Joy Reid and the Big Lie

MSNBC host Joy Reid was recently at the center of a minor brouhaha which was indicative of why many people hold the establishment media in low esteem. Before Reid was the eye rolling Madame Defarge of the anti-Trump Resistance she was a radio talk show host, political columnist and a blogger. Few people paid attention to everything that Reid was writing on her blog from 2006 to 2010. Reid wasn't big time then. Her blog was aimed at a different audience than she reaches with her 2018 television show. The political and cultural environment was different a decade ago. President Obama was elected in 2008 claiming opposition to same sex marriage. Likely, some assumed that it wasn't a very strident opposition, that Obama was lying, or that he was just cautious about coming out in favor of gay marriage. 

But even then it was at the very least bad form, rude and callous if not "homophobic" for a straight person to publicly question people's sexuality, mock people by calling them gay, or claim ostentatious disgust at the idea of gay intimacy. Reid did all of that. People found Reid's old blog posts, many of which claimed that then Florida Republican governor Charlie Crist was gay. Reid apologized and said she was a different person back then. This was no big deal to me. The rain falls on good and evil alike. Many people have made nasty statements about those they consider other. 

Joy Reid and Gary Johnson: Big Dummies!

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"-Mark Twain
Everyone makes mistakes. No one knows everything. There are so many different realms and levels of knowledge that you can, despite what Scott Adams thinks, spend a lifetime becoming expert in one particular area of human endeavor and still have more to learn. So there is no shame required if you are ignorant of a particular fact or unfamiliar with a given experience. No, the shame doesn't come with being ignorant. The shame comes with wanting to stay ignorant, being uncurious or trying to pass yourself off as an expert in a given field when actually you know nothing about the discipline. I saw two examples of this recently that I thought were humorous enough to share. One deservedly got more attention than the other because the man who made the gaffe is running for President, but both show that an unfamiliarity with facts is not good for people in high profile positions. As you probably know there is a multi-faction civil war in Syria ongoing. The largest city in Syria, Aleppo, is currently the site of a battle that involves just about every faction still extant, including foreign adventurers. Every faction has committed atrocities or has been accused of committing atrocities. The civilians are getting it in the neck, as is usually the case with civilians trapped in war zones. Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson, as Libertarians tend to be, has been skeptical of committing the US to new foreign wars or "interventions". This non-interventionist stance tends to drive the so-called "serious" foreign policy journalists and gurus (especially neo-cons) up the wall. They see it as dangerously naive and virtually treasonous. With this in mind MSNBC's Mike Barnicle asked Johnson what would Johnson do about Aleppo if he were elected President. Unfortunately Johnson, who looked tired and sounded even more inarticulate than normal said he did not know what Aleppo was. After Barnicle snidely explained what Aleppo was and where it was, Johnson gave a desultory dispirited answer that basically boiled down to using more diplomacy and avoiding foreign entanglements. But the story of the day wasn't that Johnson, like almost everyone else in the current or would-be foreign policy establishment, doesn't know how to fix Syria. 


The story of the day was that Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was, possibly because he had been smoking too much bud. Many people thought that this seeming ignorance of basic foreign policy was disqualifying. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. The voters will have to decide. But I do think that Johnson's answer shows the danger of not doing the very basic work of knowing current politics and geography. If you want to be President you should know that stuff as least as well as a former plagiarist like Barnicle. When someone asks you about China's activities in the South China Sea or North Korea's nuclear tests or the settlements in the West Bank, they may well be trying to prove to their audience that your solutions are silly or won't work. But you don't do yourself any favors by appearing to not even have the most rudimentary understanding of geography and current events. Johnson later released a statement saying he thought Barnicle was using an acronym.

This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict — I talk about them every day. But hit with “What about Aleppo?,” I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign. Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes. As Governor, there were many things I didn’t know off the top of my head. But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions. It worked. That is what a President must do.

