Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

For years, pollsters have found a majority of Americans have little trust in their national media. In many instances, the positive percentages of those questioned about fairness, accuracy and impartiality have hovered below 30-percent or so. I’m not willing to accept those numbers at face value.

One reason for my scepticism is pollsters often don’t define the word “media” before asking their questions. I’ve looked at some of the larger outfits in that business – Gallup, Pew, etc. Most of their queries are about media in general which leaves responses open to interpretation. On occasion, if they specify which media, further questioning often avoids other sources – mass media – radio, TV, print or “social media.”

And therein lies one reason for my distrust of most such surveys. What about “social” media – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the like? Given the high percentages of folks – especially those age 40 or under – who get most of their information from such, are those sources broken out from print and broadcast media in polling? Seldom.

Four important factors to consider here. First, nearly none of what appears in “social” media is edited for accuracy, sourcing or even truth. There are no checks on whether the information is reliable. Given the huge number of people who have no idea how businesses operate – or even how their own government functions – you’re on your own when it comes to whether you believe what’s been read or told. That will, in turn, affect how a person sees all media.

Second, if pollsters don’t specifically break out which media is being asked about – which, in my checking is all too often the case – responses will be skewed. Comparing a Facebook post to The Washington Post makes responses invalid. One is checked, cross-checked and heavily edited. The other is totally unedited, unchecked and, too often, a bogus source.

Third, many of us tend to gravitate to media that agree with our viewpoints because they reinforce what we already believe. We routinely avoid the ones that don’t. (Fox, for me.) For those doing that consistently, they’re not exposed to new or different facts and, thus, cling to information that may be comfortable but also old or wrong. People who rely on Fox, for example, are fed a steady diet of information edited to skew things to false “facts.”

Finally, another factor skewing polling is the issue of what the word “news” means to both the pollster and the “pollee.” Unless there’s some major disaster or important world event at the moment, CNN, MSNBC and Fox have little to no news after 4pm MST. It’s mostly opinion mixed with a few facts. Much of it reporters talking to reporters or others favorable to the networks point-of-view. It’s not “news.” But, pollsters don’t always differentiate news from opinion in their questions. So, if the responder doesn’t like a certain news source, is that person conflating opinion with news?

I’m certainly not opposed to polling. Far from it. But, before taking results at face value, one needs to know how the question is asked and if the questioner and the responder are clear on the meaning of terms they’re using.

I think most of us have a higher trust of national media than a lot of polls indicate. But that’s just my opinion. Certainly not news. Just so we’re clear.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Asking the right questions

For several years, I’ve used this space – and others – to condemn Fox News. Or, more appropriately – FAUX NEUS. Real, fact-based reporting has not been a part of the networks claim-to-fame since Rupert bought it.

But, now the boys and girls exhibiting their talent-less efforts on the screen – radio, too – have gone so far over the fairness and unbiased reporting line that not even Diogenes could find an honest soul among them. The network is now just a far right mouthpiece. “The truth is not in them,” as my Grandma Lou used to say.

The disparate collection of pretty faces and handsome readers has surrendered completely to the dark side. The whole operation has become nothing more than a swamp of misinformation, distortion and downright lying on behalf of anything or anyone with a far-right bent. It’s now nothing more than GOP-TV. Not to mention, of course, being the sexual abuse capitol of broadcast journalism.

The network’s current torrent of journalistic B.S. aimed at Special Council Mueller is exhibit “A.” The similarities of speech between Faux Neus voices and GOP members of Congress are like echoes in the Swiss Alps. You’d swear there was a co-authored news release of baseless charges and unfounded bilge-water handed out from Murdoch, McConnell and Ryan each day at sunrise.

Mueller has been given a thankless legal task. Find the connections – if any – between the Trump campaign and Russia. The “if any” clause is probably inoperable now because, between what we know of what Mueller’s team has already uncovered and some outstanding reporting from major legitimate news agencies at home and abroad, proof of those connection(s) is overwhelming.

The reason Mueller’s task is “thankless” is because, no matter the outcome of his research and the publishing of the end document of findings, people will be unhappy from coast to coast.

If he ties Trump and Putin together, the Trumpeteers will screech like banshees that the whole investigation was a “plot of the left, the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton” from the getgo. If Mueller’s report clears Trump and his minions of any punishable criminal activity, the rest of the audience will say it’s a “whitewash” and he didn’t dig deep enough to find the truth.

If you research Mueller’s background, you’ll find he probably doesn’t give a damn how anyone else views his labors and those of his talented crew. He’s about as “straight arrow” as they come, has a lengthy public background of being a first-class prosecutor and was given the job by a Department of Justice Republican appointee. He faithfully served administrations of both national political parties for years without a hint of favoritism or scandal.

