Author: Spocko

Media Readies Softballs for Wannabe Presidents

by Spocko

A reader recently wrote me about dreading the upcoming election season. As they used to say on The Wire, “I feel ya.”

Today I heard Shields and Yarnell Brooks on the News Hour talking about about Ted Cruz’s announcement he’s running for President.

I understand the readers’ desires and dreads. Already friends have been bemoaning the same games and frames, people and parties.

Could we do anything different this time, the reader wondered. Could we make it more engaging for regular people? We know the media suck, never any follow-ups, ending with “We’ll have to leave it there” and of course the horrid “Both sides do it.” frame.

Maybe a reality show?  “Real House Members of the GOP.”  It’s already a bit like Survivor since losers get voted off the ticket.

But as people in the industry will tell you, reality shows are anything but.
Casting and editing play a huge role in the shows.

But what do we really want the journalists to do when interviewing the people we dislike running for office?  To get actual information from them about their plans, policies, and views? Nah. We want to watch a lying, slippery, greedy jerk squirm. We hope some journalist will embarrass them in front of the world and they will be forced out of the race.

The problem is that when someone tries to do that, the politician can see it coming and they are prepared. Then, instead of getting your chance to embarrass them, the journalist’s question gets dismissed with a prepared answer.

Politicians are so prepared that even a truly legitimate question can be turned to a partisan attack and deemed unworthy of answering. I was always astonished how calling something a “gotcha question” became a cover for not answering the question!

David Yarnell Brooks made a comment about how slick Cruz will be answering questions, but he’s not “likable” so he won’t win.  Coming from Mr. Likability himself, that’s pretty damning.

I could just hear the exhaustion in Yarnell’s voice as he anticipated 20 months of discussing the spiritual love child of Joe McCarthy and Steve Urkel.

The MSM know their roles. They report on: Money raised. Horses raced. Elect-ability figured. Likability ranked. Beer drinkability calculated. Throw in sound bytes on a few issues and then they will have to “leave it there.”

The RW media know their roles too.  Is the Candidate worthy of St. Ronald the Reagan? How many people is he willing to kill to show how tough he is? How many hippies will he punch and racists will he embrace?

Were the billionaires pleased with the strength of the butt kissing? [shutter] (Image redacted from brain.)

If people REALLY wanted to get in on the questioning, I could explain how to do it. I’ve been on both sides of this world, I know the tricks and traps. I’ve trained people and groups how to do this.

But I don’t know if it is worth it, especially at the presidential level. 

However, it might be worthwhile at other political levels. Let’s expand our target range with other types of people. Now that is something I’m really interested in helping people do. But serious inquiries only, most groups don’t have the stomach for confrontation. Especially when you are effective.  I’ve found out bullies hire other bullies to hit back.

But let’s go back to the goal, why might someone want to get in there and ask the tough questions? What do you ultimately want to happen? Show the world what a jerk the candidates are? For some candidates that’s a PLUS! (If I wanted to hurt Ted Cruz in front of his base, I would show a super liberal action he did or thing he said.)

Do you want them laughed out of the race? Start writing comedy bits! I’ve got two words for ya . Tina “I can see Russian from my house!” Fey.

Do you want to get them to resign in shame? Start looking for the kinds of things that actually get Republican candidates to resign vs. Democratic ones. Then anticipate how they will try to squirm out of it and block that mode too.
Plan ahead people!

This last week I realized that I have two modes when it comes to engaging with issues and people.

1) I want the truly horrible people who push bigotry, racism, division, war and hate to be thwarted, and I’ve developed methods to do that.

2) I want to help good people and ideas succeed and grow, and I’ve developed methods to do that too.

This year I want to spend energy on areas that do both effectively.

When 200 cameras are on someone, anyone can catch a game-changing event.

 The real excitement is to either make the event happen or be the one ready to get the story out when it does.

Plus, you’ll never have to compete with David Brooks for tired and cynical metaphors!

Reporting from DC, I’m Karen Ryan. (Just kidding, reporting from San Francisco. I’m Mr.  Spocko.)

