According to the Oxford English Dictionary--a Mountebank is "an itinerant quack" and an "impudent pretender to skill a charlatan, one or resorts to degrading means to obtain notoriety" The word is derived from an Italian phrase ---and applies to anyone who mounts a bench inorder to appeal to an audience through the use of showmanship and tricks. Does this sound like anyone we know? OK Yes the GOP nominee Donald J Trump whose major trick was to get himself into the presidential stakes by claiming that Obama was not an American citizen and thus an illegitimate president. Today he went back on that claim and issued a statement without any reason or apology that President Obama was born in the US as if he now is the ultimate arbiter of who is and who is not an American citizen. The sheer chutzpah, the lack of shame or embarrassment that he has been fronting what became known as the birther movement should stop anyone in their tracks but Trump's consistent lies and lack of shame no longer is of much interest to the media. They consistently cover him as if he were a serious candidate --no one so far in the media (with the possible exception of Chris Mathews on the issue of abortion) has been able to ask any solid follow up questions of Trump. They have allowed one question on one topic, usually a soft ball one and allow his bluster to go unchallenged.
Take a look below of a typical interview. This was high stakes debate on the military -
LAUER: You said in the speech today, you said history shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is the greatest.
TRUMP: And we’re not prepared.
Why is that Mr Trump--we spend more on the military than the next nine major countries combined
LAUER: Will you be prepared on day one, if you’re elected president of the United States, to tackle these complex national security issues?
TRUMP: One hundred percent. Hey, Matt, again, she made a mistake on Libya. She made a terrible mistake on Libya. And the next thing, I mean, not only did she make the mistake, but then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed you know what out of Gadhafi. I mean, she made a terrible mistake on Libya. And part of it was the management after effect. I think that we have great management talents, great management skills.
LAUER: But you are prepared?
TRUMP: And I have to tell you — totally prepared. But remember this. I found this subject and these subjects of interest all of my life, Matt. This hasn’t been over the last 14 months. I’ve found these substantiates of tremendous interest. That’s why they were asking me about Iraq 14 years ago. They were asking me these questions. They don’t ask businesspeople those questions.
What exactly prepared you Mr Trump? What exactly did you study? That makes you "100 percent" and "totally prepared"?
LAUER: Let me end in kind of the same place I started. Have you given much thought, Mr. Trump, if you’re elected president and commander-in-chief, to that moment where you’re going to have to make that first decision that puts American men and women in harm’s way?
TRUMP: I think it’s the most difficult decision you can possibly ever make. You’re talking about death. And we’re talking death to not just our side. We’re talking death all over. I would be very, very cautious. I think I’d be a lot slower. She has a happy trigger. You look, she votes for the wars, she goes in Libya…
Notice no follow up questions. My questions are in blue highlight. His hyperbole and lies are in yellow highlight. The first question Lauer should have asked in any normal environment gone like this --what makes you feel prepared to be commander in chief after your five military deferments in Viet Nam; your recent attempt to demean the character of a former prisoner of war, Senator John McCain and your questioning of the sacrifice of a Gold Star family.
If Trump is elected in November the media will bear heavy responsibility for not calling this Mountebank, this charlatan, fraudster out. Meanwhile did you hear the news--if Trump loses he is going to set up his own Trump TV network to be bigger than Fox. Watch out mainstream media Trump also wants a piece of your mega billions as well.
If you don't like the media's treatment make your views known to the FCC
and/ or to the major national TV stations. Tell them to stop chasing after ratings (Lauer was clearly fearful of offending the very thin skinned Trump who might dare to boycott his highly rated morning show if he got a question he did not like) and live up to the broadcasting traditions of Morrow and Cronkite.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2016
Media Has Created Trump the Mountebank
According to the Oxford English Dictionary--a Mountebank is "an itinerant quack" and an "impudent pretender to skill a charlatan, one or resorts to degrading means to obtain notoriety" The word is derived from an Italian phrase ---to mount a bench and proceeds to appeal to an audience through the use of showmanship and tricks. Does this sound like anyone we know? OK Yes the GOP nominee Donald J Trump whose major trick was to get himself into the presidential stakes by claiming that Obama was not an American citizen and thus an illegitimate president. Today he went back on that claim and issued a statement without any reason or apology that President Obama was born in the US as if he now is the ultimate arbiter of who is and who is not an American citizen. The sheer chutzpah, the lack of shame or embarrassment that he has been fronting what became known as the birther movement should stop anyone in their tracks but Trump's consistent lies and lack of shame no longer is of much interest to the media. They consistently cover him as if he were a serious candidate --no one so far in the media (with the possible exception of Chris Mathews on the issue of abortion) has been able to ask any solid follow up questions of Trump. They have allowed one question on one topic, usually a soft ball one and allow his bluster to go unchallenged.