But, to hear the faux outrage at Faux Neus tell it, Mueller has far exceeded his original charge, has used illegal means to gather emails and other evidence, has overcharged we taxpayers for what he’s been doing, is somehow a servant of the Clinton’s and had something to do – even they aren’t sure what – with Benghazi.

Journalism is a valued, legitimate profession. The names I honor most – Bradlee, Broder, Cronkite, Jennings, Graham, Murrow, Pyle, Trout, Reasoner – all spent their lives trying to report fact, doing their best to do so independently and fairly and left a legacy of work that likely won’t be equaled.

Media today is not the media of times past. Reporting today is not the reporting and editing that used to be. But, there still exists – in most cases – a desire to “get it first, get it right.” Because there are so many sources from which we now get our information – many unedited and unchecked – there are far more opportunities to fall short. There are way too many political mercenaries in the business that shouldn’t be but most others keep trying.

All of which makes Faux Neus an outlier. (Maybe that should read “outliar.”) From Murdoch on down, the blatant prostitution in writing, editing and reporting borders on the criminal. The obscene pandering to the far-right, the mouthing of “stories” based on collected garbage, the vilification of those with other points of view, the broadcast demonizing of responsible thought, factless facts repeated ad nauseam, the devotion to bias and rumor-mongering – all have made Fox a pariah to responsible, fact-based journalism.

What had been, in the past, irritatingly bad at Fox has now become outright disrespect for truth with no effort made to report without adulteration.

We can be thankful many viewers are tired of being lied to and the formerly high ratings Fox enjoyed are now sliding down the charts.

What’s needed to balance the scales of honest journalism is not a new, left-leaning media reporting outlet. The same balance point can be reached by the single elimination of Fox News.
 

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Factless Fox

Democrats – especially those in traditionally red states like Idaho and Utah – continue to bask in the glow of one of theirs being elected to the U.S. Senate in blood red Alabama last week.. “If it can happen there,” the chant goes, “It can happen here.”

Not so fast, my frenzied friends. Not so fast.

While it was heartening to see that red blood turn a bit blue, there were some very important mitigating circumstances to consider. Circumstances that don’t exist in most states – especially in our far western neighborhoods.

For example, Black voters – who normally mark their Alabama ballots for a Dem – make up nearly half of the electorate in that state. The largely white legislature, in that heavily Republican state, has historically thrown roadblocks in minority pathways to the polls. Winner Doug Jones continually reminded Black audiences of that fact and it can realistically be assumed some of those voters, who made the narrow but winning difference, came from those determined to overcome such hurdles. A little show of strength, so to speak. Not the case – in large numbers – in our Northwest.

Then, there were the women. Yes, we have women in our neighborhood. But, many Republican women in Alabama had a major motivation – not traditionally found in other red states – to side with Democrats. And that was the well-publicized gross sexual history of their party nominee. Whatever they felt about his purely political unfitness for office, many women might likely have been overcome by anger about his immorality and lifelong abusive perversions regarding women – especially teens. Another mitigating factor for the Jones victory other states can’t truly replicate

Then, there was the Republican candidate himself. While a lot of unfit folk make it into elective office on a regular basis, never in my life have I seen one more deserving of outright repudiation and public condemnation. If you were to build a “candidate” from scratch, about the only despicable trait you could add to match Moore would be that of a serial killer. The guy has a previous lifetime history of rejection of most values the rest of us hold.

Twice fired from the Alabama Supreme Court for violating federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Moore made a mockery of his elected responsibilities. Openly flouting constitutional authority – while claiming his own nutcase supremacy in public office – should have kept him off any ballot for any public job. As much credence as you might give Jones’ efforts for the win, the lions’ share of blame for the loss must go to Moore. A well-demonstrated and uniquely gross personal history like Moore’s is not normally found in many elections.

Then, there’s this. The margin of victory was about 20,000 in an election in which 1,325,536 votes were cast. Add in the coincidently 20,000 known write-in votes plus a large number of traditional Alabama voters who stayed home rather than cast their usually GOP ballots for Moore and the outcome could have gone the other way. That means about one-in-two folks walking down a typical Alabama street voted for the loser. Or just didn’t vote.

Democrats in deep red states like Idaho and Utah have a right to be cheered by the Alabama outcome. Break open the bubbly and toast a brighter day. BUT, as you cheer this recent breakthrough, keep a good grasp on reality. The political winds in Alabama combined to create a very unusual storm.

While you may rejoice in the outcome and see an opportunity to slip past your traditionally conservative GOP opponent(s), none of you will face a candidate as repulsive as Roy Moore. It’s doubtful Steve Bannon or Donald Trump will visit your little red state with their political bile to motivate Republicans to cross over and back a Democrat. None of you have a large enough minority population to achieve what Black voters did in Alabama. Make a difference? Yes. Swing an election? No.

Nor are you likely to get major economic and organizational support from the DNC such as Jones did. Not unless you can construct a scenario like Moore who fomented a Republican voter rejection of their own candidate.

