How News Becomes Bad (It's All About Clicks)

A dumb headline was introduced to the internet today, but because it's clickbait, every whore of a media outlet ran it. It involves false accusations, politics, and quotes taken out of context. And surprise, it's about Trump.

The Washington Post headline proclaimed that "Trump says Obama is helping to organize protests against his presidency." So did Fox, CNN, et. al. And of course he did. That's the narrative, so I believe it. Trump whines, lies, blames, and obfuscates - he doesn't fix. Of course he blamed Obama for the protests. 

Except, he didn't. And no one cared to point out that Trump didn't go on tv intending to blame Obama for inciting protests. Even though he didn't.

Trump isn't without blame here, but it was clearly Fox New's fault. Trump went on Fox and Friends this morning (AKA, the network's morning trio of hackery), and one of the hacks (I'm not going to bother learning the guy's name) floated that Obama's organization (and thus, the former President) was behind the large crowds at Congressional town halls. Hack #3 then goes on to talk about how it's not fair because all Presidents agree not to attack their replacements once they leave office.

At this point a reasonable person just shuts down the hack by saying they haven't heard that, but we need to squelch these rumors unless we have evidence; saying things for the sake of blaming our problems on the other side only hurts our democracy. Of course Trump doesn't - he just nods his head and agrees because he's incapable of resisting the power of suggestion. And that's a major failing on his part. But the headline there is "Trump Fails to Correct Accusations that Hacks at Fox Made Against Obama." Problem is, that doesn't have the same ring as "Trump Blames Obama." So rather than point to the source of the initial problem (Fox and Friends), CNN gins up a different but more intriguing problem guaranteed to get more clicks. And that's how the media loses credibility among a disenchanted independent.

I don't blame a guy for trying to make a buck. But that doesn't mean I won't judge him for how that buck is made. 

Edit: also in the news today: mass hysteria because KellyAnne Conway sat on a couch. I'm not even joking. This actually happened. Jon Stewart used to call Fox the fake outrage machine - I think Salon.com is trying to claim that mantle now.

On Elections

It's reportedly the most boring midterm season the US has seen in a long time. 2010 had the Obamacare backlash and subsequent Tea Party insurrection. 2006 was the beginning of the Dem wave that swept Obama into office (the financial collapse didn't hurt) after everyone who was in favor of invading Iraq suddenly decided they never actually wanted to go to war, while 2002 was a Republican rock concert highlighting the drumbeat of that war. Even 1998 offered the opportunity for the public to respond to the government shutdown and provided referendum on the case against Bill Clinton's transgressions. I don't remember 1994, but I'm sure people wanted to vote on the Clinton ambitions of an energy tax and universal healthcare. In 2014, we're voting on whether nobody dying from the Ebola virus is considered failing the American people. Truly exciting times.

That's someone else's observation though; I'm just regurgitating what I hear on Grist with a bit of color. Here are my unplagiarized thoughts (which are brilliantly brought full-circle with this last sentence):

1. Interest and participation in elections is inversely proportional to how much voting matters. Everyone follows presidential elections and they enjoy the highest participation rates. What's the likelihood your determines the outcome? As x approaches zero...

Bump the office down a couple pegs now - how many follow the gubernatorial races? Fewer. Here your vote is still too marginal to matter, yet it climbs the ladder. State Senate? Even fewer people know what's going on here, but the NY Senate 46th was determined by 18 votes in 2012. And State Senators can pass real legislation that you feel the impact of; tax cuts and stimulus at the federal level have a nebulous effect as people credit the power of the presidency for way more power over the economy than is actually possesses.

Now drill down two more levels. City Council. Who knows who their city councilperson is? No one. We just vote party line. If we vote at all. Yet these are the people that have the most direct impact on our lives. Look at Albany's horrible zoning practices, carte blanche opposition to development, and other issues. These are things that limit my job prospects, make my city less safe, and drive people to live elsewhere because they can't afford their property taxes/rent. And the low overall number of voters in local elections exponentially increases the likelihood that a couple votes can swing an outcome. So there are direct impacts, there's a chance your vote counts, and no one pays attention. Over 50 percent of Americans take the time to vote for their preferred presidential candidate, and it really doesn't matter.

