Facebook Faces The Expensive Truth Behind Hate And Deception

This morning’s (Thursday, July 26) headline in the Washington Post documents the horrible day Facebook stocks had on Wednesday, tanking 24 percent and wiping out billions (with a b) of dollars in shareholder paper wealth (Zuckerberg himself lost several billions, which, to me, is a lot, but maybe for him it’s not more than decimal dust). By Thursday evening, Facebook stock had taken the greatest single-day dive--$100 billion, or 19 percent—of any stock in Wall Street history. Market analysts were nearly unanimous in pointing to Facebook’s ongoing privacy and security issues, as well as the exodus of Facebook users, as key factors in the company’s stock decline.

According to the Thursday morning Post story, reported by Elizabeth Dwoskin and Haley Tsukayama, Facebook’s value plummeted “…after sales growth did not meet expectations — and the social media giant said it would slow even further in the months ahead. The numbers suggest that the political and social backlash against Facebook, and its costly response to it, is starting to affect the business.

After a brief review of Facebook’s quarterly profits ($5.1 billion), the story continued, “We run the company for the long term, not just for this quarter,” said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and CEO, referring to the losses on a call with investors. The stock slide Wednesday afternoon wiped out as much as $150 billion of Facebook’s value, and Zuckerberg himself lost billions of dollars.”

Years from now, when Facebook is either gone or has transmogrified into the “next big thing,” and Zuckerberg has shuffled off this mortal coil unable to take his billions with him, business professors and historians will take the sentence, The numbers suggest that the political and social backlash against Facebook, and its costly response to it, is starting to affect the business, and use it to offer a partial, but testable, theory about the company’s demise.

Will those future teachers and historians say Facebook ultimately failed because the user base abandoned a platform where hate speech, personal attacks, and rampant trolling could not be controlled? Will they theorize that Facebook/Zuckerberg would not set a barrier for hate speech that was so onerous to haters and trolls that they would be the ones to stay while everyday Facebook users skedaddled as part of the #DeleteFacebook campaign? Will the theory hold that no matter how many moderators Facebook hired in 2018 (many hired in response to the Europeans’ crackdown on Facebook), hate speech would still find its way into the platform, like excessive ground water seeping into the tiniest cracks of a high-rise foundation, finding its way into the heart of the building and eventually rotting the structure from within?

Or is the whole hate speech issue so intractable that no practical, non-draconian measure will purge haters and hurters from Facebook? Is it possible that the history of the fall of Facebook will demonstrate that any attempt to regulate hateful language will fall victim to the petard disguised as free speech?

In the abstract, Facebook/Zuckerberg has no obligation or social contract to reduce or eliminate hateful speech on the platform. A corporate mission statement, European sanctions, or Congressional testimony notwithstanding, the platform is, in its initial state, self-selecting and binary; we can choose to use it or not. On or off. If we are offended by certain forms of speech which run counter to our set of beliefs, manners, sensibilities, or expectations, we have options ranging from direct confrontation or rebuttal, to unfollowing, unfriending, reporting to FB, or walking away from FB and finding another means of communicating with people with whom we choose to associate. We can write a blog about it, or a newspaper article, or a letter to Zuckerberg himself (see below). Or we can do nothing. On or off. Completely binary. That’s all a computer really does. No matter how complex the coding, how brilliant the concept, how intricate the algorithms, it’s all 0s and 1s…open the gate, close the gate…on or off. Use Facebook or don’t use Facebook. A billion people do, six billion people don’t.

Again, still in the abstract, Facebook/Zuckerberg cannot be a perfect arbiter of myriad shades of hate speech because hate speech is too often nuanced just enough to allow some of it to slide past the hate-defining fiats of justice. It can be heartbreakingly painful and unfair (as it is to Noah Pozner’s parents), but it’s not always “fire in the theater” under the law. I know what hate speech is; I can identify it, single it out, decry it, raise it up for the multitudes to see and shame it.

But in the real world where human perceptions and misperceptions differ by nanometers of emotional separation, my hate speech is not necessarily your hate speech. Maybe it’s your “I don’t really care for that” speech, or your “I wasn’t raised like that,” speech, or your, “It’s their right to say it” speech. But it’s not your hate speech; at best, it’s your “inconvenient” speech. 

You know it makes me uncomfortable; you know it has the capacity to hurt, even seriously harm—even incite physical rage or murderous acts—but, hey, it’s still has not risen to your threshold of hate. And because your bar is set where my bar is not, and because neither of our bars is real and defined or codified (despite Facebook’s Community Standards, see below), all Facebook/Zuckerberg can do is acknowledge the existence of your bar and my bar as if they were on the same level, or on no level at all.

It’s as if you and I and everyone who uses Facebook were trapped in a social media version of the Heisenberg principle: As far as Facebook is concerned, our exact positions (our intentions or our perceptions) are unknowable and uncertain to Facebook itself because when we are using Facebook, some of us see hate as a particle of something bad, and some of us see hate as a wave of something not bad. How we arrive at our definitions is not quantifiable. Facebook, in the abstract, just sees the words, not my understanding of them, not your understanding of them. Facebook cannot know intent. Facebook cannot perceive. And haters, deniers, and producers of fake news love those corporate disabilities.

