Sunday, September 25, 2016

A spectacle of yourself:
Snapchat’s vision for everyday people


SNAP INC., the company behind Snapchat, is about to roll out its first hardware product: a line of sunglasses with video cameras attached, and a possible game-changer in the ease with which we remember the days of our lives, and the accountability we attach to some of those in society with the power to end those lives — legally or otherwise.

The story was first widely reported in The Wall Street Journal.

The glasses, called Spectacles (they can get a trademark for that name?), give viewers the opportunity to make 10-second videos that are then uploaded via wi-fi connection to the wearer’s Snapchat account.

How it works: Spectacles record video when you tap a button near the hinge, with each tap recording 10 seconds of video footage — that consistent with the basic unitary Snapchat time frame. The 115-degree-angle lens was apparently intended to give a wider view than smartphone cameras, one more consistent with human vision, The Journal reported.

◊ ◊ ◊

The big factor here is their wearability. As shown on the Spectacles web site home page, the glasses ($130 a pop) are fashion-forward enough to be wearable every day without looking like an escapee from a Kraftwerk video, a la Google Glass. They don’t look that much more outlandish than other, non-video-enabled sunglasses. The video will sync up wirelessly to an iPhone or other smartphone, The Journal reported.

Snap plans a slow rollout of the product, no doubt taking a cautionary page from the Google Glass debacle. Spectacles will launch this fall in three colors: teal, black and coral (if iPhone sales are any guide, look for the black to sell out first).

What Snap certainly achieves short-term is reinforcement of the interoperability of the Snapchat experience (and use of its app) ... and a stronger sense of Snapchatters as their own highly mobile, upwardly-mobile visual community — pretty much consistent with Snapchat’s avowed mission to reshape the way we view photography.

◊ ◊ ◊

Some quarters are losing their shit about Spectacles already. Recode just went into Chicken Little mode about the devices: “Why aren’t people freaking out about glasses that watch everything you do, all the time?” the tech site tweeted Saturday.

The answer is simple: If you’re not wearing them, you’ve made the choice not to use them ... so what is there to freak out about? Like most of the technology that matters in our lives, its ubiquity is often situational. The GPS in your phone can’t track you if you don’t take the phone with you.

◊ ◊ ◊

WHAT'S more provocative in a positive way is the role Spectacles could play in resolving questions and disputes in street encounters between police and ordinary American citizens. They’d be one more easily accessible visual-recording device citizens could use to confirm or deny statements made by police in altercations. Especially the potentially deadly ones.

This year has been especially ugly on that front. Several high-profile encounters have left citizens dead at the hands of police in often disputed circumstances. Imagine a crowd of onlookers, by happenstance at the scene of a potentially deadly encounter, that included two or three people making videos of the event with Spectacles at slightly different times and from different perspectives — in addition to the cellphone videos almost certainly taken at the same time.

Spiegel has called Spectacles a “toy,” in an understatement I hope Siegel uttered in jest. In ways that Snap Inc. may not even envision just yet, Spectacles could play a deadly serious role in police-community interactions as another dispositive visual aid in finding out what happened.

◊ ◊ ◊

Snap CEO Even Spiegel told The Wall Street Journal that he views Snap as a camera company, rather than a social-media company. Sure, he can say that now, now that he’s actually got cameras to sell.

But when Spectacles go on the market, and once the product meets the real world and its myriad applications for this, Spiegel and Snap may find it can’t so easily divorce itself from its social-media identity.

The camera was, in many ways, one of the first true social-media devices. Photography has a built-in purpose of sharing; there's an implicit reliance on community with cameras (and the photos that come out of them). Spectacles won’t end that relationship with social; they’ll enhance it. And what people share with Spectacles will certainly go beyond what their creators intended, in ways that could save more than just memories.

Image credits: Snapchat logo, Spectacles logo, still from Spectacles web site: © 2016 Snap Inc.

A Tale of Two Alphas: PBS Frontline doc explores
past lives of Clinton and Trump


If past really is prologue, there’s much yet to learn about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump that comes from examining their respective histories. Stepping up for that task is “The Choice 2016,” the latest of PBS’ Frontline pre-election specials.

