. So we always tread lightly about anything potentially too upsetting when in Gary's office.

I sensed that he was uncomfortable witnessing our increasing edginess. 

Finally, he said, "I don't want to put you through any more of this."

"You're behind this?" I said, "About what Rona claims is happening? Whatever that is?"

He looked away, but, nodding, said, "Yes. I was running a little experiment with you."

"An experiment with me? Without letting me know?" I was upset but also relieved.  Maybe whatever he had to say would help reconcile Rona and me.

"Forget the CIA business you brought up the last time you were here. And all the things you wrote last year. The stories you made up."

I said, "I'm beginning to sense that rather than your wanting us to forget about the CIA because there's nothing there it's because there is something there. A connection to you that you are trying to keep hidden. Maybe even in regard to this little experiment you mentioned. It's just as I've suspected for two years. There's a covert side to you." I raised my hands triumphantly and swung around toward Rona, who was looking quizzically at Gary.

"Before you come to any conclusions let me explain." Not waiting for either of us to respond, he said, "You know I'm interested in neurology. A lot of my involvement with hearing and its correction is neurological. How the brain adapts to the loss of hearing, or, for that matter, sight. If one ear or eye has a problem the brain adjusts. As some would describe the process, it remaps itself. If there is lose of brain function--including how it effects hearing or sight--other parts of the brain have at least some capacity to take over. You recall when I first fit you for hearing aids we went through a three-month process of adjustments. As your brain got used to the hearing aids I tuned to one level what you were hearing began to feel more and more comfortable, more natural. As if you didn't have aids at all. And then I pushed their capacity a little higher and over a few weeks your brain adapted again. Remapped itself."

"I remember all that," I said, "It was fascinating and you described it at the time very well." I was moving slowly to consider letting him off the hook.

"Switching subjects," he said, "As someone as politically interested as you I thought you might like to participate in my little experiment. I couldn't tell you about it in advance--maybe all things considered and how you both reacted, I should have. I didn't and I apologize for that, even though it would have spoiled the experiment. Because then there would have been the placebo effect."

"Get to the point," I said, "You have patients in the waiting room. And to tell you the truth all of this is exhausting me."

Pressing on, Gary said, "Are you aware of the experiments and literature in behavior genetics that suggest a large portion of one's political ideology is genetically influenced? Some reputable scientists claim that up to 40 percent of our political attitudes could be hardwired in our DNA. Not subject to external influence. Like what gets said on Fox or MSNBC. That doesn't affect us at all."

I said, in fact I have read about this. Including in a book by Hibbing called Predisposed. "It's controversial but if even half true it's important to understand and deal with the reality. It would help explain some of the behavior of the hard right."

"And," Rona said, "Let's not forget the hard left. They or we can be pretty rigid too about political issues."

"Touché," Gary said, now smiling again. "For example, there have been findings that suggest openness to experience, which can in large part be genetic, predicts liberal ideology and conscientiousness, also in part genetic, often goes with a conservative orientation."

"Again, though interesting, how does this relate to your so-called little experiment?"

"I know of course that Steven is a liberal and if the science about this is accurate a large part of that may be genetically predisposed. As with the rest of us. Let's say the genetics of this is true. What we don't know is if any of the predisposed part might be alterable. Or is it untouchable. Once a Democrat always a Democrat. Or a conservative. Political campaigns as a result tend to focus pretty exclusively on the non-hardwired part of the electorate. Which is understandable. With my neurological interest I'm interested in the non-genetically-influenced part."

Attempting to follow, though exhausted, Rona and I were intrigued. 

Sensing this, with enthusiasm, Gary said, "Though it is claimed that we can't do much about what's hardwired, maybe in fact we can in various, yes, covert ways, affect the way people think and ultimate vote. And so . . . think about what might be possible . . . What could be . . . Who knows the good . . ."

Tired by the effort, I could feel him considering the possibilities.

"I'm out of gas," I said, interrupting, "It's been a long day."

"I'm done," Gary said.

"Not quite," Rona said, "You still haven't described the specific details of the experiment."

He rose from his chair, also weary, and stood behind me, placing his hands on my shoulders. I twisted to look up at him. He removed the bronze, loaner hearing aid and held it up, being sure we both could see it. Then placed it carefully in a small box on his work table.

"Think about it," he said, "Think about all of this."

And with that, gently, into my left ear, he pressed the new device and turned toward the waiting room. My hearing was immediately restored.