Does a Facebook moderator have the capacity to intuit the dark motives of a hater or scheming denier who enters the platform under a false flag, only to throw off the disguise and scream obscenities, hurl verbal excrement across our screens, and steal away into the ether of ambiguity or anonymity?  The possibility of such ambiguity and false flags is built into Facebook’s Community Standards.

Here is Facebook’s own take on hate speech and voice:

Hate Speech: “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.”

“We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.” “Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. [Italics mine] Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.” “We allow humor and social commentary related to these topics.”

Voice: “Our mission is all about embracing diverse views. We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable, unless removing that content can prevent a specific harm. Moreover, at times we will allow content that might otherwise violate our standards if we feel that it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest. We do this only after weighing the public interest value of the content against the risk of real-world harm.” [Italics mine]

I can’t be the only person who sees clearly the disconnect between the hard-line eschewing of hate speech, and the too-fuzzy permission to “err on the side of allowing content…some find…objectionable? How are those standards and definitions working out for the parents of Sandy Hook shooting victim, Noah Posner?

In their July 25 open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, Noah’s parents, wrote, in part,

“Facebook plays a mammoth role in exposing the world’s masses to information. That level of power comes with the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that your platform is not used to harm others or contribute to the proliferation of hate. Yet it appears that under the guise of free speech, you are prepared to give license to people who make it their purpose to do just that.”

Pozner and De La Rosa continued: “In your recent interview with Kara Swisher of Recode, you were asked why Facebook would allow an organization to post a conspiracy theory claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged. While you implied that Facebook would act more quickly to take down harassment directed at Sandy Hook victims than, say, the posts of Holocaust deniers, that is not our experience. In fact, you went on to suggest that this type of content would continue to be protected and that your idea for combating incendiary content was to provide counterpoints to push ‘fake news’ lower in search results. Of course, this provides no protection to us at all.” 

Noah’s parents are far from outliers in the hate speech issue. They, like millions of other Facebook users, are seeing what happens when a technology-dependent organization, founded on a novel idea and with an initially-limited scope, exceeds any humanly-moderated or humanly-written algorithmic boundaries intended to regulate individual intentions and perceptions. Hence the Post article’s sobering observation: The numbers suggest that the political and social backlash against Facebook, and its costly response to it, is starting to affect the business.

Look again at the two snippets I italicized earlier from Facebook’s Community Standards:

“When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.  Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

“Moreover, at times we will allow content that might otherwise violate our standards if we feel that it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest. We do this only after weighing the public interest value of the content against the risk of real-world harm.”

Phrases like, “…we expect people to clearly indicate their intent,” and, “…if we feel that it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest…” beg for parsing because they are freighted with human judgement (we expect, if we feel, only after weighing…) that simply cannot be applied across a platform judging the actions of more than one billion human beings, each completely unique in their own intentions and perceptions.

Absent the will to make a fundamental change—to take a huge risk—Mark Zuckerberg and the thousands (tens of thousands) of men and women Facebook employs and is continuing to hire as moderators, are incapable of cleansing the social media site of haters, deniers, trolls, and willful proponents and purveyors of human pain and suffering. It’s not that the company couldn’t at least try to block, forcefully, Facebook abusers. But half-measures are not going to work. Pushing certain unlikeable groups into lower Facebook niches is not a solution; it’s just testimony pablum for a Congress populated by too many clueless, aging, curmudgeons to whom social media is something their young staffers handle.

Zuckerberg has it in his power to make an unambiguous statement and follow-on plan to limit—if not eliminate—access to Facebook by any individual or entity who plot and execute what Noah Pozner’s parents have already experienced. It’s not a free speech issue. It’s just not. It’s a moral, ethical, and humanitarian issue over which Zuckerberg and Facebook, not the U.S. Constitution, have complete authority if only they had the will. And when Zuckerberg or others use the shields of free speech and soft-definitions of individual license to avoid making a profit-jeopardizing, but humanely imperative, decision to crack down on the haters, abusers, and fake-newsers, that is an acknowledgment that neither he, nor his board, nor his shareholders are willing to evolve socially and sensibly and come to terms with a subject much larger than themselves.

Facebook either stands for something, or it stands for nothing, and when it comes to hate and cruelty and deception, there is no middle ground upon which to stand. This is not an abstract notion; this is the reality of our time, illuminated by our frustration, paid for by millions of innocent targets of hate. This social brutality via electrons has got to stop. In this defining moment for Facebook, hate in all its forms must be ushered forcefully through the door leading to ignominy and obscurity. I will be more than happy to lock the door behind it.

Trump's "Disappearing" Act: It's Happened Before

When I first heard Sarah Sanders mention the president's thoughts about rescinding the security clearances of several former intelligence and national security officials, I flashed back to a time--within my own lifetime, by the way--when Soviet leaders doctored photographs to eliminate the faces of people who had once been in positions of authority within the Soviet Union. Such people became non-persons, their identities stripped, their names purged, their images over-painted or simply cut-out. It was (and still is) Photoshopping of the crudest (and darkest) kind.

As Melissa Stanger of Business Insider wrote earlier this year, "It's not easy to remove a person from history, but brutal leaders throughout history have erased some of their formerly close advisors."