Staying with MSNBC for a moment commentator Joy Reid, a Harvard graduate, has made no secret of her preference for Hillary Clinton and her intense disdain for Trump and for that matter Stein or Sanders. I have no real issue with this because at least you know where she's coming from. Spending too much time getting upset about someone else's political preferences is a losing battle. The few times I have tried watching Reid's show or other shows where she's a substitute host I have found her conversational style to be less that of a commentator or facilitator and closer to that of a district attorney. Reid seems to be personally offended and outraged that everyone doesn't see the world exactly as she does. She goes after the lies, mistakes, omissions or differences of opinions of Trump surrogates with a sarcastic zeal that would make Inspector Javert proud. I think that Reid is basically trying out for the job of Press Secretary for the Clinton Administration. I think she would be very good at it. She seems to like interrupting and correcting people. The problem with that though is that if you're going to live by the sword you have to be ready to die by the sword. When criticizing Trump for an apparent affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin Reid made these tweets

That said, for most Americans it's shocking to see an American presidential candidate openly touting authoritarian, communist Russia...

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) September 9, 2016

Even Jill Stein, who's taken the socialist Green Party full Putinite, and the Putin-tilting Snowdenistas haven't been nearly as successful.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) September 9, 2016

I imagine the old time American Communist Party is spinning in its collective grave with envy at what Trump is accomplishing.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) September 9, 2016

There are a few things wrong with Reid's grasp of facts which should be obvious.

• Russia is not Communist and has not been since at least 1991 with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the (choose a term) imposition or acceptance of shock therapy free market capitalism. There have been numerous books, papers and studies written about this. It's sort of a big deal.
• The American Communist Party hasn't run a Presidential candidate of its own since 1984. In every election since that time it has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President. This year is no different. The Communists have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
• Trying to link American dissidents or gadflies with foreign Communists as Reid does with her "Putinite" and "Snowdenistas" slurs is an old old trick that goes back to at least the early 20th century. Almost every prominent black intellectual, labor activist, civil rights agitator, religious leader or politician eventually faced this tactic. Such moral exemplars as J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy used this slander against their enemies in their attempts to destroy any and all left wing political or social movements. To see Reid stoop to use this weapon, however ineptly, is just horrible. She has no shame.

If you think that Clinton just walks on water and sweats gardenia scent that's fine. If you don't like the fact that Sanders ran against Hillary or that Stein is running against her, have a Coke and a smile. I have no interest in trying to change your mind. But if you're going to write that 2016 Russia is Communist or that people to the left of Clinton are Putinites then you need to go get a refund from your University. Because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And if you're just making stuff up and refusing to acknowledge errors you're no different than your hated political opposites.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Kids Belong To Communities

If you ever watch MSNBC you may have noticed a series of LEAN FORWARD commercials featuring their on air opinion talent earnestly giving bromides about how we're all in this together and we need to work collectively for the common good. Usually these things are calculated to be just this side of irritating to more moderate or conservative viewers as the unsaid implication in the spots is often that conservatives are doing every thing wrong. In some respects the commercials are examples of liberals being sore winners. A recent spot featured Professor Melissa Harris-Perry. The terminology and phrases she used sent conservatives as well as a few libertarians over the deep end in rage. 

Of course I doubt this was by accident. On some other boards I frequent occasionally extremely conservative or extremely liberal people will post stories or make comments that are designed to do nothing other than get a rise out of the other side. Flame wars can easily get started that way. I won't claim I've never done that in my life (ha-ha) but it is a pretty cheap way of getting responses and in my opinion usually not as good or mature as actually creating and sharing a deeper analysis. The person who instigates this often pretends innocence and claims to be above the obviously irrational, emotional and gratuitously nasty responses the other side is showing. Sure I poked the caged tiger in the eye with a stick but that's no reason for it to get upset...

When I read the phrases the good professor used I have to believe that she or the commercial creator had to be trolling somewhat. It was reminiscent of the old Looney Tunes cartoons when Foghorn Leghorn would stroll over to the sleeping dog and kick it in the behind. Foghorn would then wait just outside the limit the chained dog could reach. When the dog choked on its collar, sputtering in rage, Foghorn would say "Aw shaddup!!" and hit the dog again. What could the Professor have said to make some people start barking and shaking their jowls in rage? Well let's see.


