Don Lemon on Trump's Speech in Phoenix

It's a few months into the future. Trump has nuked the world back into the Stone Age. (This is a very optimistic post, because, as Carl Sagan told us all decades ago, any nuclear war will likely result, not in the Stone Age, but in the eradication of all life on Earth: people, cockroaches, bacteria, viruses, everything.)

A few former journalists are sitting around in front of their cave after the day's unsuccessful search for food. There are no journalists anymore, only former journalists, because there is no television, radio, Internet, newspapers or magazines. There is no time right now to even think about trying to start to re-create such things, because the few surviving people are much too busy doing things like looking for food and trying to make weapons out of sticks and rocks before they're eaten by the few surviving man-eating carnivores.

These former journalists are proud. Hungry at the moment, but proud, because they never violated their sacred principles of "objective journalism" by warning their viewers and readers that Trump would most likely kill most or all of them if given the chance. Off the air, off the record, not in print, amongst themselves, they were pretty sure that Trump would end civilization if his political power were not checked soon enough. But they never let their viewers and readers know that they thought so, the same way that they never let their viewers and readers know how much they despised Trump. That would not have been "objective journalism" as they knew and revered it.

There were a few exceptions to this "objectivity." For example, Keith Olbermann spoke as directly about politics on air to his viewers and his did off the air to his personal acquaintances. Actually, sometimes Keith spoke even more directly and clearly on air, because he thought it was important. And from 2015 to 2017 Keith minced his words especially not at all when it came to Donald Trump and the clear fact that Trump was crazy and that a crazy person shouldn't be President of the United States.

But after a career of such directness about political things, Keith went from hosting his own hour-long prime-time show 5 nights a week on MSNBC, to losing that gig in 2011 and going to Current TV until 2012, and then from 2013 to 2015 he had a sports show on ESPN, but a show on which he had promised ESPN that he would not mention politics at all, and then in 2016 and 2017 he went back to speaking plainly and directly about politics, but he was only doing it on a podcast for GQ. Big-time political journalism had made it as clear as could be that anyone who spoke in public as clearly about politics as Keith did had no place in big-time political journalism. Keith violated the principle of "objectivity," of "letting the viewers make up their own minds," and doing everything possible to make sure that they didn't have too much to work with when making up their minds. Everything Keith said was completely accurate, of course, but that was not the point!

All of the above is my sarcastic reaction to the alarmed reaction by many in political journalism to the way that CNN's Don Lemon reacted to Donald's speech, which was full of lies and an embarrassment to the US, by saying, on the air, as the host of his own hour-long prime-time news program, that it was full of lies and an embarrassment to the US.

Every speech Trump has made as President has been full of lies and an embarrassment to the US. The 94% or so of America's political reporters who aren't idiots or Republican tools, or both, should have been reacting constantly the way Lemon reacted last night, since long before he was elected.

Well. Thank goodness that at least a few journalists, here and there, now and then (under extreme circumstances, mostly), are re-thinking the "objective journalism" nonsense.

I Give The Press A Lot Of The Blame

If they had spent much less time and energy trying to understand and empathize with Trump's voters and much more time and energy trying to warn them that Trump is an exceptionally dishonest liar who has no intention of helping them at all, then we might not be in this mess.

A house catches fire. "Objective journalism" is careful not to let any opinion show about whether the fire is good or bad. A helpful person, on the other hand, screams: "THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!" and calls 911.

Chris Matthews was especially unhelpful about Trump. Yes, Matthews has always thought that Trump would be a disaster as President. But for every moment he's spent on the air saying so, he's spent minutes marveling at what a good politician Trump is. If you tend to just channel-surf past "Hardball," Matthews' program on MSNBC, you might well think that Matthews was a Trump supporter. Matthews is an especially bad offender, but most of the other people on his show and similar shows have spent much too much time trying to understand the Trump phenomenon and much too little time trying to warn people about Trump.

And the news intake of most voters is much closer to channel-surfing than attentively watching an entire news program from start to finish, much less reading entire op-eds. And if anyone should know that, it's journalists.

And the news programs which are most watched start to finish in the US, the broadcast network news half-hours, are probably the most careful of all to be "objective," and to avoid screaming that the house is on fire. A few journalists in the US may have been sufficiently shaken by the disaster of this election to wake up from the illusion of "objective journalism." I'm afraid, however, that most of them are patting themselves on the back and telling each other that they "presented the facts" and did all they could do and oh well.

