Mediaboss Marketing

Its too bad that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not deemed as important as the Second, at least to the present occupant of the White House.

And his party.

Last week, President Donald Trump flew to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to lead a campaign rally of his followers. I could not possibly be more thrilled than to be more than 100 miles away from Washington swamp with much, much better people, he told the crowd in the state capitals Farm Show Complex and Expo Center.

In Trump World, the less desirable people left behind were 2,700 well-dressed denizens of that swamp, otherwise known as the White House Correspondents Association, as they gathered in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel on Connecticut Avenue. Trump is the first president to miss this annual event since 1981 when Ronald Reagan, who was recovering after an assassination attempt, nevertheless called in to extend greetings to the assembled.

Trump only had to travel 1.5 miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW to the hotel, but chose to create an event where he could, yet again, bash the media. Instead, he went to Harrisburg. And to add insult to First Amendment injury, the day before, he appeared in Atlanta and addressed the annual convention of the National Rifle Association, an organization which robustly uses the First Amendment to promote the Second.

Where Richard Nixon once said that the press is your enemy, Trump is following in his footsteps. In slightly more than 100 days, Trump has unleashed a torrent of vitriol against those who work with words. Whether its the failing New York Times, dishonest reporters, or fake news in general, we are enduring a continuous episode of the surreal Reality Show hosted by that veteran showman, veteran self-promoter, veteran Atlantic City Boardwalk pitchman, but, most importantly, political rookie Donald Trump. Yes, Trump the rookie, the supreme narcissist who skipped the minor leagues by not running for sheriff, mayor, or Congress but thinks he can be successful in the majors by starting at the very top.

When you examine his often volatile reaction to critical news coverage, the rookie element and glaring inexperience is telling.

Trump, who must be a frequent patient of dermatologists due to his incredibly thin skin, has spent a lifetime threatening others with lawsuits. Now, his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, dropped a not so subtle warning that the administration is examining current libel law to allow the president to sue publications for stories he does not like. According to Talking Points Memo:

Indeed, the President often said during the Presidential campaign, and since, that he wished to change libel laws so that he would be able to sue for purposefully negative, and horrible and false articles and hit pieces.

The Supreme Court has ruled that libel damages can be awarded to public officials only as a result of actual malice. Unintentional factual inaccuracies are protected by the First Amendment, as is speech critical of the President.

As observers of this slow-motion train wreck of an administration, we see its attempts to pivot on major stories and scandals that are damaging and show the incompetence, conflicts-of-interest, and perhaps most damaging of all, its compromised nature due to Russian involvement in the election campaign. There is no hope for change, as behavior modification therapy will not work for Trump and his ghastly crew. The only question at this point might be if the train stops completely through resignation or impeachment.

As part of the cleanup of the mess created by Trump and his attacks on the First Amendment, it should be an expectation that future presidents, regardless of party, will tone down the homage extended to the NRA and instead honor the threshold importance of the First Amendment by appearing at the meetings of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, News Media Alliance, or even the Society of Professional Journalists . The damage caused by Trump and the shrill atmosphere created by the attacks on free speech and constitutional guarantees should demand no less.

We should hope.

In what seems another time and certainly a very different country, President John F. Kennedy felt it necessary to address the American Newspaper Publishers Association, now called the News Media Alliance, at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on April 27, 1961. The president spoke a little more than a week after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, assome in the Kennedy Administration felt that clues about the impending invasion were published in some major papers, possibly giving the Castro regime advance notice of the military action.

At the very beginning of his address, President Kennedy provided some ambiguity as to what was the purpose of his speech:

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight The President and the Press. Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded The President Versus the Press. But those are not my sentiments

The words that follow are provided here as a model for what a future, sane, and thoughtful president might say to the country as a way to provide a denouement on the damage caused by the Trump Administration in its challenge of the very role and purpose of an independent press and media.

President Kennedy continued:

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

In perhaps the most eerie part of this long-ago speech, Kennedy might have looked into the future, offering a clear rationale for the very idea of a Fourth Estate, and by doing so providing the country with an antidote to act against the emergence of an authoritarian, Trump-like figure.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

In our present time, it is the American public that is angry about the course of the country and the shrill tone of the president. The media only mirrors that anger and skepticism, yet Trump has labeled it the enemy.

He is wrong. Anyone who would attempt to intimidate the media or threaten to craft more restrictive libel laws as a way to undercut the First Amendment is the enemy of any citizen, irrespective of political persuasion.

It was Thomas Jeffersons belief that an informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy. Likewise, it is also accurate to assert that in its watchdog and surveillance function, our nations media is performing quite well in informing and thus arming the citizenry against possible tyranny by a potentially authoritarian government.

Once upon a time, we had a thoughtful, articulate, dynamic president who spoke in complete sentences and who helped to define the role of a free press in the twentieth century. What he reminded us about was that there was only one type of business in this country that is afforded constitutional protection, yet it falls upon us in the twenty-first century to protect that business from presidential threats and intimidation, and, if necessary, peacefully assemble to prevent a coercive, powerful government from sustaining such threats.