Dear Smart People Charged with Influencing Idiots, How’s Your Fiction?

by Spocko

Heh.

This is the kind of entertaining, cynical comedy that makes me nod my head in agreement. You might too.

You see, I’m a liberal smart person who wants to be seen as smarter than I am.

I see myself doing activities or working on activities like those listed at  :54 seconds, and wondering if I, and they, have zero influence.

I see myself, or friends, doing jobs like the ones described at 1:53.

I don’t like thinking or feeling I have zero influence. It feels like a Simpson’s clip. “Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably, the lesson is, never try.”

There is the part of me, and I’m betting a bunch of you, that needs to have hope.

The success using our “smart people ways” are much greater than zero. For example, the FCC Net Neutrality vote.

The cynical will say, “Well, that action only happened because the rich people wanted it to happen.” That was the line I heard after the FCC Net Neutrality vote.
That opinion doesn’t take into account the cumulative and supporting effects of all the actions. It also misses another huge important strategic move:

Figure out how to use rich people and companies who want some of the same things you want

It reminded me of how I went about de-funding right-wing talk radio.
I convinced rich people (advertisers) that they didn’t want to associate their brands with the violent, sexist, racist, and bigoted comments coming out of talk radio.

How did that happen? Through passionate emails, letters, blogging, tweets and phone calls.

Who did it? People like my friend James Madison (not his real name), Angelo with @stopbeck and all the wonderful people who work on #stoprush.

This was NOT a Zero Influence action. It has had 100’s of million of dollars of influence on some companies bottom lines. That is a big fraking deal.

But, but Spocko, Rush is still on the air!  Glenn Beck got booted off of Fox News, but he’s still on radio! They are still making money from other sources! They still have Influence!

Yes, but they are now diminished in a way that pisses rich conservative people off. And that is always fun.

Now the rich have to pay for their propaganda more directly. They loved the idea that their propaganda was influential AND made them money. They liked to rub that line in the faces of liberals, ‘Ha, ha! Our radio propaganda MAKES money!”

At this point I usually remind people that Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post loses about 110 million dollars a year. Every. Single. Year. Also, think tanks don’t turn a profit. They beg for donor money Every. Single. Year.

Yet they sell a product. Ideas and Metaphors about how they want the world to work.

Which leads me to the other kind of influence the we wield that cynical smart people like to dismiss.  Language, Metaphors and Fiction.

I thought this example of the influence of fiction was an interesting one:
It’s from The Take Away, John Hockenberry’s new NPR show. It is about the “soft power” of fictional TV on North Korea.

If I’m one of those “smart people” who is charged with influencing idiots or smart people, I’d look to fiction.

Which States Take Gun Laws Seriously? 

by Spocko

The above video is designed to tell people which states are better for criminals who want to get guns.

It is designed to be funny. It’s a Funny or Die video, so you can vote on it.

Part of comedy is timing.  One of the challenges when talking about guns in America is timing.

Right after a major shooting emotions are high. It’s not usually the time to be funny.

Some people think steps should be taken to have fewer gun deaths and they want to do something right NOW!  But they are reminded “NOW is NOT the time! The bodies aren’t even cold! Have some respect, damn it!” I think that respect is important. I also think that anger scares moderate people. So they counsel patience.

Folks say, “Don’t confront the people saying, ‘My 2nd Amendment rights trump your dead child.'” Don’t rub their selfish noses in their comments after a shooting. Be polite. Plus, they might be armed. (Guns everywhere people love knowing you know that.)

The weapons manufacturers’ PR people and lobbyists understand emotions.  They remind people that this time the “gun grabbers” are really going to do something! So now is a great time to buy more guns! “Get ’em before they are taken away!”

And it works.  There’s always a story from a gun dealer after a big shooting, The owner boasting,  “We sold out of our [note to self: Insert correct weapon nomenclature to prove I know guns, or incorrect names because it will piss them off. ] inventory in 2 hours!”

At the end of the day more guns are sold. They win. They used their bases’ emotion to sell product. Our base was tamped down.

But the gun lobbyists aren’t done.

Between major shootings the NRA and weapons’ lobbyists play the long game.