            

She starts out and ends with the usual progressive idea that we don't spend enough on public education and need to spend more, or as she would put it invest more. Conservatives generally disagree of course. There are good arguments on both sides here and there's room for legitimate debate. I would tend toward Professor Harris-Perry's side on this but I can see the other side. So if she had just stated that of course conservatives would have disagreed as they usually do. But what turned the intensity of disagreement up was her statement that "..We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or that kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

Game recognizes game. This sent conservative trolls like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh into fits of fury. It also set off alarm bells of warning in more libertarian circles. Do you see why? 

It is a deliberate oversimplification for brevity but conservatives (with some hypocritical exceptions) broadly speaking generally want the federal and to the lesser extent the state governments to have less power regarding the individual and the family. Liberals tend to feel exactly the opposite way, feeling that the federal government ought to have more authority. Some look suspiciously at the family, often seeing it as a breeding ground for patriarchal and generally wrong-headed ideas.

So when you say that we need to get rid of the idea that kids belong to their parents or families, you probably shouldn't be surprised that that hits a nerve with conservatives and they respond. Of course in the strictest sense kids don't belong to anyone. Adults are stewards of the next generation, not owners. But that's just semantics.

Parents, not society, have the primary responsibility for children. Parents, not society, get to make virtually all of the critical decisions for children. If someone doesn't like the way someone else is raising their children, that's tough. It's the parent's job to make sure that their child has enough to eat, attends a good school, learns how to resolve conflicts, stays in good health, figures out the birds and the bees, and any number of other things. I do believe that society, or rather government has a role to play in ensuring there's a baseline to help parents do all those things but in my view that's where everyone else's role ceases.  And it must stop there. Why? Because to start with, we live in an increasingly diverse society and everyone has different ideas about how to raise children. The only way we can live together is for people to mind their own business and absent abuse let parents raise their kids as they see fit. There was another video of MSNBC personality Krystal Ball talking to her five year old daughter about gay marriage and coaching her to support it. Some conservative members of society were outraged and considered this abusive. Would Professor Harris-Perry think that since kids belong to entire communities the community would have a right to step in and teach the daughter differently? I doubt it. If you don't like how someone is raising his/her kids, either have some of your own and raise them differently or go sit down and be quiet. Those are really your only two choices unless you happen to be the child's other parent.

Secondly although it's somewhat harsh to say it, parents care more about their children than society does.That's their direct biological investment in the next generation. That's why parents have such an incentive to make sure their child does well. Law doesn't mess with that relationship lightly. Professor Harris-Perry had a follow up to her ad in which she argued that she was just deliberately misunderstood by right-wing cretins. Well maybe. But I doubt that anyone with the command of the language that the professor possesses didn't realize that confidently stating "we have to break through the private idea that kids belong to their parents" would invite attacks. And what she says in her post is different from the ad.

The elephant in the room around all of this is the fact that recently for the first time in American history there were more minority births than white ones. This raises legitimate questions and fears across the political spectrum about what will be the policy outcome of this change. Seniors or people without children already may have issues with taxes to support families. Will a more diverse workforce wish to fund retirement and medical coverage for a very white older generation? Will that white older generation feel it necessary to pay higher taxes to support schools full of children who do not look like their grandchildren? Time will tell. I think this is what the professor was really referencing.

Thoughts?

Do you agree with Professor Harris-Perry's ad?

Was she trolling?

Is this much ado about nothing?

Do you think kids belong to the community or to their parents?

TV, Politics, and Al Sharpton

Yesterday I was channel surfing and I stop on MSNBC which I haven't watched in a long time and who do I see on my TV screen... Motherfreaking Al Sharpton. Like dude was in an anchor chair and giving me the news.