Joseph Stalin excelled at "disappearing" his enemies.

The original picture, left to right Nikolai Antipov (formerly the People's Commissar for Posts and Telegraphs of the USSR), Joseph Stalin, Sergei Kirov, and Nikolai Shvernik. Picture shows how after time each of the Stalin's comrades from the original shot was removed as they fell out of favor.

Sometimes it can be a less-sinister, but nonetheless self-aggrandizing attempt to change history in a picture as with this side by side of Prime Minster of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, removed King George VI from the original photograph with the PM alongside Queen Elizabeth. The photograph was used on an election poster for the Prime Minister, so the theory is that an image of just Mackenzie with the Queen put him in a more powerful light.

In other instances, removing even a relative can help rewrite the official record. Kim Jong-Un's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, executed by his nephew, became too inconvenient to include in an old photo, and was removed. 

Generations younger than mine have to understand that there is a certain kind of PTSD affecting my generation associated with seeing such disappearances; it's not from physical trauma, or personal trauma of any clearly identified kind. It's from the realization that what we were witnessing at the time was the very act of erasing people, of changing history books, of subverting the public memory. To Americans watching those visual and historical-record purges, it was inconceivable that such a thing would happen here--orchestrated at the very top of the government.

As a little test of what a 21st century president could do to a 20th century commander-in-chief of a different party and reputation, I took a photo I'd shot of President Jimmy Carter and China's Deng Xiaoping during a state welcoming ceremony in the '70s, and I rubbed Mr. Carter from his place at the podium. Such a transformation takes less than five minutes...and an historical image gets a nefarious do-over.

China's Deng Xiaoping and President Jimmy Carter, January, 1979.  Photo by Jim Moore, Gamma-Liaison

Now I know that Trump's bluster about pulling the clearances of former intel leaders is typical of his stupidity, smallness, and desire for vengeance, but once a dictator-without-tethers goes down that road of erasure, and gets away with it...he will go farther down that road if he thinks he can.

I don't doubt for a second that if Mr. Trump could erase every positive picture of Barack Obama and Michelle, he would do so in a heartbeat. He's already demonstrated his predilection for bogus magazine covers hung on the walls of his golf resorts. I guess we can be, grateful that so many people today know how images can be manipulated...how often we have been deceived by "real" pictures, only to discover just how altered their reality was. And yet...

If you don't want a general in your picture, you can just eliminate him from history (Orig. Getty Image on left)                   Using Photoshop, I modified the image, removing that pesky general

Imagine if the general escorting the Trumps and Pences to the East Steps of the Capitol on inauguration day (above) fell out of disfavor with the president. Why, in the wink of an eye, and a few keyboard commands and pen moves, the quintet becomes a quartet, and history is none the wiser. 

Mr. Trump is determined to erase the past; that is the bottom line. And, for those of us who saw how brutal leaders managed to pull that off in an oppressed society that is now run by a former KGB chief, a chief with some sort of dark tie to our president...well...I do not think this attempt at purging is over. It starts with taking away credentials; it ends with taking away lives and rewriting them out of existence. 

Reduce The Bias: Journalists In Partnership With The Electorate

As the 2018 mid-term elections approach, perhaps it’s time to step back just a bit and take stock of what issues are going to be big players on the field in November, what issues will take the bench in the minds of most of the nation’s voters, and how best the media should cover these topics.

For those of us who instinctively recoil at almost every pronouncement (or mis-pronouncement) from the current president and the non-professionals on his staff, it is deceptively easy to find fault and cast aspersions on the president’s gelatinous policies and the people around Mr. Trump who fail to define and solidify those policies on an almost-daily basis. If any member of the legion of full-time, legitimately-accredited journalists has a problem covering this administration, it’s a problem of drinking from the firehose of incredulous statements gushing out of virtually every compass-point of the White House—West Wing, East Wing, South Lawn, North Lawn.

I think we’ve gotten to a point where the journalistic challenge is not what to believe or disbelieve; disbelief appears to be the default mode now among the White House correspondents, daily news reporters, and national columnists I know and follow. The oily puddles of obfuscation, mis-direction, center-of-gravity-shifting, and incompetent messaging that pool in the corridors of the Trump White House require reporters to don Sarah-Sanders-proof HazMat suits sprayed with an etymological-cleansing surfactant that resists the clumping tendencies of every presidential utterance and tweet (for image sake, think of coating yourself with dishwasher detergent before you step into a pond of grease—should that be your assignment).

Even seasoned WH reporters familiar with such BS-protective garb find this presidency to be a daunting challenge to the spirit and mission of journalism, First Amendment and all. 

The press corps’ frustration is palpable even through the screens of our televisions, laptops, and phones. More and more, we are seeing what appear to be collaborative efforts—across media companies—by WH reporters to shore up each other’s questions in a sort of “I-have-your-back” when it comes to Sander’s daily diva dose of dissing. 

Even with collegial protection, being whipsawed by an administration’s disinformation machinery would leave almost any news professional wondering if what he or she is doing is making any difference at all. Indeed, isn’t it often reported that the public’s faith in the news media is at an all-time low? 