If you want to know more about Clinton’s penchant for control and secrecy — reflected in the private email server controversy dogging her current campaign — you might find illumination, as Frontline does, from considering her conservative childhood in a home with an emotionally abusive father.

If you want to get at the source of Trump’s brash, confrontational style of politics, remember that one of his mentors was a take-no-prisoners attorney who advised Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare of the 1950’s. ...

Over its two hours, “The Choice 2016” tells the story of two supremely confident, ravenously ambitious, self-made political animals, each driven as much by doubt and the fear of humiliation or defeat as by political aspiration. ...

Read the full review at The Wrap.

Image credit: MER photo-illustration from CNN portraits.


Modern bromance: 'Lethal Weapon' reboot
scales down movie formula for TV



In a fall TV season well-stocked with blasts from the past, programmers clearly hope that familiarity doesn’t breed contempt. Maybe no one’s hopes are higher than the folks at Fox, whose “Lethal Weapon” reboot of the 80’s/90’s-era Mel Gibson-Danny Glover movie franchise is being marketed as a centerpiece for the season.

The original 1987 film, written by Shane Black and directed by Richard Donner, was a template for buddy-cop films to come, generating three sequels and huge box office. Fox’s series stars Clayne Crawford and Damon Wayans — a newer face and an established comedic talent — are intended to awaken the “Weapon” for a new generation.

The results on the small screen are about what you’d expect, and exactly what’s necessary; Fox’s small-screen production is a comfortably predictable reboot of the original species — something for the 47 million or so Americans who weren’t around when the last “Lethal Weapon” movie premiered in 1998. ...

Read the full review at The Wrap

Image credit: Photo: Richard Foreman/FOX

Friday, August 26, 2016

Stephen Bannon gets it wrong


ON WEDNESDAY night in Jackson, Miss., Republican nominee Donald Trump was joined onstage at a campaign rally by an unlikely ally from an unlikely place: Nigel Farage, one of Britain’s outspoken right-wing champions and a key figure in the successful anti-immigrant Brexit referendum to take Britain out of the European Union.

Farage, apparently bidding to become the Enoch Powell of his time, has cultivated his own brand of intolerance to Britain, saying that women are “worth less” than men, and calling for an end to laws that bar employers from race-based discrimination, and a ban on legal immigrants' children attending public schools and receiving health services.

Farage, who may well be the Donald Trump of Britain, told the Jackson crowd that “I will say this: if I was an American citizen, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me!”

(Right. But of course you’re not an American citizen, Mr. Farage. So who cares.)

Farage’s appearance at The Donald’s side was part of a new Trump campaign approach devised by Stephen Bannon, former Breitbart editor, Brexit supporter and now Trump campaign jefe grande. Farage’s Mississippi photo-op was apparently a Bannon attempt to globalize the American election — and it wasn’t the only one.

◊ ◊ ◊

In a tweet on Wednesday, Michael Calderone, senior media reporter for The Huffington Post, quoted Bannon from a conversation in July. Here’s part of what Bannon told him about his shift in Trump campaign strategy:

“So, we look at themes globally as the center-right populist revolt against the permanent political class. Whether that’s [conservative author and political consultant] Peter Schweizer hitting on crony capitalism, or our guys in London following Front National in France. It’s all of one theme. We think that Nigel Farage will be a politician that rises one day, Donald Trump the next. But it’s a bigger, tectonic plate.

“And that’s why we kind of laugh at, particularly cable news and sometimes other sites, that, they sit there and they’re so wrong on everything. We just think, hey, they’re not taking the time to look at these fundamental issues, whether it’s what’s driving Bernie Sanders on the left or what’s driving this kind of populist, tea party revolt on the right.”

Bannon spoke of “themes globally” and quickly superimposed them onto the United States, invoking a seismological metaphor to help make a socio-political argument, and otherwise building a scenario just provocative enough to sound plausible, and ominous, and unavoidable.

◊ ◊ ◊

BANNON SUGGESTS that Trump, his current employer, is in the vanguard of leaders that oppose the “permanent political class,” by which he means Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Trump, Bannon says, will be among the first of a new class of enlightened novices whose very inexperience with American bicameral politics is somehow what recommends them for the American presidency.