I call bullshit. A typical headline in this campaign has been: "Trump has connected with millions of people who feel frustrated" about this or that. A much more factual, much more true headline would have been "Trump is lying non-stop to millions of people who are frustrated, conning them into thinking he'll help them. That's what he does, he lies and cons people and uses them and abuses them and rips them off."

This huge mistake which is called "objective journalism" is hurting us very badly. We can do so much better than this so-called "objective journalism."

Philosophy or Physics 101 For Journalism Students

In philosophy or physics, the notion that there is no such thing as objectivity is not new. 3 centuries ago Bishop Berkeley was giving objectivity some blows, which to some seemed and seem like knockout punches, and in the 20th century Werner Heisenberg and others gave some substantial scientific underpinning to subjectivism -- the assertion that everything we know is subjective and that objectivity is nothing more than an illusion -- a viewpoint which, in philosophy or physics, may not be universal, but which by no means is unfamiliar any longer. Try to introduce it into a discussion of journalism by journalists, however, and you may well be treated as an annoyance who is interrupting the grown-ups.

Well, journalists, the feeling is mutual, frankly. It's astounding that you are so well-insulated, in the 21st century, from the notion that there is no such thing as subjectivity. If you're covering politicians and politics, tell us your opinions of those politicians -- not just in op-ed pieces, but all of the time. Are 94% of you Democrats? That would be a good thing for the public to know. Republican would say -- some currently are saying -- it's proof that you're biased. I would say that you spend your careers studying Democrats and Republicans up close, which naturally makes you the leading experts on Democrats and Republicans, and that if so many of you prefer Democrats, it probably means Democrats are by far the better major party.

*sigh* I know we're a long way from getting there, practically. But conceptually, it's a very simple step to grasping that the best way you can inform the public is to share your opinions with us. "But's it's only our opinions!" you'll object. "It's always people's opinions whenever they communicate," I'd respond. And we always are aware -- well, some of us are aware -- that we're dealing with opinions, with subjective viewpoints. The problem is that you regard this thing you call "objective reporting" as more than subjective opinion, when really it is less. You start with your subjective opinions about the politicians you cover and the things they do, and then you subtract everything which might betray how you feel about what you cover, until you have reduced it to what you call "objectivity." This "objectivity" is not more information than your opinions, it's much, much less. It's a paltry sliver of all that you know.

All I can do is share with you my opinions and experiences -- which is all that you or anybody can do (in my opinion). And for me, this subjectivism is very clear and obvious. As I learned about philosophy and physics and art and other things, suddenly I could feel relativity, could feel the way that everything I know and experience is subjective -- feel it in a physical way as well as intellectually. And there's no way now to un-feel it or un-know it, to become once again unaware of it, and, for example, unaware of how a painting by Matisse of a potted plant is far richer in information than any photograph of a potted plant could be, because it's far more subjective. I'm not familiar with a page of Nietzsche's work that doesn't appear (to me, of course!) to take this lack of objectivity for granted -- but if you want an example of a passage where this is particularly obvious, check out the famous rant of the crazy person in the froehlichen Wissenschaft who keeps exclaiming that God is dead, saying things like "Aren't we continually plunging, backwards, sideways, forward, in every direction? Is there still an up and a down?"

Belief in objectivity is like belief in God: very comforting, extremely useful in some ways from certain points of view, and entirely farfetched, and some of us are past it and occasionally frustrated waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

"Journalistic Objectivity"

Ain't no dang such thing, as Hunter S Thompson tried so hard to tell us. All it is and all it has ever been is journalists choosing not to tell us a great deal of what they know about the things they're supposedly reporting about.

"It's true that Trump is batshit-crazy and might nuke the human race out of existence 10 minutes after taking office; but for us to SAY so right out in PUBLIC would be UNFAIR and would violate our sacred principle of JOURNALISTIC OBJECTIVITY!"

Yes, people actually say crazy things like that. People who are employed as journalists. The vast majority of people who are employed as journalists in the US live by such insane rules, it seems, unfortunately. More craziness:

A story has been going around lately, to the effect that 94 percent of political contributions from journalists in the US go to Democratic political campaigns. I don't know whether that figure is accurate. If it is, it's not the crazy part. The crazy part is that right-wing news outlets are reporting it, and claiming that it's proof of liberal media bias.