Let us inform our political leaders in the executive and legislative branches that we can peacefully assemble without threat of arms, and that the pen in the form of a constitutionally protected media is mightier than the sword posed by the NRA and Second Amendment devotees.

We must therefore inform the uninformed President Trump that the First Amendment precedes the Second and is thus the most important guarantor of a free society. No other countervailing force, not Trump or the NRA, can change that.

For the future of this society, it cannot be any other way.

____________ Denis Smith is a retired school administrator and a former consultant in the Ohio Department of Educations charter school office. He writes about education issues as well as politics and constitutional reform.

Read this article:
In Trump World, Wouldn't It Be Great If The First Amendment Was As ... - Plunderbund

Hillary Clinton is back. Six months after her defeat, Clinton has waded into the middle of our postelection battles more quickly and more bluntly than any other losing candidate in modern times.

She has accused President Trump of pursuing what appears to be a commitment to hurt so many people. She called House Republicans healthcare bill shameful. She proclaimed herself part of the resistance. Shes traveling the country giving speeches. Shes reportedly organizing a new political action committee to raise money for Democratic causes. And shes writing a book to explain her side of the 2016 presidential campaign. She says she doesnt expect to run for president again. But she has been careful not to rule it out.

Clintons impulse to get back into the fight is understandable. Democratic politics has been the cause of her life, and shes surely entitled to work through her grief over the campaign. If her book turns out to be a candid self-examination of what went wrong a big if, based on her self-protective previous memoirs that could be healthy for her party.

But by moving so fast and so visibly, and by keeping the door open to another presidential campaign, Clinton risks harming not only her own image, but the anti-Trump resistance she wants to help.

Start with her interview last week with Christiane Amanpour of CNN. Asked to explain her loss to Trump, Clinton said she took absolute personal responsibility but then listed all the external spoilers she faced: FBI Director James B. Comey, Russia, WikiLeaks, the media and misogyny.

Although those items certainly belong on the list, she left out the missteps of her own campaign. Jim Comey didnt tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin, noted David Axelrod, who helped Barack Obama defeat her in 2008.

And Clinton reminded everyone that she didnt do as badly as it looks. I did win more than 3 million votes than my opponent, she said.

Meanwhile, she said she doesnt mind getting into Twitter wars with the president. Fine, she said. Better than [him] interfering in foreign affairs," Clinton said of the prospect Trump would tweet about her. "If he wants to tweet about me then Im happy to be the diversion.

Not a great strategy. I suspect Trump would like nothing better than endless verbal battles with Clinton, to remind his voters of the candidate they voted against instead of the ever-more-apparent flaws of the president they voted for.

Indeed, Trump took the bait after Clintons interview.

Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! he tweeted. The phony Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

As for the new Clinton political action committee, Onward Together, its unlikely to convince Bernie Sanders voters that the party is devoted to campaign finance reform.

Other Democrats arent sure they need Hillary Clintons help to raise campaign money in the age of Trump. Jon Ossoff, the House candidate in suburban Atlanta, has raised millions without her.

The new super PAC, if thats what it is, would put the Clintons in the role of kingmakers, using money to help candidates they favor. And it will look suspiciously like a framework in the making for Hillarys still-not-ruled-out 2020 campaign.

So about that campaign, in case shes thinking about it: bad idea.

Its possible that Clinton doesnt really want to run again that shes simply trying to bolster her brand and maintain her influence. She knows shell get far more media attention for her book, her speeches, and anything else she chooses to say if she keeps the possibility of a presidential run alive.

But theres no reason to believe a third Hillary Clinton campaign would be easier or more successful than her first two. Rank-and-file Democrats arent clamoring for her to run. A Harvard-Harris Poll in March found the former candidate in fifth place with support from only 8% (ouch!) of her own partys voters after Bernie Sanders, Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren. The top choice, tellingly, was someone new, at 45%. Clintons presence in the center of any stage, moreover, could make it harder for talented young Democrats to rise to the top.

Hillary Clinton has more than earned her right to be a major voice in American politics. Shes smart and forceful on a raft of issues, from working-class job creation to foreign policy. But shes not great at running a presidential campaign. Shes tried twice, in races where she began as the presumptive front-runner, and lost both times. Thats enough.

Maybe its time she moved on to higher pursuits. Jimmy Carter lost a presidential election in 1980, Al Gore in 2000. They devoted themselves to causes they believed in: international peacemaking for Carter, climate change for Gore. Both won Nobel Peace Prizes. That wouldnt be a bad legacy even for someone who hoped to shatter a glass ceiling.

doyle.mcmanus@latimescolumnists.com

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

MORE FROM OPINION

Absolutely nothing about James Comey's firing passes the smell test

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton has a right to be a major voice in American politics but maybe it's time she moved on - Los Angeles Times

This Sept. 26, 2016 file photo shows Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.(Photo: David Goldman, AP)

Unemployed Americans were more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election -- but they were almost just as likely not to vote at all, according to a new surveyout Wednesday.

Per the survey, released by Express Employment Professionals, 35% of unemployed people voted for Hillary Clinton while 25% voted for Donald Trump. Another 34% said they didnt vote at all.

Still, they had mixed views on the Trump administration and policy issues.