By all accounts, Dems are going into the 2018 campaign in better shape than their counterparts. At least for the moment. But, they can’t sit back and expect any different outcomes than they’ve previously seen.

Doug Jones worked his ass off for more than a year. Come up with a candidate who’ll work as hard. He attracted a top-level campaign team of professionals who cost more than Dems have typically been willing to spend on such talent. They’ll have to raise sums of money previously thought to be impossible. They’re going to need more volunteers than ever and those volunteers are going to have to work harder and longer than in the past.

But, most important – MOST important – you’re going to have to find your own “Roy Moores” for your Republican friends to walk away from.

The future of Democrats in deep red states is not entirely in your own hands. You better get started.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Not so fast, Dems

A couple of weeks back, I opined all this sexual assault business had a good chance of going too far and could end up ensnaring some men – and women – who might be innocent of major wrongdoing. Seems now, it probably has.

An innocent friend’s experience years ago has made me leery of taking every charge and every complaint at face value. Not to say some high profile cases we’ve seen aren’t true. Most evidence has been convincing. And perpetrators exposed.

But, the sudden spate of instantly going after each big name is also a shameful example of the “herd” mentality of our present day media. All running after the latest personality in order to shine the light of guilt on a fresh face. With nothing more than a charge. Not asking for evidence or other substantive facts. Guilty as charged.

I’m not going to defend the guilty nor offer alibis for anyone. Not just yet. But a learned friend has suggested we may need another step in the process. And that is some sort of gradient scale while taking into consideration what was acceptable 30-40 years ago, given the morality and other factors of the times.

For those of us who lived through the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, much of what’s now considered “over-the-line” wasn’t. We remember that era as one with damned few lines. “Free love” we called it. Musicals (‘Hair,’ ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’) and others were common fare. Songs about open sex and nudity were on the radio and in record shops. Topless marchers and bra burning were not unusual. Pairing off on a whim was acceptable. Bedding down with someone whose name you didn’t know was commonplace.

In other words, without excusing acts of perversion or violence nowadays, there should be some consideration of the times then – and the times now – when considering punishments.

Yes, some of the big names in the spotlight were abusers. Some charges have been accompanied by ample evidence. But, is it all on the same par? Is a case of rape on an office couch the same as giving someone a hug who might have been offended? Do all of today’s charges require the same career-ending punishment?

Then, there’s the issue of massive media exposure after someone simply makes a charge. Has the media become the judge, jury and executioner when someone – anyone – says they’ve been wronged? Seems so.

It’s handy when a charge is made and the guilty party confesses so societal punishment can begin. But what about those who’re either not guilty or simply violated someone’s “personal space?” Are public banishment and embarrassment proper punishments for both examples. Seems to be. And it shouldn’t be.

I’m a hugger. Always have been. I was raised in a family of huggers. Church, service clubs, reunions, social gatherings – we hugged. Now, hugging is not for everyone. But it’s who I am. And many of my friends, too. We don’t do it wantonly or to be invasive. We’re social beings. Anyone who wants to call that “assault,” needs some special help. So, we hug less today. That’s a shame.

When I lived in Washington D.C. 50 years ago, I remember women at cocktail parties and other social gatherings prowling for someone important in politics and the media. One young lady walked up to me at an embassy cocktail bash and asked “Are you anybody?” At that time, women outnumbered men about ten-to-one locally And many were there to meet Ted Kennedy or other males in politics and do what they had to do to get their attention. Anything.

While sexual abusers need to be exposed and reckoned with, let’s consider what that reckoning should be. There are misdemeanors and there are felonies. Is punishment for a serial abuser like Charlie Rose or Matt Lauer or Roy Moore fitting for Garrison Keillor or Al Franken? Given evidence so far, I don’t think so.

If we’re going to demand punishment for the guilty, there has to be some correlation between gravity of the crime and the punishment of ending someone’s career.

At the present time, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Wait just a minute here

That’s Winston. An 18-year-old Rat Terrier. If you can remember the old RCA Victor logo of a dog and a gramophone, that was a Rat Terrier. Very popular in the first third of the century. Now, they’re coming back.

But not Winston. Last night, we had to say our last “Goodbye.” Things just suddenly started to fail and we were not left with other choices. The moment of decision and relief from his struggle was upon him. And us.

We found Winston in a cage in a store in Nampa, Idaho, 18 years ago. He’s been our constant companion every day since. Not a mean bone in his body. Liked everyone he met. Traveled like a pro in RV’s or car. Jumped into the middle of every experience.

Hard to say who loved who more. When we were happy, he seemed to rejoice right along with us. When we hurt, there was always the paw on your leg, extra attention paid and snuggling. He sensed our moods in ways we still don’t understand.