A Pew Research poll taken last year would seem to bolster that opinion:

My biggest concern is with the response to "does the news media deal fairly with all sides." At best, only 46% of Democrats believed the media was putting out fair and balanced stories. The number among Independents, that crucial pool of potential swing votes, was 27% trustworthiness. 

And if we look at the public's sources of news to tease out the ways in which news is promulgated across the 
news-consumer landscape, we find not even half (46%) of the news we deliver is arriving via legitimate news organizations. Word of mouth from friends, associates, or arm's-length acquaintances is the conduit for that balance of news stories. From Polling Report.com, this data from a Quinnipiac report: 

This could be disheartening news for many reporters, news producers and anchors, but....

“It ain’t necessarily so,” comes the message from far outside the Beltway. “Just do your job and quit your bitching,” is the surprising admonition of many Americans who do pay attention to news makers and news reporters. Really? Yes. 

As reported last month by David Bauder of the AP, twin surveys conducted this spring by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute, “…found about 3 in 4 journalists believe the public’s level of trust in the news media has decreased in the past year. Yet only 44 percent of American adults actually say their level of trust has decreased.” [italics mine]

According to Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute, “The public actually wants what most journalists say they want to give them — news stories that are factual and offer context and analysis. But the public doesn’t feel like they’re seeing enough of that work, with 42 percent of Americans saying journalists stray too far into commentary, according to the new research.” 

So where do Americans want the media to focus? 

A recent  NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a sampling of voters nationwide the following questions: 

Please tell me which one or two of these items you think will be the most important factor in deciding your vote: Health care. The economy and jobs. Guns. Taxes and spending. Immigration. The candidates' opposition to Donald Trump. The candidates' support for Donald Trump. Foreign policy and terrorism." If only one choice: "And, which of these issues will be the second most important factor in deciding your vote?"
			1st choice	1st + 2nd choices
			%	%
	Health care		22	38
	Economy, jobs		19	37
	Guns		13	25
	Taxes, spending		11	24
	Immigration		10	23
	Opposition to Trump		7	12
	Support for Trump		7	12
	Foreign policy, terrorism		6	18
	Other (vol.)		1	3
	All equally (vol.)		1	2
	None of these (vol.)		-	2
	Unsure/No answer		3	1

Jon Parton, writing this past January for Courthouse News Service, reported on a first-of-the-year Gallup and Knight Foundation survey that suggested “most Americans believe in the role of journalism in a democracy, but are distrustful of current news media and are unable to cite objective news sources, according to a new poll.

Parton’s story continued, “A Gallup and Knight Foundation survey released Monday [January 15] showed that eight out of 10 Americans believe the news media is important in informing the public of current events and holding government officials responsible for their actions.

“But only 33 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of news media, compared to 43 percent who view it unfavorably. Trust in mass media has declined since 1976 when 72 percent of Americans, fresh from investigative pieces into the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers, had more regard for journalism.

“’There really is consensus that free media is important,” said Sam Gill, Knight’s vice president for communities and impact in an interview with USA Today. ‘But most people do not believe it is fulfilling its functions’.”

I ran into a similar disconnect between politicians and the Congress while I was working on Capitol Hill: All politics is local. “Love my Congressman, hate the Congress,” was a familiar refrain at district and state levels of national-elective office. And if you drilled down, as I did as a press secretary in the House and Senate, you could find a similar refrain sung by Representatives and Senators about their local or state news contacts. There were many community and regional reporters who were, if nothing else, appreciated for their local-angle stories more so than stories written by their national counterparts who, my bosses often groused, “didn’t get it right” (even when I knew the national story was spot-on).

Of course this all makes complete sense, and I’m not revealing anything new to anyone who has followed politics, politicians, and the news organizations covering them. Such as been the love/hate nature of public/politician/press relationships since the first stirrings of the Republic in the 18th century. To be crude about it, you take your feed from the trough with the food you like, which is not necessarily the food that is best for you, even if that best-food trough is closer.

So, coming back to my lede, what above-the-fold front-page issues should the media be covering in the 2018 elections runup, and what issues, tempting as they are, should be below-the-fold, or on page 2 or deeper? If, as the Gallup-Knight poll suggests, 80 percent of the public is asking the media to inform them of current events and hold government officials responsible for their actions, and to do so as a “free media” “fulfilling its functions,” then we must try harder to turn away from the trough of tasty news—Stormy, Michael, Vladimir, and Kim—and focus on the trough of local importance, brimming with the bread-and-butter issues most relevant to the American public as it examines its voting options.

The White House election machinery is already cranked up to portray any candidate—of either party—who either refuses to ride the Trump wagon, or who disparages the wagon’s driver, as disloyal losers, unpatriotic snowflakes, and elitist snobs. The Trump team will primp, pose, and posture around the rouge-dusted issues of immigration, the faithless media, our failed allies, our misunderstood foes, improvised trade and tariff statistics, and, of course, the witch hunt.

I have lived in Ohio, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Colorado, and I’ve worked for House and Senate members from Florida, Arkansas, Alaska, and North Carolina. No matter how much time has passed since I lived or worked in these states and congressional districts, I can say without a doubt the big issues for the voters are now, and will be in November, jobs, the cost of living, taxes, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and national security.