94 percent. That's similar to the 97 percent of meteorologists who say that climate change is happening, and is caused by human activity. Do we say that meteorologists are biased because they don't split 50-50 on this issue? No! (Well, some people who work for Exxon and are completely full of shit all day every day for a living probably do say such things.) The fact that so many of the people who study the climate all day every day for a living say that global warming is real and man-made lends creedence to that point of view. As it should. We don't demand that stories promoting pollution get equal time with clean air and water and non-poisoned food. Because, at least when it comes to the environment, we're not all completely insane.

If it's true that 94 percent of the people who study politics in the US all day every day for a living contribute to the Democratic Party, then that is a very powerful argument that the Democratic Party is the best one which America currently has.

Or at least it would be, if 40 to 95 percent of the American population didn't have their heads up their asses. Or if journalists dropped the "objective journalism" and instead actually shared their insights and experiences with the public as fully as they could, instead of limiting themselves to that thin sliver of what they know which "journalistic objectivity" will let them say right out loud in public. A Google search for journalists against journalistic objectivity suggests that the madness of "journalistic objectivity" is still very-well entrenched, and will be with us for a while.

The nightmare of the Trump campaign has caused a few political journalists to think about their principle of "journalistic objectivity."

But they need to keep on thinking. They learn quite a lot about politics and politicians, naturally, by spending their whole careers observing them up close. Imagine what the public could do with such knowledge! But this nightmare, this huge Orwellian mistake the journalists call "journalistic objectivity" keeps the greater part of this knowledge bottled up inside the press pool. Occasionally a little bit of it will dribble out into an op-ed piece or a hot mic. But tragically, most of the most important things political journalists know die with them, because to share that knowledge would be "subjective."

Yes, journalists need to keep thinking about this, very hard, and maybe someday more than a handful of them will come to a level of wisdom regarding their own profession which in other professions is just common sense.

Imagine if the people who had the closest access to politicians, and whose job, supposedly, is to inform the public about politics, actually did so. Without the filter. Told us everything about the experience of seeing politics up-close. Everything includes how they feel about all that they've seen, and which politicians they support as a result.

Okay then. I'll keep doing everything I can to nudge journalists in the direction of that great Ah-ha moment.

Donald Trump: 'I Love The Poorly-Educated'

This guy is a joke that writes himself. And he's not funny.

Of course he loves the poorly-educated. Of course he loves stupid people. Of course he loves chumps. His entire career has been about taking advantage of people, beating people, getting over, exploiting people. He's a very, very bad man. It's a terrible thing that he has so much power, and the more he gets the worse it will be.

The media should start doing their damn jobs: warning people. I know, some reporters are doing this. But many others are just marveling about how well Trump's been doing in the Republican primaries, without mentioning how he's been succeeding: with lies and hate. This guy is a fascist, and over on MSNBC -- with a few exceptions, like 8 to 10 PM weeknights, Hayes, Maddow and O'Donnell -- they're just sitting around and shaking their heads and laughing about it.

Alex Wagner, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, Steve Kornacki, Mark Halperin, John Heilemann: what's so funny about any of this? You aren't doing your jobs. In the name of "journalistic objectivity," which doesn't exist, you're not sharing your insights about the current and future leaders of the world, about whom you know more than anyone else, because you spend all day every day with them for a living.

Over and over, you mention that people don't trust Hillary Clinton. And you leave out the important part: you neglect to mention that they have no rational reasons for this mistrust.

You know that "social democrat" is just an exotic-sounding name for what is known in the US as a liberal Democrat. You know that in most of Europe, the politicians who correspond to the US Democratic Party are in the Social Democratic parties. You know that Bernie doesn't vote any differently than other liberal Democrats -- except that some liberal Democrats are actually further to the Left than he is. You know that Bernie's success has much more to due with hipster-doofus 'tude than with policy. Point such things out now and then. Let people actually benefit from your knowledge.

One thing you're certainly not is poorly-educated about politics. But in the name of this huge mistake you call "journalistic objectivity," you act as if you were poorly-educated about it, as long as the cameras are rolling, or whenever you write anything for public consumption. The only time we actually learn anything from one of you is when you don't realize you're near a hot mike, and you let slip what you really know and how you really feel about it. When you accidentally say what you should be saying full-time into the cameras, and writing full-time in your news stories and columns.

You're not doing your jobs. Stop following public opinion and lead it. Make your experience and insight actually count for something for once, and educate your audience.