But a closer reading of Bannon’s eloquent deception, a casual reading of American political history, and a look at the Trump campaign get you closer to what’s real.

Don’t get it twisted: Stephen Bannon doesn’t have a problem with a permanent political class in the United States. He just wants one with a Republican brand, a Republican identity, a Republican style of governance. He wouldn’t be working for Trump if that weren’t true.

◊ ◊ ◊

That forward-looking statement’s based on past performance. In recent decades, the Republican Party and conservatives generally have been bent on the pursuit of empire.

The GOP’s lust for imperium in the recent political era was pretty much made clear, and even defining, when Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of modern conservatism, addressed an audience at a Religious Right gathering in Dallas in 1980.

Weyrich, a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation — the most respected and feared conservative public policy organization in the country— and of the Moral Majority (with the Rev. Jerry Falwell), said:



“How many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome? Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.” [Italics mine.]

With that statement, with those three sentences, Weyrich ratified the very exclusion and voter disenfranchisement that would make a “permanent political class” not just possible, but inevitable.

◊ ◊ ◊

CONSERVATIVES in recent federal election cycles have taken that ball and run with it, doing everything they can to cement that way of thinking in the contemporary conservative mindset. It’s worked only too well; Republicans led the efforts, at the state and federal levels, to undercut voter turnout in the 2012 campaign, and again — more aggressively — this year.

In 2001, with a Republican president and fat or substantial majorities in both houses of Congress on the horizon, hubris was inevitable. In a 2001 CNN report, Prince of Darkness Karl Rove went so far as to say that, if George W. Bush was elected, the possibility was there to “usher in a permanent Republican majority.” Which is, obviously, another way of saying “permanent political class.”

Fast forward to January 2010: The United States Supreme Court handed down its momentous ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, ruling 5-4 that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The basic principles of the Citizens United case were extended to cover for-profit corporations and other organizations as well.

◊ ◊ ◊

In effect, the decision — hailed by conservatives — equated corporations with human beings. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the dissenters, observed: “The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Ryan Lochte gets two hard, soothing offers


AH AMERICA, land of second chances. This country’s capacity for accommodating reinvention is unlike anywhere else. Here the mighty are fallen, run through their respective purgatories and rehabilitated (usually at one of the available late-night TV clinics).

And despite our country’s long preoccupation with preferential treatment, the revival of cratering fortunes is an equal opportunity opportunity; everyone from actors to politicians gets a chance to mount a comeback.

Even Olympic swimmers.

◊ ◊ ◊

On Thursday, Adweek reported that Pine Bros. Softish Throat Drops signed an endorsement deal with Lochte, who'll be showing up in commercial and print ads for the brand. Just the thing for the man who’s probably talked himself hoarse in the last week.

Lochte's ads for Pine Bros. will feature the tagline, "Pine Brothers Softish Throat Drops: Forgiving On Your Throat," just as the company—and Lochte, himself —is asking the public to forgive him.

"We all make mistakes, but they're rarely given front-page scrutiny," said Pine Bros. CEO Rider McDowell in a statement. "He's a great guy who has done incredible work with charities. I'm confident that Pine Bros. fans will support our decision to give Ryan a second chance."

◊ ◊ ◊

By now you know the saga of Ryan Lochte, whose brief stop in Rio de Janeiro for Olympic gold cost him more of another kind of gold than he might have thought possible. After competition, Lochte was out with three other Olympian studs ( Jack Conger, Gunnar Bentz and Jimmy Feigen ). According to their statement, their taxi was pulled over by armed men posing as cops. The real police contradicted them, saying the swimmers, who’d gone to a late-night party, never reported the incident, and also reportedly saying there was little proof that a robbery ever happened.

Video surveillance showed Lochte & Co. getting into some dustup with armed security guards over alleged vandalism at a gas station. After drinks and dinner, tried to gain entrance to a service station bathroom whose door was locked. Lochte and friends acted the fool, tried to force the door, couldn’t get in and finally relieved themselves outside the station.