I was confused. I thought I had been bamboozled. I was waiting for the cameraman the director anyone in the control room with knowledge of the board to switch the shot but it never happened. I mean Al was giving me the news, his opinion, and commentary and I was just so beside myself I couldn't even pick my up my bottom lip.

So what did I do. I took to twitter to see if anybody else was seeing what I was seeing. After a series of tweets no one responded. Then I went twitter stalking people I don't know but find interesting (don't judge me) and found this:

I never thought I'd see the day al sharpton became relevant. but here it is. here it is. I am so humbled by this startling change of events.

less than a minute ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry Favorite Retweet Reply

fooler initiative
metroadlib

I haaaaaatttttte that al sharpton INSISTS on giving me liffffffffeeeeeeee these days.....this ASSHOLE just played "He's Got the Whole World"

less than a minute ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry Favorite Retweet Reply

fooler initiative
metroadlib

This is somebody I find smart and absolutely hilarious telling me via twitter that Al Sharpton is giving her life. For real though. I mean that's how you really really feel about life. Okay so let me give the Rev a shot.

I still wasn't sold and explained why to the other members of Urban Politico via email. They will tell you how they feel in the comments. My position though is that Al Sharpton is being played for ratings. I work in TV so I know a little something about "the book" as it's called. Matter of fact we're in one right now.

Let me break it down; ratings periods are the months of November, February, May and July. The July book is the least important. November sweeps (interchangeable with ratings) is when all the juicy stuff happens on your favorite TV shows following the late September early October premiere. If you kill in November you're going to get more advertisers, be able to charge more for advertisments, and basically make the network, and all involved a lot of money and very happy. November sweeps also ends right around Thanksgiving before people realize family is more important than the tube.

In February TV once again gets good following all the re-runs played during the holidays. This follows a period of stupid, insanely high TV watching known as the Superbowl. TV gets a little boring around spring break but come May it heats back up with the season finales that keep you wanting more. Oprah's 25th season was centered around this cycle. July sweeps are for those summer shows to break ground and decide if networks want to keep them going. Think USA.

So this is where Al Sharpton fits in. He's being tried on by MSNBC and so far people are biting. According to TVNewser on mediabistro.com:

"Sharpton has hosted the 6pm show for the last two weeks. This past week, the hour was second, to Fox News in A25-54 viewers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday."

Sharpton's show -- which does not have a name -- coming in second to FOX in the most key of key demographics is no laughing matter. It is a tremendous accomplishment. Therefore I will assume Sharpton will be here to stay at 6 p.m. on MSNBC. His trial run this July will set up the network to really give him a great show by the time November hits and the election campaign process truly begins. Sharpton's presence on the network adds to its diversity as Tamron Hall is the only other Black host and Rachel Maddow brings the nerdy lesbian crowd (that is not meant to be offensive just a statement of fact) keeping true to the network's slogan of Lean Forward.

Sharpton's placement also gets the NAACP off of MSNBC's back after that whole rant of cable networks not giving Black politico's a primetime spot. Additionally, since Sharpton has the inside track to President Obama on Black issues -- specifically unemployment and education in the Black community -- he can actually break news as he sees fit and possibly, just maybe, snag that primetime cable interview with the President that won't have the racist undertones and blatant disrespect as Obama's interview on O'Reilly.

Sharpton's placement for ratings, for the election, for diversifying the network is a win-win for everybody involved right. Wrong. You may not see it but I see it as a position of temporary permanence. If Obama wins in 2012 Sharpton on MSNBC can last another four years. If Obama loses Sharpton may keep his show to maintain the "black opinion" or be deemed null and void now that a White man is back in the White House and America goes back to ignoring its flagrant problem with race. I see more of the latter happening than the former but we'll just have to wait and see now won't we.