With so much to consider we drove home barely exchanging a word. Later, we both confessed that what he had shared with us was exciting and important. Even if we hadn't understood it all.

February 13, 2018--#metoo

Friday afternoon, exasperated, Katy Tur on MSNBC, said, "All I'm hearing is 'he, he he.' Not a word about 'her.'"

She was referring to what she and the rest of us were hearing from Donald Trump about Rob Porter, his recently fired White House Staff Secretary. Though an ordinary-sounding job title, the Staff Secretary has frequent direct access to the president and is responsible for determining what printed material is given to the president to read or, in Trump's case, ignore.

To serve in that position, like his predecessors, Porter needed a top secret security clearance. Which he didn't have since the FBI, about a year ago, when reviewing his application, discovered that he had physically assaulted both of his ex-wives and thus did not approve assigning him that status.

Late Friday afternoon, in a virtually unprecedented move, unannounced, Trump invited the White House press corps into the Oval Office to take a few questions. It was no surprise that all of them were about Rob Porter. Trump had clearly thought carefully about what he would say.

At length, with a heavy-sounding heart, he spoke about what an exemplary employee Porter had been and how he would be missed. He called his departure "very sad" and that "we hope he will have a wonderful career." That "it's been a hard time for him."

He also reminded us that poor Porter had not been proven guilty, that he was merely the victim of allegations. There had not been due process. 

It was widely noted by Katy Tur and others that Trump spoke not a word about the women who had been physically assaulted. He didn't point out that what they had endured was also "sad" or offer the hope that they too would have "wonderful careers" or lives.

Over the weekend a little research revealed that with Trump there is a distinct pattern about these matters--when someone is accused of spousal abuse or sexual harassment, in all cases except Harvey Weinstein's, Trump totally ignored the women and consistently made excuses for the men.  

About Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama, who was credibly accused of molesting and raping minors, Trump,  not acknowledging the then girls, emphasized that Moore hadn't been convicted of anything. It was classic he-said-she-said though it was clear who Trump believed. 

And in the cases of campaign managers Cory Lewandowski and Steve Bannon, both accused by ex-wives of domestic violence, Trump did not seem concerned and stood by them when the accusations came to light.

Then, still fitting the pattern, when Fox News's Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were exposed as serial sexual predators, Trump fell in line in support of them.

About Weinstein Trump couldn't resist joining the condemnation since he was a major donor to Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats' campaigns. And so he overcame his reluctance to criticizing the men and took a swipe at Weinstein, saying, with unintentional irony on the very anniversary of the notorious Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape, that he was "not at all surprised" by revelations that the movie mogul repeatedly paid to settle charges of sexual harassment. It was obvious that Trump was speaking from personal experience.

"Still missing from this discussion," Rona said, "is more analysis about Trump's reticence."

I said, "I think in general it's been claimed that he's a classic chauvinist right out of the era in which he, a spoiled rich kid, came of age. A world where powerful men felt free to sexually exploit women, especially in the workplace. Mad Men like."

"I think that's only a part of the story," Rona said, "More significant to me is that he himself has been charged with sexual misconduct by at least 15 women and that he allegedly raped Ivana, his first wife. So he is directly implicated in his own world of similar accusations. Thus to talk in a more balanced way about the current burst of sexual allegations would potentially force him to confront his own behavior. So, by making excuses for the men accused, men like Rob Porter, via the psychological mechanism of projection, he is making excuses for himself. Diminishing the claims of the women suing him by assigning or projecting his behavior onto them. 

"You remember the hashtag Maureen Dowd created for him in her Sunday column? Instead of #metoo, she came up with something more appropriate for him--#me." 

"Perfect," Rona said with a sad smile.

February 7, 2018--Rupert Murdoch's Boys

Rupert Murdoch, worth at least $13.1 billion, owner of various news outlets and TV stations, including in New York, the salacious Post and, nationally, the Wall Street Journal (known for its Neanderthal editorials and high-quality reporting), entertainment companies such as F/X and the National Geographic channels, and of course the nefarious Fox News Channel, home to the likes of Bill O'Reilly (gone but insufficiently forgotten) and Sean Hannity (still awaiting his ultimate fate), Rupert, now married for the 10th or 11th time (kidding) to Mick's Ex, Jerry Hall, approaching 90, with at least half his marbles (enough to talk to Donald Trump almost nightly offering advice and encouragement) has for the past couple of years been dividing and turning his empire over to his two adult sons, James and Lachlan--the entertainment division to the former and the news operation to the latter. 