They use hot emotion to sell more guns. Then they use the cool cash from that at the state level to pass Kill at Will Laws (aka Stand your Ground) and keep loopholes open.

If we aren’t supposed to use our hot emotions to change things, what do we do? Use cool logic and reason for education and change.

This is the time to help the people who are working between the hot news events. They can’t fund their work with more weapons sales after each shooting like the gun lobby.

So pick a group to help now. Here are some action links to the Brady Campaign and my friends in others, Everytown, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and National Gun Victims Action Council

Then, when the next big shooting happens, you won’t be accused of making this specific tragedy political. You have taken the heat of your emotion from the previous tragedy and coolly and logically helped change attitudes, fixed loopholes and worked to reduce violent gun deaths.

Some of you might not be able to handle this method. You want your emotions to fuel you. If so, then start thinking now how to better channel them, like the gun lobby does.

The “good” news is you won’t have to wait long to start using your hot emotions for change—the next major shooting is only days away.

Digby Discusses the Movie Citizen Four, Journalism and Snowden

Sunday Night on Virtually Speaking Digby and I talked about the Leonard Nimoy’s passing and how fiction and fictional characters can shape people’s attitudes.  (podcast link here.)

Does anyone really expect a TV show about politics to be a more realistic representation of that life and that process than the Monkees represented a life of trying to make it as a young band in theirs?

This seems like such an obvious point I realized that I was NOT asking the question that the producers and writers of the show were asking themselves, which is, “Is it entertaining?“

Last night I watched a movie called “Harmontown” about the creator of Community, Dan Harmon. He talked about his deep desire to entertain people. He craved the satisfaction he got knowing his writing made people laugh, smile or feel better.

I watch a lot of fiction on tv. I also read a lot of fiction. I sometimes forget that my attitudes are shaped by people whose goal is to entertain.

If people think that it’s a “message movie” it will often turn them off. “I don’t want people to ram their message down my throat!” they say, even if they might agree with the message. When the question, “Is it entertaining?” is answered first, any message it might also have slides in more subtly and perhaps more effectively.

A message that writers of TV and movies have been sending for a long time is torture is effective. On tv and movies they show it is effective in getting non-false, new information in a short time.  They show the threat of torture is effective. It has become so ingrained in our thinking that when confronted with the reality of torture, reality is questioned, not the fiction.

The fiction that we see in our movies and TV shows are designed to be entertaining. Torture, and the threat of torture, serve the needs of the writers in these cases. It can make the story more dramatic, horrifying, gruesome, sexy and even funny. Its use serves a major goal of fiction, entertainment.

Torture’s use can move the story forward, show character traits, tap into viewer or readers empathy or fear.

When the Senate report on torture came out showing that actionable intelligence was not obtained by torture, it seemed to go against what we knew from fiction or what we read and heard about from the “real” world and “the dark side” that Cheney talked about.

This “non-fiction” about torture is coming from a media that gets their info from an entire group of people in the CIA whose job it was to push the lie that torture got them intel.

Interestingly for some media, torture not working goes against their “common sense.” A sense based on school yard experience and low tolerance for pain.

“I would totally spill the beans if I was tortured!” They might say. This assumes they knew about the beans in the first place.

“I would torture if we needed that bomb location.” They would say on their TV show. This assumes the person they are torturing knows the bomb location, is just like us and not someone who would rather die than “spill the beans.”

So the question is, if fiction better mirrored the reality of torture, would it still be entertaining? I don’t mean fun or likable, but entertaining in its broadest sense.

I haven’t seen American Sniper, but I understand that it is an entertaining movie. I think about another entertaining film from Clint Eastwood, one that had a killer as a lead character. A movie that helped change attitudes toward a fictional character we believed we knew.

The Schofield Kid: [after killing a man for the first time] It don’t seem real… how he ain’t gonna never breathe again, ever… how he’s dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid. 

The fictional movies and TV shows that flip the idea of a “heroic torturer” and effectiveness of torture on its head might be out there, but they aren’t coming through with the same power as other fictions.

If these ideas do start showing up in our fiction, I believe the writers can make them as useful to their stories as their previous ideas on torture, and just as entertaining.