Take a look below of a typical interview. This was high stakes debate on the military -
LAUER: You said in the speech today, you said history shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is the greatest.
TRUMP: And we’re not prepared.
Why is that Mr Trump--we spend more on the military than the next nine major countries combined
LAUER: Will you be prepared on day one, if you’re elected president of the United States, to tackle these complex national security issues?
TRUMP: One hundred percent. Hey, Matt, again, she made a mistake on Libya. She made a terrible mistake on Libya. And the next thing, I mean, not only did she make the mistake, but then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed you know what out of Gadhafi. I mean, she made a terrible mistake on Libya. And part of it was the management after effect. I think that we have great management talents, great management skills.
LAUER: But you are prepared?
TRUMP: And I have to tell you — totally prepared. But remember this. I found this subject and these subjects of interest all of my life, Matt. This hasn’t been over the last 14 months. I’ve found these substantiates of tremendous interest. That’s why they were asking me about Iraq 14 years ago. They were asking me these questions. They don’t ask businesspeople those questions.
What exactly prepared you Mr Trump? What exactly did you study? That makes you "100 percent" and "totally prepared"?
LAUER: Let me end in kind of the same place I started. Have you given much thought, Mr. Trump, if you’re elected president and commander-in-chief, to that moment where you’re going to have to make that first decision that puts American men and women in harm’s way?
TRUMP: I think it’s the most difficult decision you can possibly ever make. You’re talking about death. And we’re talking death to not just our side. We’re talking death all over. I would be very, very cautious. I think I’d be a lot slower. She has a happy trigger. You look, she votes for the wars, she goes in Libya…
Notice no follow up questions. My questions are in blue highlight. His hyperbole and lies are in yellow highlight. The first question Lauer should have asked in any normal environment gone like this --what makes you feel prepared to be commander in chief after your five military deferments in Viet Nam; your recent attempt to demean the character of a former prisoner of war, Senator John McCain and your questioning of the sacrifice of a Gold Star family.
If Trump is elected in November the media will bear heavy responsibility for not calling this Mountebank, this charlatan, fraudster out. Meanwhile did you hear the news--if Trump loses he is going to set up his own Trump TV network to be bigger than Fox. Watch out mainstream media Trump also wants a piece of your mega billions as well.
Take a look below of a typical interview. This was high stakes debate on the military -
LAUER: You said in the speech today, you said history shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is the greatest.
TRUMP: And we’re not prepared.
Why is that Mr Trump--we spend more on the military than the next nine major countries combined
LAUER: Will you be prepared on day one, if you’re elected president of the United States, to tackle these complex national security issues?
TRUMP: One hundred percent. Hey, Matt, again, she made a mistake on Libya. She made a terrible mistake on Libya. And the next thing, I mean, not only did she make the mistake, but then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed you know what out of Gadhafi. I mean, she made a terrible mistake on Libya. And part of it was the management after effect. I think that we have great management talents, great management skills.
LAUER: But you are prepared?
TRUMP: And I have to tell you — totally prepared. But remember this. I found this subject and these subjects of interest all of my life, Matt. This hasn’t been over the last 14 months. I’ve found these substantiates of tremendous interest. That’s why they were asking me about Iraq 14 years ago. They were asking me these questions. They don’t ask businesspeople those questions.
What exactly prepared you Mr Trump? What exactly did you study? That makes you "100 percent" and "totally prepared"?
LAUER: Let me end in kind of the same place I started. Have you given much thought, Mr. Trump, if you’re elected president and commander-in-chief, to that moment where you’re going to have to make that first decision that puts American men and women in harm’s way?
