January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!

November 30, 2016--You Be the Judge

They broke into Morning Joe yesterday to announce that their parent network, NBC, had just summarily fired longtime Today Show host Matt Lauer for "inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace."

Joe Scarborough, Mike Barnicle, and frequent Today host Willie Geist were visibly shaken. I suspect in Joe's case in part because he feared he could easily be the next to fall. There's a lot of sexual static in his past.

We watched for awhile and then switched to NBC where co-host Savannah Guthrie and last-minute substitute host Hoda Kotb were sharing their feelings of upset.

After ten minutes we surfed around to see how the other networks were was dealing with the news. 

First to CNN, where morning co-host Alisyn Camerota had been sexually harassed by her past employer, Fox News head Roger Ailes who had been summarily fired six months ago; then to Fox itself where the hosts, conveniently forgetting their own network's history with sexual harassment, were a version of gleeful; next to CBS where senior-host Charlie Rose had been summarily fired a week and a half ago for sexual malfeasance. Then finally to Today's main rival, ABC's Good Morning America.

We lingered there because mega-businessman Daymond John of Shark Tank fame was being interviewed about his latest book, The Power of Broke. We stopped to watch as Shark Tank is one of the two or three shows we enjoy watching. OK, one of two. 

At the end of the interview, the person interviewing him thanked him profusely (Shark Tank is also an ABC show) and reached over to touch him. On the upper thigh!

In the context of all the inappropriate touching this was shocking and the only thing of interest in this otherwise innocuous program.

"Can they get away with that?" Rona asked.

"I guess we'll find out later today or tomorrow when ABC human resources and/or executives of the network may have to deal with it."

"Did it make any difference that Daymond, the touchee," Rona wondered, "is a man?"

"Good question."

"Or that the interviewer, Robin Roberts is a woman?"

"And," I said, "an openly gay woman at that."

"This is all so complicated," Rona said. "In addition, I wonder if NBC rushed to fire Lauer, one of the networks Trump claims deals mainly in fake news, before he could get his hands on the story and gleefully scoop and excoriate them."

"He's on quite a roll with that," I said, "Shortly after the Matt Lauer story broke he was tweeting about 'low-ratings' Joe Scarborough and alluding to the scandal that befell him back when he was a congressman--when a female intern died of unclear causes in his Florida office."

"No wonder I don't want to watch TV," Rona sighed.

"But don't forget Shark Tank."

May 5, 2104--Confirmation Bias

For years I enjoyed early mornings with Morning Joe. But, since it is beginning to feel predictable, lately I find myself switching back and forth between Joe, CBS This Morning, and even CNN's New Day. Never mind the conservative zombie cyborgs on Fox News' alliterative Fox and Friends.

Charlie Rose on CBS feels about as grumpy as I, like me not entirely happy to be up early. So I can relate to that. New Day, on the other hand, is more or less devoted to news, but it is disconcerting to watch Chris Cuomo on CNN, who looks just like New York governor Andrew Cuomo's twin and sounds just like his father, former New York governor, Mario. Again, not fully clearheaded that early in the morning, this can be confusing.

My drifting from Morning Joe appears not just to be an isolated phenomenon but is reflected in the ratings of these four morning shows, especially the cable networks' three. According to a report in the New York Times, Joe has slipped to third place among the cable shows. F&F continues to be number one with ratings that equal both New Day's, which has taken over second place, and Morning Joe's. Especially among younger viewers who, for some reason, are considered to be the more desirable.

Cantankerous, good-ol-boy, Morning Joe Scarborough, is not being diplomatic in his reactions. He is quoted as saying, "CNN has made itself a punch line on the Daily Show for its phony breaking-news headlines and breathless coverage of random ocean debris." (He failed to mention that Jon Stewart on the Daily Show devoted an entire segment to making fun of . . . Morning Joe, for being so cozy with the powerful.)

But Joe has a point.

New Day, and the rest of CNN, vaulted over Joe and all other MSNBC programs by devoting almost all of its time to a constant stream of alleged breaking-news about Malaysian ill-fated flight 370, with much of this breaking news really a constant rehashing of "news" that "broke" hours or even days before. It seems that on CNN there is no statute of limitations on anything they deem to be new news.

On the other hand, MSNBC itself gleefully devoted dawn-to-dusk coverage for weeks to the political downfall of Chris Christie. And now are spending most of their time expressing outrage about estranged LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the botched execution in Oklahoma.