Forcing Change in Big Media’s Pro-war Bias


by Spocko

Yesterday I posted some positive steps to get anti-war and anti-torture voices into the media.

Today I want to suggest some other steps and some leverage methods to force the issue.

I’m going to be discussing them and the research that led to them tonight on Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd. at 6 pm PDT

Today Digby wrote about Chris Hayes and Laura Ingram pointing out how the networks push war. Now, what to do to change it?

Following Lee Fang’s Nation article on retired generals pushing bombing without being identified. I dug into the process for getting those guests to get on the air.   I spoke to news producers, show bookers, guests, corporate media execs, FCC and FTC lawyers. I spoke to corporate CFOs, institutional investors, hedge fund managers and media trackers.

After I understood the process, I asked, “Who or what has the power to change things?”

Some of the most insightful comments came from a pundit guest and a major network lawyer.

“The news and Sunday morning show producers are both lazy and afraid.” -Pundit guest

I asked for clarification. “They are afraid of getting fired for booking a ‘bad’ guest.” How ‘bad’ is defined can vary from “Makes the host look bad, makes regular guests look bad, to is inarticulate on the camera.”

I understand the fear, so then I asked, “Say we had new, proven ‘good’ guests, but with a different perspective, what would it take to get them on? A memo from the head of the news division? A call from a big advertiser? A letter from corporate lawyers that guests now have to meet certain FCC and FTC regulations? The top media CEO mandating it? A cash transaction? A conversation with a major shareholder over golf? A twitter storm from the public?”

The pundit had fascinating answers, but these questions were asked before the Brian Williams firing. The firing gave me some data that I didn’t have before.

To me that story was about NBCUniversal trying to protect a certain brand image that they want the NBC News division to have. They then took actions showing the price they were willing to pay to maintain it.

Following the firing Williams dropped from 23rd to 825th on the trustworthy scale.  How much could that drop cost a network? One New York Times story had a chart showing that a 30 second spot on Williams show generating $47,000 in revenue.

NBC made the decision to distance the man from the brand. The brand promise now explicitly includes the anchors having a “responsibility to the truth.”

This brand value of NBC News is clearly measured in dollars.

If NBCUniversal did not believe that this aspect of their news brand and their hosts’ trustworthiness was important, they would have kept Williams on.

Of course the Williams firing leads some groups to go after O’Reilly and FOX for lying, That’s great, but O’Reilly and Fox News weren’t built on integrity.They are playing a different game. Fox’s “Fair And Balanced” is a catch phrase not an actual practice.  The people to focus on are ABC, CBS and CNN.

Now is the time to remind them that they don’t want their anchors and news brand to become a punch line like Williams.

Want a specific step? If you have prepared ‘good’ guests with an anti-war perspective, tweet to the networks. “Booking only pro-war voices  means your news isn’t being truthful.  #don’tbelikeBrianWilliams book[anti-war person]”

Networks respond to social media pressure.  I know that recently Code Pink tried to get on to peace activists on ABC.  It hasn’t worked yet, but it’s a start as a model.

Hearing just from that group isn’t enough nor is it the networks only pressure. It might not even be in their top 10.

What other pressures matter?  

For this question I spoke to a former network lawyer. She describing the process for making a decision on a conflict between two big companies and their ads. She said the boss gathered everyone together and asked two questions.

“What are the other networks doing? How big is the ad buy?”         —Former network lawyer

This struck me for two reasons. First is understanding any action happens in context with the peers. Peer pressure happens in the big leagues too. Secondly the financial question. People often trot out the line, “It’s all about the money” which signals the ends the discussion.

I’d like people to look at “the ad buy” in another way.

The networks are selling a war. They are giving tremendous value to the companies that benefit from war.  Networks should be better compensated for that value.  By not charging for that value they are leaving money on the table and aren’t serving shareholders.

The first ISIS/Sryian bombing was estimated to cost taxpayers around 870 million. The first week around one billion. Weapons manufactures had a good quarter following that week and reported it in their earnings.

Who does an anti-war message or anti-torture message give value to?