This true, and broad, base of voters is not going to be deceived by Trumpian attacks on Robert Mueller; they are not in fear for their lives from rampaging hordes of immigrants; they are concerned about, but don’t obsess over, North Korea or Russia or China or Brexit. Taking a knee is not on their radar. 

That is not to say...and I want to emphasize this...that the public is not paying close attention to Trump's execrable performance as a national leader and international statesman. I believe the American voter, when put to the test over whether he or she has faith in White House leadership on the global stage, will mark down Trump for his performance to-date. An all-cap tweet late Sunday night (July 22) from Trump to Iran, threatening war, should be chilling to any American: 

Coupled with his post-Putin-summit tweets and grammar walk-backs and additional walk-backs to the walk-backs, and further muddied by North Korea's pre-ordained dismissal of Trump's claims of great things for nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula, the public should be very wary of the president's ability to hold the center when it comes to international diplomacy. I have said before, and I repeat it here, that I believe Mr. Trump poses a clear and present danger to the well-being of every American, and to the stability of our allies. 

But, frankly, I think the public, writ large, is quite tired, if not skeptical, of Trump's stream of rambling tweets and misstatements. It is the news media's job to report them, to analyze them, to even offer opinions on them in editorial pages and discuss them on cable news. We should not assume that these major issues--and I don't for a moment dismiss their importance to American security (whether overt military, or covert election meddling)--are consuming the dinner-table, local cafe, or public gathering conversations about November's elections. 

What Trump's blusters, allegations, hate speech, and media bashing are consuming, however, are the relationships between and among Americans. The chasm dividing left and right, silent Americans from shouters, reason and logic from irrational, knee-jerk thought, progressives from Luddites, is widening and deepening, of that there is little doubt. 

Americans will factor these things into their voting decisions, of course. Voters will look at candidates and apply a very personal matrix over each one, a matrix that will never fill out perfectly, but will serve to filter some bullshit from truth, some Trumpian allegiance from national interest, and it is the media's charge to help the electorate sort all of that out in the most unbiased way possible.   

The soybean farmer wants to sell his or her produce at a fair price to a world market; the small business owner wants to grow his or her business under fair tax laws; the auto parts fabricator wants to buy steel or aluminum at a price that will ensure a production-end profit; the single mother or father of three young children wants the assurance that local schools are capable of meeting today’s and tomorrow’s education needs, that health care will be available and affordable, that the infrastructure of roads, power, water, and services is improving, not declining. Voters want to know their country has a robust military, and that our nation is respected and believed in the capitals of our allies and our enemies. On this latter point, I’m sure all voters wish the same of our leaders. 

Candidates for the House and Senate will be inspected, dissected, and, when appropriate, rejected, by a voting public more wired, more savvy and more in touch with the issues than any voter population before them. There will be those intractable candidates and voters who simply cannot let go of their ties to Trump, facts be damned, hoaxes abound. As a reporter, I would not waste a steno pad on their positions. Those voters are anomalies--outliers who did effect the 2016 outcome, but whose real power is diminishing in the overall electoral process; they don't represent the broader electorate which is coming around to that same opinion.

What I would recommend to my working press colleagues is to keep the question of voter relevance on the table. The vote...the one founding tool that has been shown to make a difference and speak loudest for the public interest...is sacrosanct. Let's beat that drum. 

Trump fears the informed vote with every fiber of his being. He knows an informed voter matters far more than one-note, co-opted candidates do, and it's important that we--the working press and those of us, once trained and raised in journalism and who continue to express our views on social media platforms, align ourselves with, and respect, the voters and their every-day interests. 

The news media’s attention over the next three-and-a-half months must remain focused on the core principle of election success: Understanding the head, heart, and wallet of the electorate. My father used to tell me, "If someone says something is important to them, it is, in fact, important. If you want to work with them, you need to treat their issue as important to you, too."

We cannot, as journalists, let ourselves be misdirected by Trumpian attempts (intentional or unintentional) to control the national dialogue, trying to force us to spend precious time parsing his train of thought. He is a poor engineer of a wheel-less engine, but he has somehow convinced a number of Americans to get on board his rapidly disintegrating line of cars. 

As long as we can assure the rest of the public that the media stands foursquare, resolutely, and uncompromisingly for the public’s interests, and as long as we cover fairly the campaigns of men and women who we know will make a difference in national governance, we will come out of the mid-term elections better prepared to take on the full force of 2020.

It Is Time To Tear Down This Potemkin Presidency

Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy) has a favorite phrase she launches against plaintiffs and defendants alike who get caught in a lie: “Don’t pee on me and then tell me it’s raining.” Judge Judy’s admonition makes a point about people who tell public lies and then spin them in such a way as to make their base believe it’s raining gold dust from heaven. That’s what Trump does to his base, and it ain’t gold dust, folks. 

And that’s why I’m angry, not bitter, as a few of my readers worry, having expressed concern of late that my writing style and subject matter have taken a more serious, pointed, perhaps bitter turn. I am neither a bitter man, nor inclined toward crude language—though sometimes, to make a point to certain readers, I will employ a phrase not common to my daily scrawl. If my post suggesting Trump supporters were now feeling the effects of Trump relieving himself on them from the Helsinki podium offended anyone, or made some people uncomfortable, that is what some columns based on big emotions like anger do; I can’t retract it, and, frankly, I want to live with this anger and do something with it.