2. Books. All presidential candidates write a book. It's like a requirement for the office. It's obvious why they do it: there's always a nice cash advance tied to the release of 500 pages of self-adulation that was actually penned by a ghostwriter. Plus the media coverage enhances name recognition. But Cuomo's All Things Possible sold just 945 copies its first week and 535 the second week on the shelves. That's not a typo - the two-week numbers are under 1,500 copies. Amazon has already dropped the suggested price from $30 to $20. Yet Cuomo's book deal was worth over $700,000, with advance royalties of at least $150,000. Sounds like this should go in HarperCollins' "Bad Deals Hame of Fame," eh?

That's the prima facie reading of the situation, but there could be more at play. Sure, HarperCollins was probably banking on Cuomo enjoying greater popularity and better sales when this deal was originally done. But Cuomo is also a potential presidential candidate. And in this, he's an investment. I don't think HarperCollins makes this deal because Governor Cuomo's book is worth a $700,000 deal. But President Cuomo's book is. Yet President Cuomo needs, say, a cool five million for the book that will sell 500,000 copies (I'm making up numbers here. For reference, Bill Clinton's My Life incurred a $15 million advance and moved 2.3 million copies).

HarperCollins hopes to break even on All Things Possible under the status quo, but the real ambition is the gamble that Cuomo makes his way into the Oval Office and the publisher nets a brilliant return. So book deals with presidential candidates may be premised on the chance they go from state/regional personalities to national celebrities. This isn't to suggest HarperCollins believes in a Cuomo presidency - indeed, it likely hopes to sign a couple of likely prospects from both parties for the same purpose. Just maybe not Rand Paul.

Hot Gay Latinos

I was listening to some smart commentary a couple weeks ago about how Obama has (smartly) cherry-picked certain policies to excite an otherwise (very) unexcited base. Gay marriage energizes Hollywood elites and rich benefactors with a personal interest in the matter (even if his support is limited to not opposing states that recognize same-sex marriages). This is important because he needs money. The recent position decision to provide children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship energizes the Latino vote. This is important because otherwise these people aren't going to show up. Call it cynical politics, smart politics, bad policy, or smart policy. I'm it calling strategy. He's got the money and the voters, but is missing an essential link - the mobilization effort. This will require the work of either students or greenies. Smart money is on the greenies. If Obama was gonna do something to excite students, it needed to be done a month ago. Now summer break is halfway over and 20-year-olds are already preoccupied with shitty summer jobs and awkwardly hooking up with old high school flings while skyping with their college boy/girlfriends every other night. He'll need them in the fall, but it just doesn't make sense to believe they'll provide support like in 2008.

However, there's a perfect storm calling for the green mobilization machine. Environmentalists have taken a backseat to everyone but the typewriter lobby since the failed cap and trade effort of 2009. They've been grumbling for three years about how every major liberal group got something big accomplished but them. They're not happy. As such, your current Campaigner In Chief needs to do something to get them to go pound the pavement and telephone lines. The weather this summer has been ridiculous, and the time to pounce is probably this week:

(The ten day forecast back home in KS)

Exploit the weather now! Between half the western US being on fire, Florida going underwater, and the enthusiasm bump from environmentalists finally getting some attention, it seems like the thing Obama could pounce on. (Remember kids - always point to peculiar weather events as confirmation/disprove. Both sides love using anecdotal evidence to back up their science.) Plus, as of Tuesday there's less uncertainty about whether the EPA can go forward with regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act after a federal appeals court ruled the EPA was “unambiguously correct” in its legal rationale behind regulating greenhouse gases. Probably highlight the legal triumph and use it to bolster your argument for the new GHG policy.

The flip side of this is that the Obama team recognizes how unhappy the markets will be at the prospect of an energy tax, making economic output sink, and really giving conservatives to rally around and drum up more support from business. With Europe unable to remove itself from one huge clusterf*** and China slowing down, the Dow is just looking for an excuse to plummet back to 11,000. As such, I think it's iffy politics. It'll also be done in a way that's dumb policy. After the SCOTUS ruling today upholding the health care mandate, I don't know if the administration prefers to bask in the glow of 'winning' or would rather divert attention away from an unpopular law. Just don't discount the possibility of a cap and trade announcement coming to a campaign near you.