If only a war message is seen as valuable, of course networks won’t go any other route.

So instead of asking for an anti-war message or trying to force them to run one, let’s hold them to their shareholder’s mandate.


The news networks have a responsibility to make money for shareholders, the truth is subservient to that.

If your constituency are the companies making money selling this war, you don’t have a duty to tell both sides.

The networks already have on weapons salesmen without identifying their employers.  Why should the General Dynamics spokesperson get the Sunday guest spot to push drones? How much is it worth to the Blackwater spokesperson to get the spot instead to push “boots on the ground?” Auction them off to the highest bidder.

Does this seem absurd? It is only if people continue to look at the network news division as a public trust. Maybe they still are.  Will they fight the idea that they are only pro-war for the money? Now is the time to push ’em and find out.

3 Easy Steps to Change the Media’s Views on War & Torture

by Spocko

These days I’m like Mr. Spock in the dark, parallel universe of Star Trek. I see our leadership going down the wrong path regarding the use of war and torture. It’s an illogical, fear-based path, and it’s presented as the only alternative.

Therefore I’ve come up with some fun, easy steps to change that.

In our country fear rules people and acquiring resources has trumped all ethical considerations.  The power structure and media viewpoint has rejected non-violent solutions as weak and ineffective. The discussion of other solutions are mocked,  marginalized and the proponents cast as naive or terrorists lovers.

In the Mirror Mirror universe Captain Kirk challenged the waste of lives, potential, resources and time of an Empire that ruled by fear and violence.

The goateed Mr. Spock could see the illogic of that Empire but says, “One man cannot summon the future.”  Kirk replies, “But one man can change the present.”

There are powerful groups and people who support war and torture. They are smart, organized, well-funded and know how to use strategic propaganda and specific appeals to ego, power and corporate monetary gain to get what they want.

How to you overcome these groups, people and their views?

In the episode Spock said, a man has to have power to change the present.  Kirk tells him of a button that makes opponents disappear. A button like that has been used on the voices and images of anti-war, anti-torture people in the media.

I could try to use that button on the opposition, but I’d prefer to push the button that can make us appear.

I’ve listed three methods today to help us appear and change attitudes toward torture and war. Most are focused on the “news” media but some on other media creators.

Now a fun part.  Listen to the Jimmy Dore Show. Jimmy and his writers, set up issues woth jokes like Stewart or Colbert.  This week was about the media’s selling the ISIS war with no push back and how Fox News has become ISIS’s PR agency. He describes Chris Matthews’ strange “moral” compass and his love for war.

Changing Minds on Torture 


Since going to the Symposium on Torture and Security at Boalt Hall at Berkeley, I’ve been thinking about ways people can change the present on this issue.

I’ve been talking to people in various communities because I was puzzled by torture’s support (68 percent!). My Vulcan logical brain agreed with Mark Danner. We have all the facts, why won’t minds change?  My human emotional brain knows how people make decisions based on emotions as well as data. Facts about torture and the war were suppressed. Evidence of success was falsified.

What to do?

1) Get experts refuting the lies in front of the media and the public. 

Torture Supporters have Better PR and Marketing People

by Spocko 

On the most beautiful sunny day of the year in San Francisco I took a train to the East Bay then walked up a hill into a windowless room to listen to five experts talk about torture.  This was my idea of a good time, and possibly the reason I’m a laugh riot at parties.

It was a symposium titled: Torture, Security, and Law.

The senate intelligence committee report
The involvement of psychologists and lawyers
Holding ourselves accountability

 It was held at Boalt Hall at UC Berkeley School of Law which is the current home of distinguished scholar John Yoo.

I went to hear the progress of bringing accountability to the people who encouraged, legalized and normalized torture in America. I was also hoping for a path to accountability for those who tortured.

I was very disappointed.

I was not alone in my feeling. The panel members expressed their own disappointment with their progress. ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer talked about his problems getting documents out of the government or getting the voices of the people tortured to be heard by the public. He was fighting to get images of their torture seen but kept getting blocked.

What was especially frustrating was hearing the failed attempts of facility, law professors and alumni at Bolt trying to figure out a way to deal with Yoo’s continued presence.