While over at Fox, it has not been all-news-all-the-time or we-report-you-decide: it has been all-Benghazi-all-the time in their attempt to preemptively bring down the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

But, in addition to noticing myself drifting away from Morning Joe, I am also finding myself losing interest in Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, late evening hosts of their own shows on MSNBC.

They are feeling to me as doctrinaire and strident coming from the left as the hosts of Fox's evening lineup are from the right. Yes, their views are more fact-based than Fox's and Fox's are more opinion-based, but both are becoming unwatchable because their views are more and more predictable.

In talking with others, liberal as well as conservative friends, they are saying much the same thing; but, for the most part, all are continuing to watch their favorite shows on Fox or MSNBC.

I've been wondering why they, and I, continue to tune in if in fact so much is repetitious and predictable.

I have come to conclude we watch because pretty much everyone on Fox and MSNBC, is predictable. We tune in to have our views confirmed.

In cognitive theory this is called confirmation bias. How we search for new information and interpretations that confirm our perceptions and avoid information and points of view that contradict prior or already formed beliefs.

Since genopolitical research is finding that there may be a genetic basis for our political perspectives and attitudes (see The Righteous Mind), the pull to have these deeply-based views constantly affirmed fits right in with the drumbeat programming on the most ideological TV talk shows.

This is not unlike the need to eat. Feeding the mind a steady diet of ideological views is perhaps not so different from feeding the body.

The body human and the body politics.

December 2, 2013--Cyber Monday

It was 5:30 yesterday evening when we pulled up to the house to unload groceries.

"Today's Sunday, isn't it?" Rona asked, actually knowing the answer. "So what's that mail truck doing delivering packages on Sunday?"

"It's because Amazon made a deal with them to deliver orders on Sundays."

"You mean the American people, the president, and Congress couldn't get them to do it but Amazon could?"

"What can I tell you."

"Let's get upstairs as soon as we can," Rona said, "I think 60 Minutes is doing a story today about Amazon. About Jeff Bezos. Your favorite."

"You know I can't stand 60 Minutes any more. They have descended basically to doing puff pieces. I stopped watching after Mike Wallace retired."

And, as predicted, the story about Bezos was mainly fluff. The interviewer was Charlie Rose who is a personal friend of the Besoses, Jeff and MacKenzie, his novelist wife. The whole thing was like an unpaid advertisement for Amazon.

But there were a few things of interest. Great interest.

One of Amazon's senior executives, I think the person responsible for Amazon's fulfillment operations--the people who round up, pack, and ship orders--when asked said that Amazon's long-range plan is to sell "everything to everyone."

He added, "I think." But I believed him since they seem well on their way to achieving their goal. Currently they have nearly 225 million customers worldwide.

A lot of the piece was shot in one of Amazon's one-million-square-foot fulfillment warehouses--one of, I think, 19 in the United States--with more under construction so that packages can get to customers quicker than the typical two days at present. Thus the Sunday delivery deal they struck with the USPS.

And Bezos, told Rose, they are working to get orders to customers even faster than that--they hope to be able to deliver 80 percent of orders the same day. Which is an enormous challenge since they get 300 per second.

When Charlie put on his faux-incredulent face, Jeff winked at him and indicated he was willing to let his friend in on a top secret project--he agreed to show him the drones--yes drones--Amazon is developing to deliver packages right to people's doorsteps within hours of their placing orders.

And sure enough 60 Minutes had video footage of these little drones with yellow plastic buckets attached to their underbellies hovering over a suburban home, using GPS coordinates--just like in Pakistan--before descending to the lawn, uncoupling itself from the yellow tub before lifting off to swoop back to the fulfillment center.

The still incredulous Rose, with his mouth still hanging open, could barely deliver a follow-up question, so Bezos, unasked, said that 85 percent of their orders could fit into one of those plastic boxes and so . . . He didn't need to finish his sentence.

Charlie, now recovered, asked how soon packages would be delivered that way.

Bezos laughed--he's worth about $25 billion and that makes it easy to chuckle at such things--that it wouldn't be for a few more years. They had to make sure the drones won't cause collateral damage, landing on people's heads on streets such as ours in Manhattan.

"So," Rona said, as we watched with our mouths also agape but for other reasons (everything to everybody?), "I guess that means the post office will be doing Sunday deliveries for quite some time."

"Good for them," I said, "I mean I suppose. Good for them."

"And it all started in his garage in Bellevue, Washington less than 20 years ago. Good for him . . . I suppose."

I said, "Too bad we don't have a garage."

"Maybe we don't, but tomorrow, I'm buying some Amazon stock." She wrote a note to herself.

Shrugging, I said, "Get me some too."