TRUMP: I think it’s the most difficult decision you can possibly ever make. You’re talking about death. And we’re talking death to not just our side. We’re talking death all over. I would be very, very cautious. I think I’d be a lot slower. She has a happy trigger. You look, she votes for the wars, she goes in Libya…
Notice no follow up questions. My questions are in blue highlight. His hyperbole and lies are in yellow highlight. The first question Lauer should have asked in any normal environment gone like this --what makes you feel prepared to be commander in chief after your five military deferments in Viet Nam; your recent attempt to demean the character of a former prisoner of war, Senator John McCain and your questioning of the sacrifice of a Gold Star family.
If Trump is elected in November the media will bear heavy responsibility for not calling this Mountebank, this charlatan, fraudster out. Meanwhile did you hear the news--if Trump loses he is going to set up his own Trump TV network to be bigger than Fox. Watch out mainstream media Trump also wants a piece of your mega billions as well.
Labels:
birther,
Defense.,
Donald Trump,
Gold Star family,
GOP,
lies,
Matt Lauer,
Media,
military,
Mountebank,
Presidential Election,
Trump
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Hungary and the Perils of Super Nationalists
In a recent New York Times op ed, Gyorgy Konrad reminds us about how quickly, even in our modern post Nazi German era, nationalistic politicians can move to uproot fundamental pillars of democracy.
Viktor Orban the prime minister has replaced the Hungarian Constitution with what he calls Basic Law. What asks Konrad is the point of this "crafty text"? Quite simple, he responds, "It aims to ensure that his rule is as lasting as that of the quasi-fascist Miklos Horthy, from the 1920s to the 1940s, or that of the communist Janos Kadar, who took over after the 1956 revolution and ruled until 1988.
Gone now are intellectual freedoms and "our only independent radio station, with hundreds of thousands of listeners — on a trumped-up pretext. Some of its shows were critical of the government."
Listening to the Republican nominee attacks on the "media elite" and their ultra patriotism suggests that there is a similar lurking desire to move in the Hungarian direction.
Viktor Orban the prime minister has replaced the Hungarian Constitution with what he calls Basic Law. What asks Konrad is the point of this "crafty text"? Quite simple, he responds, "It aims to ensure that his rule is as lasting as that of the quasi-fascist Miklos Horthy, from the 1920s to the 1940s, or that of the communist Janos Kadar, who took over after the 1956 revolution and ruled until 1988.
Gone now are intellectual freedoms and "our only independent radio station, with hundreds of thousands of listeners — on a trumped-up pretext. Some of its shows were critical of the government."
Listening to the Republican nominee attacks on the "media elite" and their ultra patriotism suggests that there is a similar lurking desire to move in the Hungarian direction.
Labels:
civil rights,
Democracy,
Hungary,
Media,
Media Elite,
Nationalism
Friday, February 4, 2011
Many More Teachable Moments from Egyptian Crisis Than Meet the Eye
We have seen this movie before--thousands march into the streets against a brutal or at least ruthless dictator and we stand by applauding while moderately and never obnoxiously patting ourselves on the back for our love of freedom and democracy that we celebrate and believe is a universal value and what happens? Many times the revolution is crushed and we go back (after an seemly silence and rebukes) to going back to the way things always were. This pattern of events maybe the last of these episodes if we can encourage ourselves and our media to look more deeply at the pattern. The US as David Rieff points out in his excellent piece for the New Republic. Since 1975 as Rieff points out the US has given $23 billion in Aid to Egypt and still the country ranks..
"According to the U.N. Human Development Index, .. one hundred and first, between Mongolia and Uzbekistan. In the context of the Arab Middle East, it ranks tenth, below not just rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but behind Libya, Jordan, and Algeria as well. According to Isobel Coleman of the Council on Foreign Relations, over the past decade, Egypt has experienced rising income inequality while failing to address root poverty. Ordinary Egyptians, she writes, simply not feel they were “reaping the benefits of [their country’s economic] expansion.” Food prices are rising to levels not seen since the global food crisis of 2007-2008, a recent World Bank study showed that the higher educational system is doing a very poor job of producing qualified graduates, and, whatever their qualifications, unemployment among the young is well over 30 percent nationally. "
"Washington seems never to have believed that any quid pro quo should have been demanded in return for the $28 billion USAID provided over the past 36 years. And yet, there is absolutely no reason why successive U.S. administrations should not have made this assistance conditional on, say, a serious attempt by the Egyptian government to curb corruption. It is not as if Mubarak would have then said, “That’s it, I’m breaking ties with Israel, lifting the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, and seeking a rapprochement with the Iranians.”