Gettin' Our G-Walk On

I'm referring to gunwalking here, obviously. A couple facts about the Fast and Furious scandal that Republicans need to be made cognizant of:

• This was a Bush-era program. Obama let it perpetuate, he didn't establish it.
• If you subscribe to the idea that "if we outlaw guns, then only criminals will have them," with gun ownership being important to defend yourself against criminals who will find ways to acquire firearms regardless of their legality, then we have to acknowledge these crimes probably would've happened anyway. The weapons involved just would've originated elsewhere.

Conversely, what I would like to remind Democrats of:

• See bullet #1 - your boy was responsible for perpetuating the program. Also, this administration has been a bunch of dicks about it.

This country seems to have a problem with supplying weapons to people and having the supply come back and bite us in the ass. Look to Afghanistan, look to the Contras, just look somewhere (yes folks, Reagan sent a lot more bullets to outlaws down in Central America than anyone who's held the office recently). When you purposefully let terrorists acquire instruments manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people, don't act surprised if it occasionally comes back to bite you in the ass; at the end of the day, you're still dealing with terrorists.

The next paragraph is where I offer my own insightful analysis on how to bring down higher-level traffickers and the cartels they supply without having to rely on gunwalking:

 

Gimme Money (I've an Election to Win!)

Following Neil Munro of the Daily Caller's interruption of Obama and the gleeful support of a segment of 'conservatives,' I've given up on the prospect of civility ever returning to the national political arena. Maybe the answer is for Obama to start taking questions from the press. Actually, scratch that, I gave up when Joe Wilson became a fundraising champion after interrupting the State of the Union (did you know his wife actually admonished whoever yelled out at the President... before she found out it was her husband?). No, scratch that one too - I gave up when liberals squealed with glee after someone threw a shoe at Bush in Iraq. Well, whenever all my hope was supplanted with absolute cynicism, it's time to stop swimming against tide. There's more money to be made as an Olberman or Brit Hume than trying to promote something that isn't harmful to our democracy. So here's my media offering:

I'm willing to make inflammatory remarks about any political party or politician someone else believes is evil because their policy desires don't converge. Now someone give me a radio talk show to blather bullshit for a couple hours every afternoon.

Freshman Logic Fail

When Obama talks about gay marriage, it sounds like he's pandering. When Romney brings it up, he sounds like an idiot. Witness his statements last night on Fox News: "I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home. I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

Let's play a simple logic game:
Gay marriage illegal=A
Gay marriage legal=B
Heterosexual couple raising a child=C
Gay couple raising a child=D

What Romney is apparently OK with:
1. If A, then C.
2. If B, then C.
3. If A, then D.
4. If B, then not D.

I understand #1 & #2. Reconciling three and four, however, can only be done one way: Mitt Romney is worried that gay married couples will begin procreating. Apparently Cranbrook did not teach sex ed.


FYI - Obama isn't gonna do anything that materially advances the cause of gay marriage. If you support the cause, you don't have to give him money now, because political expediency never stops evolving.

I'm Not Crafty Enough to Make This Graph Look Good: Put If You Click it, Looks Nice

The recent criticism du jour against Obama is how he's responsible for high gas prices. Such rants must be somewhat tempered with the fact that we've actually expanded domestic drilling operations over the past four years. Potential geopolitical instability is also insanely high right now (yes, moron, the futures market does impact current prices. Also, moron, the futures market is driven by what people think will happen in the future. Stop saying talk of war with Iran in the future doesn't impact oil prices, moron). So that has something to do with it. Let's look at a couple of other things. The first is that our oil reserves are pretty high right now, and much higher than we ever saw under Bush (to see a nifty, interactive version of the graph, click here!):
Oil refineries are sitting on a lot of petro right now, it's just not being turned into gas. That's one reason you're seeing record high gas prices even though the price per barrel isn't historically that bad: oil is available. Gasoline is not.