On the way home my scholar friend and I discussed what it would take to bring protest of torture to the front of people’s minds. He pointed out that during the Berkeley protests war wasn’t abstract, it was personal. Killing others is a big moral issue, but personally being killed is a practical issue. Ending the war would mean keeping you or your loved ones safe and alive. It can raise the question:

Why protest torture when it has been sold as an effective means to keep Americans safe and alive? 

As I thought about accountability or changing the acceptability of torture and war in America, I kept coming back to something my Canadian friend Interrobang said to me.

“When Americans talk about torture they always see themselves in the power position asking the question. ‘Should I torture?’  They ask themselves
‘Is it justified? Will it keep me safe? Does it work?’ But Americans never see themselves in the position of the person being tortured unjustly.”

CIA Sold Media The Lie, “Torture Works!” 

At the end of the symposium I made a point and asked a question.

“You know why the public thinks torture works and is justified? They have a better PR and marketing team. ”  

I asked the audience if they were aware that since 2004 the CIA had developed a campaign specifically for the media that pushed the “effectiveness” of using torture techniques on detainees. Following the release of the Senate Report we now know the examples fed to the media on effective torture were blatant lies, designed to mislead the media and the public.

I asked the panel, “How can we help you push back against these lies?”

Mark Danner, the excellent journalist and author of books on torture, took on my burning question. I was looking for a snappy response, but he gave me a thoughtful, nuanced answer about the powerful CIA lobby.  Damn you Danner!

Another panelist pointed out how the current preferred method of warfare, drones, is squarely in the CIA’s control. Any attempts to get the administration to “look backward” at the CIA folks who tortured could be a problem, especially since some players were taken off the table legally.

So what about people who encouraged, legalized and normalized torture? What happens to the players who aren’t protected legally? The former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriako wants them prosecuted, Who’s supporting him in that? Who’s booking him on Meet The Press opposite Dick Cheney?

Here’s the thing, the CIA’s strategic lying leaks were wildly successful.
   58% all adults now see torture as often or somewhat justified.

—Jan, 3 2015 Washington Post poll

I wonder what it would take to change the perception of effectiveness of torture. I have a few ideas that I’ll share tomorrow. I know they will be ignored and not funded for implementation by anyone. Unlike psychologists James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who got $81 million for developing torture programs, there isn’t a lot of money pushing against torture. But there are people doing it anyway.
Tomorrow, “Why people don’t change their minds when it comes to torture, even when they have “all the facts.'”

It’s a nice day here, I’m going out for a walk.

LLAP,
Spocko

Where are the Anti-war Experts on my TV, Radio and Press?

by Spocko

Yesterday Digby mentioned that Chris Matthews was hungering for some war action.

Obama pushing for an Authorized Use of Military Force agreement to go after ISIS might make Matthews happy, but I wonder whom he and the other news/talk opinion shows will book to talk about other alternatives?

Media Matters just put out an extensive report about The State of Sunday Morning Political Talk Shows.  The results won’t surprise you. White men dominate. While I haven’t gone through the entire report, the other theme that I’m seeing is a pro-war bias of guests.

One of my friends in the radio biz talked about pro-AUMF guests being pushed at her. I asked, “Are you also getting anti-war guests pushed and promoted to you?” She wasn’t.

I’ve pointed out this issue before many times, not all experts are created equal. Not all messages have a well-funded team pushing them. I’ve asked in several forums. “Who are the anti-war go to guests? Why aren’t they in the conversations? What will it take to get them in the conversations?”

The recent Brian Williams suspension revealed that lying was winked at and promoted when it had a pro-war agenda. The punishment was for the lying, not the pro-war part.

But now NBC and to a lesser degree CBS and ABC, will be trying to show how credible they are now. They might want to show their anchors sticking to the facts or actually talking to both sides instead of two versions of the same side.

This is where we start pushing them, now, while they are still trying to appear credible and before the pro-war funders  get their war on, again.

Williams Suspension Designed to Show NBC News’ Values Trust and Truth

by Spocko

Breaking: From NBC News president Deborah Turness