Since this crap started, Lochte’s admitted he was drunk and made the proper all-apologies. He was publicly embarrassed ... and lo and behold, shortly after his arrival in the States, he discovered how high bad news can go. Ralph Lauren and Speedo, two of his major sponsors, and skin-care firm Syneron-Candela decided to end their relationship with Lochte, more or less immediately after the Rio Games ended.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Tough-crowd time: Clinton and Trump
prepare to meet the military



NOW IT GETS interesting. We’ve gone through the whole presidential campaign witnessing a lot of cheap shots and sniping about which candidate has “presidential qualities,” about who’s ready for the proverbial 3 a.m. wakeup call — about which one passes the Commander in Chief test.

Until now, that’s been a hypothetical exercise, guesswork based on what they’ve said extemporaneously and how they’ve conducted themselves during the entirety of the campaign. That all starts to change on Wednesday, Sept. 7.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow announced last night that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both agreed to participate in a “Commander in Chief forum,” a live question-and-answer event to be simulcast in primetime on MSNBC and NBC stations.

The event, which will focus on national security and issues related to veterans and active-duty military, will be hosted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), a non-partisan, non-profit organization that has connected more than 1.2 million veterans with resources and assistance.

◊ ◊ ◊

"IAVA is proud to lead this historic event for our veterans community and all Americans," said Paul Rieckhoff, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of IAVA, in a press release accompanying Maddow’s on-air announcement.

"On the cusp of the 15th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, New York is a fitting stage to give voice to American veterans and service members that are all too often shut out of our political debate. IAVA members world-wide, 93% of whom say they'll be voting in November, and many deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, are ready to hear from the candidates and hold them accountable.

“IAVA is honored to join with NBC on this significant event that will ensure that America's next Commander-in-Chief, at least for one night, addresses our nation's moral obligation to support and empower its 22 million veterans, our servicemembers and our military families."

◊ ◊ ◊


THIS EVENT (broadcast time TBA) is guaranteed to be lively and unscripted; if it goes as promoted, military of all walks and stations will weigh in with off-the-cuff questions presumably from everyone from E-1s to officers (as well as questions from NBC’s interlocutors).

There’s no word yet on whether questions will be taken from military in the field at various global outposts (via satellite hookup). But the Q&A format should be an instructive preview of the candidates before the debates begin Sept. 26 at Hofstra University.

As a bloc, American military people tend to be more conservative than the general public. A recent survey in the Military Times, seeking military’s preference for Clinton or Trump, indicated a preference for Trump, but for reasons that in some ways aren’t much more substantial than the belief that a female commander in chief wouldn’t be as tough on our enemies or as supportive of our forces as a male would be.

“To be sure, the military in general tends to bend conservative,” said a commentary in The Marine Corps Times. “This is a community in which no service chief has been a woman; one that has been slow to open opportunities to women.”

◊ ◊ ◊

Built-in gender-based biases like that could make it hard for Clinton to take that hill. But Trump has his challenges too. At the IAVA forum we should, for example, probably expect some questions for the Republican nominee as to why a billionaire with a cozy relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin should be trusted with the lives and welfare of America’s armed forces.

Or why a man who impugns the patriotism of a Gold Star family would be considered a reliable steward of the U.S. military, and an empathic touchstone for those who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice.

The two candidates will speak again on military matters at the American Legion convention in Cincinnati. Clinton will address the organization on Aug. 31, Trump makes his case on Sept. 1, Military Times reported on Thursday.

Expect a tough crowd, and rhetorical fireworks, at both events.

Image credits: American Legionnaires: Charles Dharapak/Associated Press via Military Times. IAVA logo: © 2016 IAVA. MSNBC logo: © 2016 MSNBC. Clinton: Reuters/Scott Morgan. Trump: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Changing the news cycle (parenthetically speaking)



IT’S IRONIC: With all the forms of information recall we have at our disposal in the age of social media, accountability — the act of owning up to the accuracy of what you say — hasn’t been as instant as the communications tools we use every day. That’s never been more true than it has been in the presidential campaign that's furiously underway.

One batshit-crazy statement after another gets made on the campaign trail of tears and we’ve had to wait for clarification (or correction) from disinterested parties more interested in accuracy than agenda.

What’s a newsgatherer to do? Well, some editors at two major news organizations have found a way around the problem using nothing more high-tech than common punctuation.