My sense of this administration is formed by more than 30 years in government service, and many years as a journalist for publications large and small. As a public servant and as a journalist, I respected men and women for whom public office was a public trust, and I was never swayed by their political affiliations as long as they were acting out of conscience for the good of the country. And I’ve always voted that way—left, right, and middle.

When I vote, I vote for the person I believe has the greatest grasp on the job at hand, who embraces the broader values of a republican form of democracy, who understands the sacred boundaries of the four-corners of the Constitution and the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights and Amendments enumerated therein. I vote for someone who I think will reach out to other men and women of even greater intellect and ability to form a team free to debate, without penalty, the big and small issues facing the country. I vote for leaders who seek consensus but who, in the end, make the hard decisions alone after weighing all the facts.

I vote for the person who respects every human being’s abilities and possibilities. I vote for people of vision and love of the highest ideals, who acknowledge their own imperfections, who are accountable and take blame when it is in their court to do so. I vote for people who know how to say, “I’m sorry,” and “I will do better.” I vote for people who, when faced with a crisis, exude confidence but acknowledge the need for help and take it as needed. I vote for the person who, when in a foreign country, shows nothing but respect for his or her hosts, and expresses, honestly, love of, and loyalty to, our country, our people, and our laws. Period. Full Stop.

What I see in Donald Trump is nothing less than a destroyer of that public trust and international goodwill. He is a bully, a liar, a man totally out of touch with the Constitution, a man devoid of decency and compassion for those in need, those who are oppressed, those who are reaching out for help here and abroad. He is inarticulate, marginally educated, blind to history, eschewing any kind of literature, art, music, or other intellectual pursuits that many presidents before him seemed to grasp as important.

He believes in one thing: Donald Trump, and he has done nothing to my knowledge to refute that opinion. My critics will gain no debatable ground with me by comparing Mr. Trump to Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton; the time for such comparisons is over and done with. Mr. Trump must be considered on his merits as President of the United States, and when any president is away from America’s shores, he (or she) must hold to the time-honored tradition of standing up for our county when in the presence of our allies or our foes. Especially with our foes.

Mr. Trump did not do that today, or over the past week, nor does he seem to do it anytime he travels abroad. He embraces our enemies, insults our friends, aligns himself with despicable tyrants (Duterte, Erdogan, Putin, Xi, and Kim), and demeans the men and women of America’s intelligence services and Justice Department while standing next to a dictator who thinks nothing of ordering the assassinations of his political foes—even when they are living in another country. 

Trump meets in private with men like Kim and Putin, and then tells the world everything is fine and dandy, that’s he’s ended the Korean conflict and denuclearized the peninsula or brought Russia closer as a friend because, Lord knows, Angela, Theresa, and Emmanuel aren't capable of knowing the true Putin. And he never reveals, fully (or truthfully) what discussions he had, what secrets he shared, or what revulsion he has for the common American and ally.

Trump turns away from friends who, like France, gave their treasure and lifeblood in our Revolution; allies like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia and other Commonwealth nations who have stood with us in the worst of times, the most hellish of battles, and in the hour of our hostage citizens’ greatest need; allies like NATO which, despite Trump’s constant badgering, represents a (so far) patient bulwark of freedom and justice against the forces of authoritarianism and tyranny.

I am not bitter about Trump. I am angry at the Republican party’s gutless 2016 primary contenders who one by one peeled away from the campaign podiums in deference to, or fear of, Donald Trump’s bombasts, insults, lies, and stupidity. I am angry at the fringe voters—otherwise smart men and women who, though they couldn’t stomach Hillary, did not have the vision to see what a fool Trump was and would be, and voted for him.

I was in Canberra, Australia, on the day Trump was elected. I’d voted by absentee ballot before I left the U.S., and I was looking forward to sharing a few pints in a happy confab with my Aussie family and friends as the election results were tallied. Well, the confab got drunk and left the pub. As Trump’s victory became clear, one Canberran after another came up to me, patted me on the back, or hugged me, or just stared in confused sorrow as the unthinkable unfolded in front of our eyes. To a person, they were gobsmacked. “How could Americans do this to themselves?” was the question that I heard most. “Why would Americans do this to themselves?” was the second most asked question. Such reasonable queries made me angry…not at the Aussies…but at the malodorously-baited trap of the Electoral Collage which vouchsafed the Trump victory.

I am angry at a president who daily demeans my former news profession and seeks to turn the American public against men and women journalists I know well…have known or watched or read for years…and who are good, hard-working, truth-seeking photographers, writers, anchors, and editors. I am angry at a president who has no idea how many journalists die covering wars and other tragedies of inhumane scope.

I am angry at a president who, so far, after 700+ days in office, has not once visited troops overseas to thank them and their families for their service; he has not spent Thanksgiving in a soup kitchen, he has not visited VA trauma centers; he has not reached out to most vulnerable of Americans in pockets of poverty and desperation—whose votes he gained by lies and hyperbole, whose trust he abused, and whose dire straits he flew, drove, and putted away from. He is a user of the vilest degree, a builder of flimsy facades, and his Putin-promoted Potemkin village of a presidency, constructed of lies, hubris, and deceit, is all going to collapse on top of the people who voted for him, and on the rest of us as well. Unless we stay angry.