And, we often sensed his. Some days, he was quiet and seemed extra grateful for a scratch of his ears or a tummy rub. Other times, he’d be frisky and wanting to go for a walk at any moment. And there were the quiet times, when he just wanted some extra “loves” and was content to sleep the day away.

Many people don’t care for dogs. Some folks have allergies that keep them from knowing the quiet companionship of a loving animal. Maybe they know – and maybe not – but I think their lives are incomplete. As we humans search for attention and love, we never quite fully achieve either without a dog. Without a Winston. Without the constant support that comes from having a cold nose rub your arm or “that look” from bright brown eyes. No matter when. No matter where.

While needing regular feeding, exercise, an occasional bath and nail trim, we got more from him in repayment – and then some- for those little chores. Even if he just snuggled into his small, sheepskin basket across the room, we felt over-paid – and quietly, a bit more loved – knowing he felt safe enough and loved enough to let us be his constant security. When an animal – or a person – can trust you enough that they can override their natural sense of self-preservation, you feel loved and needed by someone outside yourself.

We romanticize our pets much the same way we do people who’re close to us. We give them special names and feel gratified when we can do some little thing that make them feel good or loved. We remember them on birthdays or at Christmas with some little trinket to renew the bonds between us. We hurt when they hurt. We share their joys when they celebrate.

But, if we have a “Winston,” we tend to forget they react in much the same way. They share our successes and failures with extra tail wags or being extra close to comfort us as needed. They recognize and respond to our moods. They become family. We at the table. Them under it.

In their last days – no matter what the age – they look to us to take charge and make that final decision that’ll physically separate us forever. Even as he lay semi-sedated and waiting for that final needle, Winston quietly looked at us and seemed to be saying, “Go ahead. Let me go. Stop my pain. I love you.”

And we did.

We’re grieving now. We’ll continue to do so for awhile. We don’t know how long. But, I think it will continue until that moment – days, months or even years away – that moment when we realize the deep feelings of joy, love and completeness he brought us will continue even if he’s not physically with us. They’ll continue even if we can’t reach out and touch. That moment we realize we carried out our final responsibility to do what was best – what needed to be done – for his sake. Not ours.

Our hearts may be filled with sadness today. But our lives have been enriched – enriched forever – because there was Winston. His pain is over. Ours will end, too. Someday.

Goodnight, Winston. You’re well-loved.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Winston

Like many teens raised in small towns – in my case, Bend, Oregon, in the early ‘50’s – I couldn’t wait to kick off the dust of “Hickville” and get on to discovering the outside world. The “real” world. No small town hayseeds for me. I wanted to “get on with life.”

That from a guy who – four score years later – lived in an Oregon burg of less than 1,400. Five bars, two gas stations, no drug store and the only grocery store is four miles out of town. But, in the intervening 63 years, I’ve seen a lot of the world and had many life-changing experiences. And I never moved back in with my folks.

These days, that’s not the case for a lot of youngsters. The U.S. Census Bureau has come up with numbers describing some interesting changes in what happens to the 20-somethings who grew up with the same anxious exodus feeling I did but who didn’t get far from the nest.

We’re talking comparisons over more than a 40 year stretch from the ‘70’s to 2015. And the big one is this: more young people live with their parents now than in any other living arrangement the Bureau tracks. Which is all of them. About one-in-three or some 24-million 18-34-year-olds either moved back in with parents or never left.

Marriage for the young folks isn’t nearly as important as it used to be. Most will still marry. But in the ‘70’s, eight in 10 got hitched by the age of 30. Forty years later, that same ratio doesn’t happen until age 45.

A dozen years ago, a majority of young adults lived independently. That was the case in 35 states. Now, it’s just six states. And all are in the Midwest or Plains. Figure that one out.

Most young people today believe getting an education and being economically successful are the most important milestones of being an adult. Over half feel getting married and having kids – not so much. Big switch there.

Young men – along with most of us – seem more stuck at the bottom of the income ladder than before. Forty years ago, 25-percent ages 25-to-34 had incomes of less than $30,000 a year. In 2015, that percentage jumped to 41. The comparison used 2015 dollars in both cases. Imagine the loss in purchasing power.

And, finally, of those still living at home, one-in-four are unemployed. Not going to school. Not working. So, figure about 2.2-million 25-34-year-olds not in the workforce. They’re also more likely to have a child and more than a quarter qualify as disabled.

Those are some pretty startling statistics. Most of us just cruise along with our lives, thinking the young folks are doing about the same as we did. Working. Getting married. Having kids. Making payments on the pickup. Just “going along” and paying the bills.

But these findings tell us a very different story. Like so much in our existence, change is occurring in every aspect of life. And every where. Whether you’re still in Hickville or got out to those larger cities that seemed so alluring.

Or even in a burg of 1,400. With five bars – two gas stations – and a grocery store four miles out of town.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Home sweet home