Don't just lean back and watch while fascist idiots like Trump take over, and laugh about it. There's nothing funny about this.

PS, 7:17 PM: Just now on Hardball, Chris Matthews, Susan Paige and Sam Stein have concluded that Trump is unstoppable. They're laughing and laughing. Matthews sums up: "So what are we doing for a living now?" Big laugh from all 3. Good question, Chris! You open for suggestions about what you should do for a living now? Start speculating as concretely as you can about what a Trump administration would look like. By the way, Chris, WHAT'S SO FUNNY?!

Mitt Romney Is a Creep!

Well, there goes my career as a big-time journalist, unless MSNBC, Mother Jones or Rolling Stone will have me.

The US is cursed with a terrible misconception about "objective journalism." Actually, it's several misconceptions: 1) That there is such a thing as objectivity. 2) That objectivity is particularly important when reporting about politics. 3) That it is particularly important -- outside of exceptions such as editorials, but to a great extent even there -- for a reporter not to share whatever personal opinions he or she may have about particular politicians, as if anything anyone ever said was more than either a personal opinion or a lie, but to confine him- or herself to a narrowly-defined category of "facts."

Some sensible journalists and observers of journalism, including Hunter S Thompson, have put a dent in such silly notions, but it's still only a dent. And so most political journalists in our mainstream media feel it is part of their job description to carefully hide, as much as they can, how much they loathe Mitt Romney. Those who are both intelligent and forthright are accused of extreme liberal bias, nut just by the idiots and tools at Fox "News," but also by some otherwise-intelligent and upright citizens who have been infected with the "objective journalism" nonsense.

Still, despite this huge barrier between US voters and relevant information, I think the word has somehow gotten around, to wide enough circles, that Mitt, for religious and/or whatever other reasons, is a pathological liar, and a sadistic homophobe and a creep in other ways, that he will not be elected President.

This Stuff is So Crazy, It's Got me Watching the News

This morning I watched a few minutes of "Meet the Press" with the sound off, couldn't bear to listen, kept hoping to see a caption identifying the yahoo David Gregory was interviewing. He looked like a Republican: he was smiling, like: What crisis? Turns out it was John Thune, Republican, US Senator from South Dakota. Besides the way Thune looked, the way that Gregory seemed to be fighting to suppress disgust which verged on nausea was another clue to his guest's party affiliation.

I'm not a big David Gregory fan, in no small part because Gregory strongly holds to the dumb old "journalistic objectivity" line. Last week a Republican Congressman appeared on Chris Matthews' show and started off his interview by describing a bill which passed the House with the votes of all the Republicans and 4 of the Democrats as having "broad bipartisan support." Chris called him on this, said, "Don't come on my show and try to tell my viewers that something like that is broad bipartisan support." Good for Chris! He stuck with it, too: the Congressman, looking a little confused, as if he was not used to being called on his bullshit, started over a few times and repeated himself close to word-for-word, and Chris still refused to have it. Gregory no doubt would've let the guy call a vote like that "broad bipartisan support," trying not to look sick, and then maybe after the interview briefly recapping what the Congressman said and then maybe adding, "In contrast to the Congressman characterization of things, Democratic Congresswoman So-and-so said earlier today..." No taking sides between the bullshit and something which made sense. No taking sides between the fire and the fire department.

"Journalistic objectivity." Maybe some journalists have learned from this debt-ceiling bullshit that it'd be much better for everyone if they just told the truth instead of trying to be "objective." That it would be better if they told the public important things like "The teabaggers are idiots, and it's very bad to have idiots in public office." They could've mentioned things like that during the 2010 campaigns. Besides the obvious public benefit, in the case of some journalists like David Gregory, their digestion might improve.

Or when they were discussing corporate supporters of baggers who were confident that they could "tame" them once they were in office, they could've pointed out that in 1932 and 19333, idiotic German corporate supporters of Hitler said exactly the same thing about their guy.

Some might say that it is a network journalist's job to point out things like this to people who are busy with non-news-related things all day most days and are half-listening to him twice a week on the nightly news and once every couple of months on his Sunday show while their children scream and their spouses bitch. Or that it ought to be his job. Honestly, what are they good for? Why are little nothing wimps like Gregory taking up so much space on the airwaves?

"Media bias." Jesus Christ! How about: the opinions of people on subjects which they study all day, every day, for a living? Never occurred to anyone that instead of a liberal media bias, it was simply the case that Left generally looked better to people who knew more about politics?