As Rieff goes onto argue things are worse in Pakistan--another major receipient of aid:
"According to a report issued this January by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, more than four million people remain homeless six months after last year’s floods. And, in those regions, Islamist charities are often the only providers of medical services, shelter, and food that is not prohibitively expensive for most internally displaced people. And yet, while the U.S. government would certainly like to see something done (rather as it would have “liked” to see less corruption and torture in Egypt), it has not put anywhere near the pressure on the Pakistani government to alleviate these people’s suffering that it has in pushing Islamabad to escalate its military operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghan border. "
When we send money for weapons and where we gain influence over those governments as a consequence we should not be pressured by the military so that they believe that these funds are there's
to keep. Nor should we take the Orwellian lies that our government then tells us about the ways those funds are supposed to be helping the economy more broadly. Rieff refers in particular to the
'' the grotesque claim that “USAID has helped Egypt become a “success story in economic development.” More specifically, the site claims particular success in improving the quality of education, and, the administration of justice,” improved “access to justice for disadvantaged groups..”
The only response to that type of whitewash is quite simply "garbage."
However the final situation in Egypt turns out the teachable moments coming out of the crisis are many and need to be taken seriously after CNN and all the world's news crews depart the scene and we move onto the next crisis. Understanding this crisis in more detail might help in fact avoid the next one.
"According to the U.N. Human Development Index, .. one hundred and first, between Mongolia and Uzbekistan. In the context of the Arab Middle East, it ranks tenth, below not just rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but behind Libya, Jordan, and Algeria as well. According to Isobel Coleman of the Council on Foreign Relations, over the past decade, Egypt has experienced rising income inequality while failing to address root poverty. Ordinary Egyptians, she writes, simply not feel they were “reaping the benefits of [their country’s economic] expansion.” Food prices are rising to levels not seen since the global food crisis of 2007-2008, a recent World Bank study showed that the higher educational system is doing a very poor job of producing qualified graduates, and, whatever their qualifications, unemployment among the young is well over 30 percent nationally. "
"Washington seems never to have believed that any quid pro quo should have been demanded in return for the $28 billion USAID provided over the past 36 years. And yet, there is absolutely no reason why successive U.S. administrations should not have made this assistance conditional on, say, a serious attempt by the Egyptian government to curb corruption. It is not as if Mubarak would have then said, “That’s it, I’m breaking ties with Israel, lifting the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, and seeking a rapprochement with the Iranians.”
As Rieff goes onto argue things are worse in Pakistan--another major receipient of aid:
"According to a report issued this January by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, more than four million people remain homeless six months after last year’s floods. And, in those regions, Islamist charities are often the only providers of medical services, shelter, and food that is not prohibitively expensive for most internally displaced people. And yet, while the U.S. government would certainly like to see something done (rather as it would have “liked” to see less corruption and torture in Egypt), it has not put anywhere near the pressure on the Pakistani government to alleviate these people’s suffering that it has in pushing Islamabad to escalate its military operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghan border. "
When we send money for weapons and where we gain influence over those governments as a consequence we should not be pressured by the military so that they believe that these funds are there's
to keep. Nor should we take the Orwellian lies that our government then tells us about the ways those funds are supposed to be helping the economy more broadly. Rieff refers in particular to the
'' the grotesque claim that “USAID has helped Egypt become a “success story in economic development.” More specifically, the site claims particular success in improving the quality of education, and, the administration of justice,” improved “access to justice for disadvantaged groups..”
The only response to that type of whitewash is quite simply "garbage."
However the final situation in Egypt turns out the teachable moments coming out of the crisis are many and need to be taken seriously after CNN and all the world's news crews depart the scene and we move onto the next crisis. Understanding this crisis in more detail might help in fact avoid the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