This represents an opportunity, perhaps even hope, especially for his media holdings in America as son Lachlan is reputed to be of a more liberal persuasion than his father (he pushed vigorously to fire Roger Ailes when his sexual harassment behavior was exposed) and might, just might be inclined to calm things down at Fox by dumping the evening opinion shows (right-wing rants) and while he's at it the insipid morning show, Fox&Friends, which Trump watches religiously and from which he gets many of his most corrosive and paranoid daily talking points.

But then again, Lachlan's half of the pie is the most profitable part, netting the Murdochs nearly $1.0 billion a year in net profit.

Though the money keeps pouring in, Fox News's viewership is aging out and dying off. Their 3.3 million daily viewers are on average 68, almost old enough to be required to begin drawing down their IRAs.

With these trend-lines there's no real future for Fox News as it's currently configured while for Lachlan, only 46, it is too soon to be presiding over such a geriatric operation.

Then, though he holds dual citizenship (he was born in England but lives in America) he is more American than Brit and thus to have a life in New York and Aspen, where he owns a sprawling mansion, to live a cosmopolitan life, presiding over Fox News as it spills hate out over American airwaves, to be responsible for Sean Hannity, is a cultural and social problem. And not to forget, these mesmerized viewers led the spawning of the Trump constancy. No Fox, no Trump.

I can see the possibility of son Lachlan guiding Fox in a still conservative but moderate direction. There is a younger viewership for that and so the bottom line, over a carefully staged transition, would not be undermined. The Fox News channel would remain a cash cow.

On the liberal side, the Washington Post and New York Times (both at the time, as Fox, family owned) over a decade morphed from outlets for traditional Republican editorial policy into liberal institutions. (The New York Post, another example of generational transition, was for many decades very liberal, at times, socialistic, and then along came Rupert Murdoch.)

So there is precedent. Above all, one cannot overemphasize the propensity of children, when inheriting businesses, to want to put there own stamp on things. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?) Of course, children (sons) thinking they're smarter than the "old man" frequently wind up bankrupting the family business. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?)

In regard to Fox News, if that were to happen, I could live with it.

The Murdoch Boys

December 5, 2017--The Ugly Reaility

The latest sexual harassment outing is of James Levine, not a household name, the former music director and revered conductor of the Metropolitan Opera orchestra.

These charges, as with Roy Moore's, go back many years, actually decades, to as long ago as 1986. Again, those who revealed the abuses spoke about how they feared accusing Levine because, as musicians, he might have on-going power over their professional lives. 

In addition, as with Moore's accusers they were ashamed of what happened, including how in some cases he lured them into "relationships" in which they continued to participate. 

Most of my information about Levine's behavior as well as that of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Louie C.K., Harvey Weinstein, and of course Donald Trump comes from the New York Times. Striking to me again yesterday morning when the Levine outing appeared was how graphic the gray-old Times has been in its reporting.

In the case of James Levine there were specific and vivid descriptions of how the conductor lead his young victims into reciprocal masterbation. With Weinstein we learned about his attempts to get aspiring actresses to massage him prior to forcing them to participate in various forms of sexual activity. We learned details of Matt Lauer's office set up, including the button he had at his desk so he could lock the door to provide a safe environment for him to have forced sexual intercourse with young staffers. And then there are the details of Mark Halperin's and Garrison Keiller's sexual proclivities and "techniques."

And not to be forgotten, was the Times's publishing the transcript of the Billy Bush tape in which Trump boasted about grabbing women's p****s. With the paper of record not using the bowdlerizing ****s.

Reading the article about James Levine yesterday morning I raised this graphic reporting with Rona. I indicted I was not comfortable with it, even wondering if the Times, competing for readers, was being so explicit in order to attract subscribers who would enjoy the soft-core reporting.

Rona said, "But that's the point. To make readers feel uncomfortable. Not just intellectually but to engage our sense of disgust. To employ euphemisms would take away some of that visceral outrage."

"Good points," I conceded, "I get it and think, in my case at least, it is working. I am fully disgusted."

"One more thing," she added, "And don't think it's a stretch."

"Go on."

"You remember, I'm sure, the mass murder at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut in 2012.  Do you recall how you said at the time that to make a powerful, maybe persuasive case for some form of federal control of automatic weapons and high velocity ammunition, rather than Obama and others just talking about it, to make the case more persuasively, they should have released the autopsy photos of the murdered children so that we could see the full effects of these kinds of combat weapons on small children. It would be hideous to see. But, again, that's the point."