◊ ◊ ◊

In recent news reports, the minders of the chyrons at CNN and MSNBC have called on the lowly parentheses — that typographical device whose function in our language is a lot like talking behind your hand — as a way to subvert misinformation in real time, starting a practice that could change the journalism game (at least on television).

Jessica Goldstein, culture editor at Think Progress, first reported on this trendlet recently. The folks at CNN and MSNBC undercut misstatements made by the Trump campaign and its minions with facts, doing it at literally the same time — inserting (factual) information in the body of a distortion.

Goldstein: “Looking at these chyrons ... it feels like we are watching cable news reporters realize, in real time, what over a year of Trump-fueled ratings-chasing hath wrought. MSNBC can’t un-air Trump rallies, and CNN can’t undo phone interviews, and no cable network can un-give Trump the almost $2 billion in free media exposure they handed him in a single year.”

◊ ◊ ◊

CONSIDER THIS an equalizer, of sorts: a way to set the record straight in real time, in a ravenously fast media culture whose prime directive is No Do-Overs. If this on-the-spot fact-checking is more than an occasional thing (and if it’s something the bosses and suits don’t have a problem with), it effectively changes the news cycle — shortens that cycle even further.

If this catches on, we won’t have to wait minutes or hours to correct the record; inaccuracy will be immediately juxtaposed with fact in a way that befits the era of instant information we (try to) live in.

With this minor tweak of electronic-media protocol, journalists push back against those who insist their role is to be nothing more than stenographers, agents of transcription duly reporting one untruth after another. It reflects the immediacy of language and information we’re accustomed to (and the pursuit of accuracy that we’re ... not accustomed to enough).

Image credits: Trump: MSNBC via @pamela_vogel (via ThinkProgress). Trump son: CNN via Dorothy Snarker (via ThinkProgress). Jessica Goldstein: ThinkProgress. Nukes: CNN via TPM (via ThinkProgress).

The hunting of the presidency (Part 11):
Trump’s campaign reset reset


FOR THE SECOND time in about as many months, the wreck of the Hesperus commonly known as the Donald Trump presidential campaign is undergoing a shift in strategy intended to stop (or slow) both a defection of American voters and Republican thought leaders and officials.

Paul Manafort, the attack dog brought in in March by the moneyed attention addict and Republican nominee, has been demoted from his role as campaign manager, as the Trump 2016 brain trust desperately attempts a reset of messaging.

With the latest Trump tweak, they’ve hired Stephen Bannon, a honcho grande at Breitbart News, as the new campaign overlord. The Trump campaign has also brought aboard Republican pollster and longtime Trump friend Kellyanne Conway to act as campaign manager, The Washington Post reported.

Trump released a statement: “I have known Steve and Kellyanne both for many years. They are extremely capable, highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win,” he said. “I believe we’re adding some of the best talents in politics, with the experience and expertise needed to defeat Hillary Clinton in November and continue to share my message and vision to Make America Great Again.”

The Post, citing unnamed sources, reports that this new shakeup is meant to undercut Manafort’s apparent attempts to steer The Donald toward a more accessible, general-election campaign style — a lot like trying to put a muzzle on a rabid Doberman.

◊ ◊ ◊

THE POST, quoting unnamed campaign aides, also said Trump has been feeling “boxed in” and “controlled” by Manafort’s approach and that, with two old allies on board, the plan is to engage in “a reversion to how he ran his campaign in the primaries with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

“Lewandowski's mantra was ‘let Trump be Trump’ and Trump wants to get back to that type of campaign culture, the aides said.”

Which, as even the most casual campaign observer can tell you, is exactly why the campaign is where it is.

◊ ◊ ◊

A clear-eyed look at the rationale for Trump Plan B 2.0 can’t overlook the other, probable reason for Manafort’s demotion with Team Trump; he may have embarrassed the Trump campaign — and everyone knows that’s Donald Trump’s job.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that in 2012 Manafort was secretly working in behalf of the political party of Viktor Yanukovych, then Ukraine's president, in transferring more than $2 million to two D.C. lobbying firms, Podesta Group Inc. and Mercury LLC, without revealing that work — a violation of federal law.