Semi-related note: gasoline prices increase every Spring as refineries convert operations to blend a different fuel mix. Summer and Winter demand different fuel compositions. The price will usually stay high until after July 4. This happens every year. It's historical fact - look it up.

Another item to consider is that the economy has been doing well recently. This brings us to a supply and demand argument: when the economy went in the shitter, there was no demand and gas prices fell. We weren't building things, transporting things, visiting things, or otherwise engaging in activities that caused energy demand. Now we are. Simple economics tells us that this heightened demand will increase the price. Ergo, you can blame higher gas prices on the economy. You can even say that high gas prices are an economic indicator; a symbol of success.

This isn't a roundabout way of saying high gas prices are Obama's fault because he's helped the economy springboard and the trajectory of gas prices are a function of this springboarding. Obama doesn't really deserve that much credit for our economic improvement. But blaming him for current gas prices is stupid too. Moron.

Obama's Victory Lap

I've got no problem with Bush not attending Obama's victory lap in NYC today. The former President has refused to be goaded into criticizing the current one, and thus shouldn't be expected to endorse him either. This event would simply be too politicized, and staying home shouldn't necessarily be construed as bitterness.

What I do take issue with is the notion that Bush was 'snubbed' for his efforts. A 'source' stated that: Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way.

Boo hoo. Obama has publicly thanked 'the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals.' But as far as the 'intelligence infrastructure' Bush put in place? No one should ever, EVER, be thanked for the clusterfuck that is the Department of Homeland Security. Spending billions on things that fail to increase the safety of the American people is not a laudatory action. Bush did things deserving of praise. This wasn't one of them.

You're Invited!

Dear President Barack Obama,

First, I would like to congratulate you on choosing the University of Michigan to provide the commencement address to the class of 2010. (You may think it odd for me to be congratulating you on this decision, but I believe all smart choices should be commended.) As a graduating Master of Public Policy Student at the Ford School of Public Policy, you should know that I'm totally stoked about your arrival - even if we do share our differences on both policy approaches and methods of governance.

As you are likely well aware, John F. Kennedy once used the stairs of the Michigan Student Union to outline his vision of the Peace Corps to the world. We boast a proud, progressive history here that captures the American Dream while ushering in bold new ideas to make this nation even greater. Commencement addresses can be an excellent platform to reveal grand visions that produce laudable fruition, e.g., the Marshall Plan, and high expectations are set for the plan you will provide to over 100,000 onlookers. *Spoiler Alert*: Does our potential to become America's Clean Energy Hub have a role in the inspiration you hope to instill in us?

Additionally, I would like to take this time to formerly extend an invitation to celebrate the graduation of the Class of 2010 at Das Pink Haus. The residence of 902 Brown is a mere two blocks from the stadium, greatly reducing your travel time. During our time together you will find the bathrooms clean, the furniture comfortable, and the space spacious. It is occupied by masters students at the Ford School of Public Policy, and includes many a loyal supporter. Drinks we be on the house, for your money will be no good here (unless, of course, you don't mind printing a little more to help out some guys graduating with pesky student loans). In return for your visit, we promise impartial feedback on the new plan you will introduce on May 1. Economic, statistical, cultural, and other analysis is assured from some of the best future minds in the business. A personal concentration in the nexus between the environment and energy systems enhances my personal excitement regarding your proposal for a new generation of sustainable energy systems (sorry if I'm dictating content too much here).

We'd like to keep the event low-key, so try to invite too many friends over; Carol Browner and a couple others are free to stop by, but they're gonna have to chip in $5 for a plastic cup. I know you're an extremely busy man responsible for fixing a legacy of problems caused by past and present forces, so you needn't respond immediately to this invite. However, an RSVP (including regrets) by April would be much appreciated so we can determine what to do with roommate Jason Arredondo (he's an entrenched member of the Chicago political machine, and would be no good to have around you). If you have any other questions, or need me to text presidential convoy instructions, please don't hesitate to contact me. My number is (785) 580-XXXX. It's easiest to reach me in the morning, but I can take a call in class as long as I don't miss too much lecture. Good luck putting GHG emissions back on the table, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Dave Thoman

P.S. Tell Bob Gates he also drinks for free.