"I do remember that. Maybe you're right. Maybe we have to stop covering up the ugly details of sexual abuse and even mass murder."

"We can't just sit around," Rona said, "and allow ourselves to become inured to it. It's not about pseudo-outrage and titillation. We need to find active ways to fight back."

November 15, 2017--Punishing Sexual Assault

Some of the most distressing news of recent times has been the wave of outings of men with power using it to sexually assault usually younger women over whom they have authority.

But some of the best news of recent times is about the courage these women are showing as they confront their accusers and risk stigmatization and the resurrection of the emotional nightmares they experienced in some case decades ago.

From movie producer Harvey Weinstein to comedian Louis C.K. to senatorial candidate Roy Moore, and lest we forget, Bill Crosby, the stories are horrifying, yet familiar.

And, yes, there is Fox News, which makes the predatory sexual climate of Mad Men seem like an innocent tea party.  

In my case, I know one of the accused, Leon Wieseltier, the former literary editor of the New Republic. This for me brings it close to home. 

The details of Leon's behavior are sadly typical--

Several women said they were humiliated when he kissed them on the mouth in front of other staff members. Others said he discussed his sex life, including describing in detail the breasts of a former girlfriend. He made passes at female colleagues and pressed them to describe their sex lives. 

Daily, we are hearing stories like this and worse.

But things get more complicated when thinking about appropriate punishment.

With the exception of Crosby and perhaps Weinstein, it is unlikely than any of these men will be criminally prosecuted. Some are and will be sued in civil court and hopefully, if guilty, will need to pay for emotional damages that they caused.

And then there are the private settlements that have occurred. Most dramatically, Bill O'Reilly paying one of the women he abused an astonishing $32 million.

In other instances, especially when the accused are well known or famous, they will suffer public disgrace and likely lose any possibility of resuming their careers. Weinstein will never again produce a feature film, Bill O'Reilly will never return to TV, Leon Wieseltier will never write and publish another literary critique.

Some will enter sex-addiction treatment programs (or pretend to), stay out of public view for a year or so, and then attempt to crawl back to their previous occupations. Weinstein is allegedly in such a program. 

In these instances the punishment is informal--employers will not take the risk to bring them back. In the case of the news or entertainment businesses, executives will not take the chance of being picketed or that sponsors will abandon them. Sponsor abandonment and boycotting are what ultimately brought O'Reilly down.

In the case of Roy Moore, perhaps, perhaps the voters of Alabama will keep him out of the Senate and the public eye. That would serve as a version of punishment.

Coauthor of Game Change, Mark Halpern, did numerous slimy things a number of years ago (and, who knows, perhaps more recently). After being exposed recently he lost his multi-million dollar book deal with Penguin Press and was fired by MSNBC and Bloomberg News. Will any publisher or TV network ever take another chance with him? Will they trust that he will be able to control himself, or more significant to a network, that he will be able to attract viewers and thus sponsors or readers. In other words, build viewership, sell books, and make money?

While we are furious about what is daily being revealed, it is understandable that we might feel there is justice seeing these careers ruined. The perpetrators brought this on themselves and deserve all the punishment they are receiving. It seems appropriate. 

But in some instances is it possible that the consequences are beyond fairness? How do we even think about fairness in circumstances when much of the punishment occurs in extralegal ways?

I am not sufficiently without flaws to make these judgements. Difficult as it is with emotions so raw, thinking about this still seems worthwhile.

Thoughts are welcome.

Leon Wieseltier

February 3, 2017--Once More, Jack

Though a number of friends recommended I not answer the phone when Jack calls, when he rang me again the other morning I ignored that advice.

I'm not exactly sure why some of my friends were offering such counsel, but I suspect it's largely because what Jack has been saying about me and my fellow Democrats rings truer than any of us would like--that we are in large part the source of our own political problems. That we didn't do enough to help Hillary Clinton get elected. That we took her victory for granted and spent more time talking about the election than becoming directly involved.

Thus far only one person I heard from, "Gala Girl," appears to have done well on Jack's parlor game challenge, Who Do You Know? She claimed to have friends from all of Jack's categories, except that she doesn't know any coal miners!

All the other readers and friends who either called or wrote to me confessed that for the most part they knew as friends very few plumbers, policemen, or waitresses. Some who disagreed with Jack about our being out-of-touch with Americans who elected Donald Trump, had no problem with the fact that they didn't know anyone currently serving in the military or working as a lab technician. And thus, like them, I should ignore Jack's jibes.