“Under federal law, U.S. lobbyists must declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties and provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department. A violation is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000,” The AP reported.

◊ ◊ ◊

IN OTHER WAYS and places, in terms of polling, conservative alliances and public perception, the Trump campaign is nowhere good.

His much-hyped national security speech on Monday was an aggressive rehash of how he would do essentially what the Obama administration is doing already on dealing with ISIS. This paucity of original ideas in the national defense, an absence of credible statecraft and a provocatively cozy relationship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin have led to legions of Republicans and conservatives, at every point of the ideological spectrum, to run from Trump as fast and far as possible.

“Mr. Trump is a potential disaster as commander-in-chief—uninformed, volatile, poor judgment,” said Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army officer, to TIME in June. “Hard to believe this is the candidate of a major political party.”

“Trump is unexpectedly increasing my enthusiasm for Hillary,” said retired general Merrill McPeak, formerly the Air Force chief of staff for the Joint Chiefs, also to TIME. “What he is saying is not based on facts: it’s based on immaturity, bad judgment and ignorance, and I think it’s going to be hard for people in uniform who are thoughtful about this, to vote for him.”

◊ ◊ ◊

Reuters reported Monday on eight experts in the increasingly important arena of U.S.-Asia relations who signed a open letter denouncing Trump as a potential president, and predicting a “ruinous marginalization” of the United States as a player in the region if Trump wins in November. For the eight, Trump is “an unstable, ill-prepared amateur with no vision or foresight to meet the manifold challenges of the 21st century.”

Monday, August 15, 2016

Late-nightmare: The end
of ‘The Nightly Show’ and what it means


AFTER 19 MONTHS on the air, “The Nightly Show,” Larry Wilmore’s much-anticipated late-night news commentary program on Comedy Central, has been canceled effective Thursday, a victim of constantly declining ratings, the loss of a priceless lead-in program, and — just maybe — a public that wasn’t ready for quite so much color in the late-night palette at one time.

TheWrap and other entertainment trade pubs broke the story earlier today, shortly after Wilmore reportedly broke the news to his staff this morning.

“Unfortunately, it hasn't connected with our audience in ways that we need it to, both in the linear channel and in terms of multi-platform outlets and with shareable content and on social platforms as well,” Comedy Central president Kent Alterman told The Hollywood Reporter.

It’s the final chapter in what’s been a long downward spiral for a show that deserved better. Wilmore, whose comedic pedigree is impeccable (his DNA in everything from “The Bernie Mac Show” to “Black-ish” to HBO’s upcoming “Insecure”) replaced Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” in the 11:30 p.m. Comedy Central time slot in January 2015. Wilmore, capitalizing on his role as “Senior Black Correspondent” on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” took on issues of race, ethnicity, politics and the wider culture with passion and flair.

◊ ◊ ◊

Wilmore held his own for months, enjoying the initial reactions to his refreshing take on the day’s events and the added plus of the best lead-in he could ask for: “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” which preceded Wilmore’s show at the top of the hour. It made for a one-two punch that worked.

Confidence at Comedy Central was high. “The Nightly Show” was renewed in September; plans at that time were for the show to continue through the end of 2016. But something had happened the month before Wilmore signed his contract extension; Stewart resigned as anchor and provocateur-in-chief at “The Daily Show” last August.

The “Nightly Show” decline began shortly after that, and it never stopped. Nielsen reported that, as of early May this year, “The Nightly Show” averaged 492,000 same-day viewers, putting the show dead last behind all the top-tier late-night shows. “The Colbert Report,” which “The Nightly Show” replaced, averaged 1.1 million same-day viewers.

◊ ◊ ◊

IT GOT WORSE. A problematic moment for “Nightly” happened on April 30, with Wilmore’s appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, a performance widely (though not universally) seen as a disappointment, with critics roundly panning Wilmore’s comic jabs.

He didn’t help himself by violating a cardinal rule of roast: Don’t immunize the guest of honor from being the main target of opportunity. “Wilmore seemed to be in search of a Presidential Medal of Honor, throwing his harshest punches at TV Networks and the print media,” The Post’s Claire Atkinson said.