What we saw in Helsinki has been described as traitorous. Well, that word rolls out of the angered mind and off the torrid tongue too easily. It was beyond traitorous; it was pure Russian kompromat opera, right from the KGB songbook of how to turn a fool like Trump into a Russian stooge. While Putin conducted, Trump sang the fool’s libretto to the world. So far, the world sees the fool for who he is. The world sees what John McCain sees, and no one described it better than the Senator did today:

“Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.

“President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.

“Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

If we do not get angry about this, if we let the fool continue in this farcical theater, it is we—the citizens of the United States—who will become the fools in the eyes of the world. I, for one, am too angry to let that happen to the county so many Americans have died for, who have, like John McCain, sacrificed for. I'm not about to sit back and let the fool tear asunder the country to which so many good people devote daily their hearts and minds and energies to raise up, improve, and prepare the next generation for an uncertain global future.

The Founders gave us the tools to tear down the Potemkin presidency a fool like Trump and his supporters built, and those same Founders gave us the tools to build anew an American presidency of substance, honor, and dignity.

Let us be angry, we have every right to be; but let us also channel that anger into change for the sake of our children, change for the sake of our country.

Mr. Trump, Get Off Our Plane!

Air Force One

Okay...okay...okay!!!! Now he's really, really, really done it (or wants to do it). Trump wants to repaint Air Force One in more "American" colors because he doesn't like the "Jackie Kennedy" paint scheme of his current ride. Are you fucking kidding me? He doesn't like the paint scheme of the most recognized airplane in the whole goddamn world? He doesn't think that massive, incredible, gorgeous symbol of the U.S. has the right fucking paint scheme???? How dare he. How fucking dare he even think that. How many late and former presidents, spouses, guests, and flight crews have been borne aloft on Air Force One's glorious wings--whether they were the wings of a modified 707 or the wings of a modified 747--would weep at the suggestion of something so vile as a repainted Trump air wagon. AND....AND...he wants a fucking bigger bed!!!!! Really? A bigger bed? I suppose he wants the sheets rubberized so he can play golden shower games on it. How dare he...I've held off on Trump for months now, but this is too damn much even for me.

Here is a man who cannot even spell airplane, cannot even pronounce the words to God Bless America, wanting to "Americanize" Air Force One with a new paint job. The most beautiful plane in the whole world, and he wants to repaint it? Holy Crap. This is just too damn much. Fuck you, Trump. Big time. Sorry folks, if you think you're offended now by my language, you don't know how deep this stupid shit has gone.

He hates NATO and all our allies, sucks up to Putin and Xi and Erdogan and every nutjob dictator in every banana republic; he screws with the economy, he fucks the environment, he wants to dismantle the Justice Department and the Constitution, he has no use for people of any other color than white, or any sex other than straight male, he hates the poor, he thinks he's god's gift to women, he would lie about the sun coming up in the East if he could (but, unlike the Fool on the Hill, he doesn't know WHY the sun rises in the East, he has no brain for science, literature, the arts, music, anything!!!!! And now he wants to repaint Air Force One. Oh My God....

It would be impossible to embarrass America more than Trump has; it would be  impossible to do more damage to the American psyche than Trump has done; it would be impossible to unsettle, unbalance, unhinge the dreams of most Americans more than Trump has. And it would be impossible to find someone more vapid, crass, ugly, boorish, inhumane, selfish, and flat-out stupid than Trump. 

The issue with repainting Air Force One is not so much about a president suggesting a new color scheme; I completely understand an argument that is rooted in the reasonableness of wanting to look at something new after 60 years of the same thing. And if we had a president who came at the issue sensibly, with some thought behind the suggestion, I would welcome the debate and look forward to some artists' renderings. I love the current look, but I'm old, I'm an artist, and I know there are possibilities out there for something different. 

Art is not about being frozen in time; it's about flowing with time and finding new paths of expression. So, for me with Air Force One, it's not about changing the colors; it's about the ego underpinning the suggestion. Trump doesn't really want Air Force One's look to reflect a new American age; he doesn't care about art or color or expression; he wants to get rid of anything and everything not Trump. Period. And I'm not having any of it. Air Force One is the epitome of the Global American partner, and in its current livery it stands for the best in our nation. 

That Mr. Trump thinks Americans are simply going to love his choice of what he thinks is "American" is a symptom of a man lost in the shallows of his brain's fetid tidal pools. When I rant about changing Air Force One's paint scheme, I'm not holding on to a fading past; I'm railing against the red-tide of one man's dangerous ego. Let the next president suggest a new paint scheme if he or she feels so moved, but please, don't let this president near a box of crayons while he's aboard Air Force One. 

Where The Peace Prize Belongs: Joint Rescue Teams In Thailand

I'm nominating the joint-international rescue teams working in Thailand for the Nobel Peace Prize, with the award funds distributed to rescue workers who are risking so much to get the boys and their coach out of the cave. There is a lot of heroism--and ultimate sacrifice--going on over there. No world leader rises to this kind of service to others.