"Things are bad enough without us beating ourselves up about the results of the election," one said.

Jack on the other hand said, "I see you have a new obsession."

"How so?"

"With all the things going on this is what you're paying attention to?"

"What might that this be?" From his attitude I was already beginning to regret that I didn't let his call go to voice mail.

"With all that's going on from the immigration ban to Trump's on-going obsession about how many popular votes Hillary secured, you keep coming back to railing about congressional Democrats gathering the other night on the steps of the Supreme Court."

"I'm all in favor of activism of all kinds. In fact, we need more and more of it right now to show Trump that there will be political consequences for his words and deeds. Really, he needed to alienate the Australians? One of our loyalist allies?"

"I agree. But what seems to be sticking in your craw is the fact that that geriatric group of your congresspeople opted to sing This Land Is Your Land. What's with that?"

"It underlined for me how impotent and out of touch my party leaders are. Nancy Pelosi who can't sing is tottering around on her last legs and Chuck Schumer looks like he's ready for Weight Watchers or needs to check into a care facility. These are the people who are going to lead the opposition and help elect Democrats two years from now? I don't think so."

"I watch some MSNBC," Jack said. "That might surprise you, but I want to check out what Rachael is up to and your version of Bill O'Reilly, loud-mouth Chris Mathews. I want to listen in on what the left-wing opposition is saying and plotting. From my perspective, I'm happy to see not much to win over Trump-type voters. Though at least some of them are recognizing that progressives need to get out into the country to find out what's on voters' minds. You know visit some of those 21-percent counties."

"What are those?"

"Like the ones in Iowa and other swing states that voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, giving him 21 percent margins but then this time around voted equally overwhelmingly, by 21 percent, for Trump. There's a whole lot to learn in those places. And there are quite a few of them.

"If you're looking to start a business, consider setting up a tour company that buses Democrats for overnight visits to these districts. Especially tell them which diners to go to to have breakfast with the locals."

"In some ways we're agreeing. Which brings me back to the other night at the Supreme Court. Not only are our leaders totally out of touch and self-involved, but This Land Is Your Land? This old hippie song? I mean, I like it. But do they think it appeals to millennials and Latinos and the working poor? I don't think so. If anything, they made themselves seem irrelevant and ridiculous."

"On top to that," Jack said, "I noticed that they didn't even know the words. They had to read them from a handout."

 "And meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump was firing people and on the phone talking to the Mexican president, warning him that if the Mexican police don't do a better job of securing the border he might just have to have American troops invade Mexico because there are 'bad hombres' there."

May 3, 2013--Hollywood On the Potomac

When Roone Arledge, the programming genius behind the ascent and profitability of ABC Sports (remember "Wide World of Sports" and the original "Monday Night Football"?), was asked to also take responsibility for the failing ABC News division, I knew it was all over.

By "all over" I mean the end of keeping journalism and entertainment separate. From then on, especially on television, the dominant medium of the time, profit would rule; and in order to have TV news make money, it would be necessary to make reporting and news itself entertaining.

Cut to last weekend's White House correspondents dinner.

Seated at the same table, laughing at president Obama's jibes and jokes, were Bill O'Reilly (of FOX so-called News) and Anton Scalia (of the Supreme Court). Just across from them were Wolf Blitzer (of CNN) and Sharon Stone (of Basic Instinct) and nearby were Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) and Scarlett Johansson (of Lost in Translation).

Even Joan Rivers was on hand, keeping an eye on the red carpet (yes, this year, they actually instituted one) to offer up her snarky comments about Barbra Streisand's and Sofia Vergara's gowns and dos.

Most striking and revealing was the number of actors and producers present who either currently or in the recent past have been involved in film and TV projects set in Washington, more specifically in the White House.

Presidential intimate Valery Jarrett and UN ambassador Susan Rice were seen competing for air time with the cast of HBO's Veep, ABC's Scandal, and Netflix's House of Cards.

Also front and center were Michael Douglas who played the president in The American President and Claire Danes, the star of Showtime's thriller, Homeland. Even the terrorist heavy from Homeland, Navid Negahhan, who played Abu Nazir was in the house. As reported by the New York Times, Amy Poehler said, "I thought we killed Osama bin Laden."

I suppose it's good to see some bin Laden jokes and to know that, even though the White House and the Congress can't get anything done, at least they can entertain us.