But beyond this, Al Sharpton is not a journalist. Like not at all. Like not even a little bit. That's my biggest problem with his placement. I mean as a producer I can make anybody look good and they don't even have to be on camera. You call me The Storyteller but really I'm a puppet master. I pick the stories, I order them in the way I want them to be told, I choose the graphics, the video, the soundbites, and set up the live interviews conducted on air. I do all of that for my anchors in Jacksonville, Florida. Imagine what the producers behind Sharpton do to keep him looking good and insure their job security, a promotion, and maybe even a raise. (Yall know journalism doesn't pay)

But these grievances aside I tuned in to some of Sharpton's show Tuesday evening just to see what it was all about.

First thing I noticed is that his accent is thick and it's not distinctly Brooklyn even though that's where he was born. That's not a bad thing but if you notice most newscasters have a neutral tone so as to appeal to all. But I told myself, "Storyteller stop being critical and just watch the damn news."

So I did. His graphics on the show aren't of the flashy variety found on Hardball With Chris Matthews. He doesn't have a set he has a desk so the powers that be are still trying him out. That aside the content was pretty good. The phrasing was catching i.e. "Cut, Cap and Crack Up."

He delivered facts but when it was time for his live interview with Republican Representative Mo Brooks a Tea Party freshman from Alabama I began to take issue. Not so much with Sharpton but with whoever set up the interview. It seemed they chose the most conservative Representative they could find to make Sharpton appear extremely left on his politics therefore reinforcing the theory of cognitive dissonance to make any extreme conservative side with the extremely conservative politician instead of listening to the facts and forging their own opinion and vice versa for the liberals that can't see right.

Secondly, Representative Brooks was blatantly disrespectful questioning Sharpton's mental state so as to not answer a question on tax cuts. Rude, unruly, and possibly a tinge of another R word that we can get into later.

Following this live interview with Representative Brooks, Sharpton then talked to former Clinton Administration member Robert Reich.

The format of Sharpton's show is just like any other primetime commentary show. There are the topics of the day laid out in the headlines. The interviews that turn into tame arguments and serious discussions compared to the type of physical altercations you see on reality television; Basketball Wives anyone. There's the playing to the core demographic which are liberals and mixing in some colored flavor. (Yes I went there)

The show is good, but that doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden tuning into Al at 6 either. The show is good but as I explained earlier any producer worth their salt, and in New York you are definitely worth your salt, can make a personality look good. And yes it's sad to say that I think Al is only a personality MSNBC is trying out on its network because of the current conditions of our country; here comes that R word.

Racism has always made headlines in this country. So what better way to increase ratings than to play on race and racism. What better person to play this game than the man who's made a career out of fighting racial injustices no matter how minute. I don't want to discredit Al Sharpton's activism and all that he's done to push the dreams of slain civil rights leaders forward, however as the tweets above show, Al Sharpton's relevance and credibility have been on shaky ground. Now with the first Black president getting more hate than a little bit, Black people finding themselves in an all out depression instead of a jobless recovery, and the Tea Party people using Herman Cain and Michael Steele as puppets, what Sharpton has to say is way more important now than it was a decade ago.

I appreciate MSNBC capitalizing off of the times, inciting fury and infusing race into the political discourse. I admire them for thinking outside the box and putting Al Sharpton in the position he's in. But because it's all so calculated he will surely end up on Bill O'Reilly's Pinhead list faster than he can create his own Worst Persons. His appointment is populist instead of substantive, it is reactionary instead of groundbreaking, and I have the strange suspicion that it will be temporary instead of permanent. Because of that I would so much rather see an actual journalist with experience, talent, and the command of facts on any and all issues in Sharpton's seat, than a pawn for Comcast (which owns NBC/Universal and therefore MSNBC) to capitalize off of.

But hey. What do I know. I'm just a local news producer trying to make it big. And trust if Al Sharpton wanted me to produce for him I'd do it in a minute even if I knew I'd be looking for another job in 12 months. This is the TV business. Nothing lasts forever. Just ask Keith Olbermann.

Questions:

What do you think of Al Sharpton's placement behind the anchor desk on MSNBC?

Do you think his appointment will be temporary or permanent like the 20 years Chris Matthews has been with the network?

If Obama is not re-elected do you think Sharpton will once again fade into obscurity his 15 minutes of fame over once again?