I suggest the Prize's honorary recipient be the late Petty Officer Saman Gunan, who lost consciousness on his way out of the Tham Luang cave complex, where he had been delivering air tanks.

The qualifications terms for the Nobel include this phrase for those who, "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."  

It seems to me that "fraternity between nations" has been the inspiring and undimming beacon (or headlamp) during this grueling rescue operation, with Thais, Brits, Aussies, Americans, and others all coming together to save the boys.

It is an amazing operation, racing against time, weather, and oxygen, and the joint teams and all the support groups have been marvelous in their ingenuity and persistence to achieve something so selflessly. 

No world leader has offered any service to the world or to the betterment of human relations than the multinational teams now working in Thailand. It's a Prize deserving effort.   

When Big Sky Country Became Trump's Big Lie Country

Goodbye Big Sky Country, hello Big Lie Country. The president’s remarks in Montana Thursday night were so offensive, so bizarre, so detached from any known definition of coherent that to try to tease a smidgen of sense from the morass of incomprehensibility, venom, and hate babbled from the podium would be an impossibility. I could have written that it would have been a fool’s errand to try to find something positive in the rambling monologue, but the fools who attended the speech, who applauded, who licked up every smarmy syllable as if the words they formed were glistening beads of truth-infused honey, were on their own sad errand down a path of self-righteousness, self-laud, self-delusion, and, ultimately, self-destruction. At some point when their tent is torn down, I’m sure they will also be full of self-pity. .

I don’t have to defend Elizabeth Warren or Maxine Waters or the #MeToo movement; they know their purposes in life, and they are strong enough individually and collectively to stand against the bluff and bluster of a badgering bully. I will say I tire of the Pocahontas references, and the awkward skit about a DNA kit led me to think that Mr. Trump should be very careful about deriding someone else's DNA results unless he's sure of the wandering whereabouts of his own chromosomes.

Nor should I have to defend George H.W. Bush whose Thousand Points of Light took a cheap and ignorant shot from a man whose single-filament bulb shorted out decades ago. Nonetheless, I must stand up for Mr. Bush here. I worked in his administration as an appointee, and while I have since moved to the left of center in my political views, I did, and continue to, admire Bush 41 for his service to the country in uniform and for his understanding of, appreciation for, and commitment to, the oath he took as President. Mr. Bush, Donald Trump can’t hold a candle to the works of the thousands of men and women whose selfless points of light continue to make the world around them a brighter and better place.

To Mr. Trump’s supporters who inexplicably hooted and hollered and jeered at the mention of the Thousand Points of Light, my disgust at your behavior and your lack of humanity and decency knows no bounds. That you would bark wildly as your charlatan-in-chief throws shade at a 92-year-old man whose deep faith in family and love of country is rock solid tells me all I need to know about you.

On the subject of Mr. Trump’s Montana-repeated fealty to Vladimir Putin and Trump’s dismissive shrug about Putin’s KGB heritage: we are seeing a chum-draped U.S. president wade deeper and deeper into treacherous Russian waters in which swim the very worst of sharks. These are not man-eating sharks. These are nation-eating sharks, and Mr. Putin knows each one personally, and directs their every movement. Hundreds of millions of Americans are imperiled every time Trump dog-paddles a little more toward the East, and Putin is salivating at the thought of taking us in his jaws.

The president will not listen to our allies who know Putin far better than he; Trump will not listen to his military and intelligence experts who have read Putin’s playbook; and Trump certainly will not listen to the cries of history that daily warn him away from the wicked surf. To his slavering audience in Montana, Trump waved off the danger of a Russian riptide and told his followers, “Do you know what? Putin’s fine, he’s fine, we’re all fine, we’re people. Will I be prepared? Totally prepared – I have been preparing for this stuff my whole life, they don’t say that.” Yes, you’re prepared, Donald, like a salad is prepared with Russian dressing.

In the final analysis, the United States, since January 20, 2017, has not been guided by a caring, contemplative, cooperative, peace-seeking, humane adult. This is not news of course—it’s simply a truism borne on a sigh of frustration. This truth is apparent and appalling to most Americans, but it is ridiculed and rejected by too many other Americans. It is a shame that a nation as strong as ours has been, as vibrant as we’ve proven to be in the past, as promising, as open to the world and its citizens as we once were, as unwavering a friend to our allies as they have been for us, is not being directed or inspired by any adult whatsoever.

I would say America is being led by a child, but that would be an unforgivable disservice to the many young people I know who could do the job so much better (and I’m including kids under 12). A friend of mine improved on this last point when he said of the comparison between the president and a child: “The latter is innocent, the former culpable. The latter is loving, the former hateful. The latter is seeking attention for knowledge, the latter seeks it because of egoism. Though both may be unruly, their drives are a world apart.”

Trump's Montana speech reminds us in the bleakest terms and starkest light that we are in a desperate race now to retake the country from usurpers like Trump and his followers. Will our children even have an opportunity to exercise their maturity in the debris field left behind by this administration? 

If Montana is any indicator, we are in a marathon to win back our nation’s life for the generations to come. It may seem as if we are facing one heartbreak hill after another, pot-holed roads, cold and drenching storms of political uncertainty, the aching muscles of tested wills, the frustration of a demanding pace and changing leads…but we must prevail. We must prevail.