Today is election day and until the polls close and vote totals start coming in, there is really nothing to report. So the media is filling time and space with responses from voters as they exit the polling stations, asking them whom they voted for and why.

While well-designed and organized exit polls can use this information to obtain trends and do important post-election analyses, these ad-hoc interviews are useless.

Getting quotes from random people about something or other is a standard reporting trope but such quotes are usually selected to support the narrative that the reporter has already decided upon and hence are cherry picked.

But we get them anyway.

I have mentioned several times that interviewers tend to ask poor questions of politicians. Often they are wordy and vague, allowing the responder to pick a bit that they already have a pat answer for. Another is asking about inferences (which can be obfuscated) instead of questions of fact (which are harder to evade).There are so many clips of people asking creepy Donald Trump questions that he ‘answers’ (actually deflects) by ignoring the question or challenging the premise or attacking the questioner.

This happened recently when he faced off against the editor of Bloomberg News who asked him about import tariffs. Creepy Trump says that he loves tariffs, calling it “the most beautiful word in the dictionary” and insists that they will raise so much money that they will pay for anything and everything that he promises to do, such as tax cuts, the border wall, child care, or whatever. He seems to suggest that this will cause no pain to people because the tariffs would be paid by the exporting country and thus those countries will be paying for his programs. It is ridiculous, like his claim that Mexico would pay for the construction of the border wall which of course never happened.
[Read more…]

If you follow political news, there have been some criticisms from some of those in the pundit class (even those considered to be Democratic supporters) about the paucity of media interviews given by the Harris-Walz team. Some of this is self-interested. They like to portray themselves as at least partly above the partisan fray and in trying to appear even-handed, they look for things to criticize and this is one of them. Other popular topics are her alleged lack of specifics about her proposals and how she will pay for them.

Noteworthy is the fact that creepy Donald Trump seems to get a pass on all these things. It is as if he is so out there, that there is no point in even trying to find fault with him or, if they do, it is to indulge in ‘both siderism’. A good example is this exchange between a so-called conservative Bret Stephens and a so-called liberal Gail Collins, two columnists for the New York Times.
[Read more…]

To put the current fight within the family of Rupert Murdoch for control of the Murdoch media empire in context, one needs to understand the changing political media landscape in the past three decades.

When the cable news channel Fox News started in 1996, it barely made a blip in the public consciousness. It was designed to be right wing and its founding CEO Roger Ailes was unapologetically so. But initially most people, and even journalists in major media like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the print news were not even aware of its existence or confused it with the Fox TV broadcast network. That changed in 2000 when in the highly close presidential election, Fox News made an early and controversial call giving Florida to George W. Bush and that proved to be a significant factor in determining the final outcome.
[Read more…]

Fox News has been a pernicious influence in US public life. It has promoted extreme right wing policies, cultivated hatred of immigrants, indulged racists, targeted minorities, and in general been on the wrong side of almost every major social issue.

Rupert Murdoch, the founder of Fox News and owner of other major media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the UK-based Times and Sun, has been challenged by three of his children who are fighting to prevent him from changing the terms of the irrevocable trust (worth $1.49 billion) he created to take over his empire when he dies. The closed hearing before a probate judge began on September 16 in Reno, Nevada. We will likely not know what is going on until either a settlement is reached that everyone agrees to, or the case goes to court because one or the other side appeals the probate judge’s decision.

In a nutshell, Murdoch has six children by his first three wives. According to this report, “The trust was formed at the time of the 1999 divorce of Rupert from his second wife, Anna Murdoch Mann, the mother of James, Lachlan and Elisabeth. She wanted to ensure her children had a future ownership stake in the Murdoch empire. The trust was “irrevocable,” meaning it would be difficult to alter.”

Under the terms of the trust, Murdoch’s four eldest children (from his first two wives) would end up sharing equally the 40% voting power over the father’s empire. But while the eldest son Lachlan shares his father’s political views, the other three Prudence (from his first wife), Elisabeth, and James have gone in a different direction. In fact, James has endorsed Kamala Harris. That may be why the patriarch wanted to change the terms of the trust so that Lachlan would inherit all the controlling power of 40%.
[Read more…]