While Democrats and Republicans seem to be polarized, the views of the unemployed appears to be much more mixed, Bob Funk of Express Employee Professionals said in a statement. Despite the political commentary, political opinion is not as black and whiteor red and blueas we are often led to believe.

The survey was conducted from March 14 to April 6 and surveyed 1,500 adults who were 18 or older and were unemployed but capable of working. People who were retired, choose to stay home are cant work because of long-term disability werent included in the survey.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2pwyV8v

Read the original post:
Poll: Unemployed Americans were more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton - USA TODAY

OnJune 8, HillaryClintonis scheduled to serve as the Class of 2017 commencement speaker at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, where she will also be awarded an honorary degree. Theannouncementhas incited protests from several members of the Haitian community who plan to protest the speech and are pushing the colleges president, Rudy Crew, to rescind the invitation.

Every time theClintonsget in a bind, they run to the black community to whitewash their tarnished image, said Komokoda, the Haitian group protesting the speech, in a statement. AfterBill Clintonwas impeached for lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky affair, he brought in Jesse Jackson and a host of black preachers to lead prayers with him at the White House. To divert attention from her deleted emails debacle,Hillaryhad Bill DeBlasios wife, Chirlane McCray, bring her to Brownsville, one of the most impoverished neighborhoods in Brooklyn, for a photo op with little black children. When newspaper editorials and cartoons were blasting her for her unending lies and demanding investigations and prosecutions, former New York City mayor David Dinkins brought her out for a keynote speech at his Dinkins Leadership & Public Policy Forum at Columbia University. Today, for her resurrection from a shameful defeat by the last person most reasonable people felt could ever be president of the United States, the dirty work falls to Rudy Crew.

TheClintonsrole in Haiti has incitedimmense criticism and has tarnished their relationship with the Haitian community. In 2010, Haiti suffered a massive earthquake. Several NGOs and the United Nations flocked to Haiti to help relief efforts, but their intervention came with several costs. In 2011, UN Peacekeeperscauseda massive cholera outbreak that killed at least 9,500 people and sickened 800,000 others. During this time,Bill Clintonserved as the United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti whileHillary Clintonserved as secretary of state. While theClintonFoundation has staunchly defended their role in Haiti, their involvement in the country has been far from successful. Many of the most notable investments theClintonshelped launch, such as the new Marriott in the capital, have primarily benefited wealthy foreigners and the islands ruling elite, who needed little help to begin with, wrote Jonathan Katz forPoliticoin 2015.

For Komokoda and many Haitians, theClintons epitomizeNGOs and corporations exploiting the crisis and relief efforts in Haiti for their own gain. Haitians also blame the Clintons for the controversial rule of former Haitian President Michel Martelly, who stepped down in February 2016 due to his record of corruption after the Clintons helped him get elected in 2010. TheWashington Postreported, Clintonreportedly pressured then-President Ren Prval with thelossof U.S. and international aid unless the election results were changed to fit the OASs recommendation. That recommendation handedthe election toClintonally Martellydespite the drastic irregularities and controversies associated with the election.Manolia Charlotin, a Haitian journalist based in New York, told theWashington Post,What does that mean as to her approach to foreign policy? To have a secretary of state visit a country, to make a stop, and as a result of that meeting, you have an illegal selection of leaders? How does that decision promote the American views of democracy?

The Haitians involved with Komokodadont want Hillary Clinton to exploit Medgar Evers students the way that the Clintons and foreign countries have exploited Haiti and its people for decades.

Link:
Haitians to Protest Hillary Clinton's Speech at New York City College - Observer

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter revealed Monday night that he backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in last year's Democratic presidential primary.

"Can y'all see why I voted for him?" the 92-year-old Carter said of Sanders, who was seated next to him during a discussion hosted by the Carter Center on Human Rights in Atlanta.

Carter kept his preference quiet during last year's heated race between Clinton and Sanders, but his distaste for Hillary and Bill Clinton is an open secret.

Carter would be Sander's highest-ranking supporter in the Democratic Party. Only one senator backed the Vermont Independent Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley along with just a handful of House members and governors.

The Carters and Clintons have long had bad blood, despite their shared experiences as Southern Democrats who spent time in the White House.

In 1992, Carter suggested that Bill Clinton doesn't "tell the truth," and he skipped the 1996 Democratic National Convention. In 2008, Carter endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in what was widely seen as a stinging rebuke.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Carter a staunch critic of money-in-politics said he had no doubt that Clinton would win the nomination "because money dominates and she has an inside track to the massive amounts that are going to pour into the Democratic Party."

And during the general election last year, Carter seemed to be holding his nose a bit as he said he supported the "quite unpopular" Clinton. "Everybody knows that I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting Democratic," was his less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic nominee.

At the event with Sanders, Carter said he thought American voters elected Donald Trump because of their "dissatisfaction with the existing system of politics."

"People were willing to just take a chance and abandon democracy and what we knew about its basic principles just to try something new, no matter what it was," said the former president, who has mostly stayed out of domestic politics since leaving the White House after a single term in 1981.

Go here to see the original:
Jimmy Carter Reveals He Voted for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton - NBCNews.com