That was just part of it. Other mainstream media were similarly uncharitable, beating “The Nightly Show” host like a chef making an omelet. John DeFore at the Hollywood Reporter: “He spent more time mocking a politician many are ready to write off, beating a Ted Cruz-as-Zodiac Killer bit into the ground. ... [T]he host of The Nightly Show made most of his jokes at the media's expense, and in this room full of reporters, they probably sounded meaner than they were meant to.”



Slate's Daniel Politi weighed in. "The vast majority of his jokes fell flat in a room that seemed to be groaning more often than smiling," Politti said. “Beyond a joke here and there, the whole monologue was really boring. A full 10 minutes could have easily been chopped from the whole thing and nothing would have changed.”

Celeste Farron, a New York Post reader: “He missed the mark because there was no humor. Who doesn't enjoy a good Roast with funny jabs where the person delivering gets away with mocking and insulting the guest of honor with humor? But with no humor, it was just a man standing there reading off a list of insults, which in this case were not clever.”

Thursday, August 11, 2016

The crosshairs dog-whistle: A history


EXTREMISM IN the pursuit of the presidency is no rarity. We’ve seen this more than a few times in this campaign season, a year crowded with so many occasions of jaw-dropping arrogance, outrageous contradictions and just plain bad manners, it’s beggared the imagination of how much worse things could get.

We found out on Tuesday. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee and moneyed attention addict, spoke at a campaign rally in Wilmington, N.C., invoking one part of the Constitution that he suggested could help rescue his floundering campaign.

With a Chicken Little scenario, Trump raised the possibility that gun rights advocates may well seek to make a forcible change if Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is elected president and chooses to appoint judges supporting more restrictive gun control measures.



Trump said it would be “a horrible day” if Clinton were elected and made her choice for the next Supreme Court justice. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Trump said. Then he added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

It was an invocation of the constitutional amendment that confers unto American citizens the right to bear arms.

As you might expect, the furor erupted immediately. California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell took to Trump’s favorite soapbox, Twitter, to call for the Secret Service to speak to Trump about his comments, which for him amounted to a call for Clinton’s assassination. “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word.”

◊ ◊ ◊

TEAM TRUMP released the obligatory clarification, insisting Trump was referring to the “power of unification.”

“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Trump spokesman Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”

Also as expected, the Clinton campaign weighed in. Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook said: "This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

“Words matter,” Clinton said at a Wednesday rally in Des Moines. “If you are running to be president or you are president of the United States, words can have tremendous consequences. Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that crossed the line.”

◊ ◊ ◊

“Words matter.” It’s apparently good advice the Clinton campaign has taken this campaign. Unlike eight years and two months ago.

Strap yourself into the wayback machine. The dial’s set for May 23, 2008. Location: Sioux Falls, S.D. There, at a meeting with editors of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Clinton was discussing her failing campaign, its prospects for the future, and the persistent calls for her to exit a race she couldn’t win. Despite entreaties for her to withdraw coming from the media and from Obama’s campaign, she said, “historically, that makes no sense.”



“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she continued. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

The firestorm that erupted from that last sentence was deeply problematical for the 2008 Clinton campaign; in one wrong move — obliquely referencing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason for staying in the race — Team Hillary undercut whatever speculation there may have been about joining Obama on the ticket.

In a single utterance, Clinton — at the helm of a campaign that was, I wrote back then, “panoramically flawed [and] irreversibly doomed” — effectively ended that presidential campaign and began the journey, public and private, that brought her and us to this one.

◊ ◊ ◊

IT’S FAIR to say Clinton has learned a lot since 2008. She’s now in the pole position that Barack Obama enjoyed eight years ago. What I thought was true for Clinton 2008 is the case today for Team Trump, “a campaign whose appetite for self-destruction seems almost pathological.”

But Clinton’s mistake eight years ago and Trump’s comment on Tuesday show us that the crosshairs dog-whistle has no expiration date in American politics. It’s as ominous and desperate now as it was then, regardless of one's political affiliation.

Candidates should have known better than; they should definitely know better now. Failing this test of campaign decorum and national sensitivity deserves to be a disqualifier for the presidency. It was in 2008. Here’s a hope of history repeating.

Image credits: Trump: AP/Evan Vucci. Clinton: via CBC News.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...