Annoy The Media. Think For Yourself.  September 27, 2015

Two stories I read today bugged me because in the classic journalistic sense, both buried the lead.

Story #1:  NY Times Headline: Thousands Enter Syria To Assist Militants in ISIS.
Sub headline: Nearly 30,000 since 2011.

Online, it appears this way:

Thousands Enter Syria to Join ISIS Despite Global Efforts

So immediately we are all to think the situation is worse than ever, that is until we start reading and find that this huge number is a bit larger than previous estimates and is cumulative.  It’s not like 30,000 have joined SINCE the efforts to stop them have begun.  More importantly, buried way deep in the story is the following information:

“ISIS no longer has the momentum in its core territory of Syria and Iraq,” said Peter Neumann, director of the center and a professor of security studies at King’s College. “It’s no longer the ever-expanding jihadist utopia that it seemed to be.”

So while the headline screams “deteriorating calamity,” what we actually learn is that ISIS’s expansion has been halted and as we learn elsewhere in the article there is a growing trend of defection and people speaking out against the ISIS Utopian myth.

This is a classic case where the media wants you to read a headline and panic even though the very delivery system of this particular freak out contains all the information you need to take a deep breath and understand all is not lost.  Yet.

Story #2 Washington Post Headline that reads:

Donald Trump says the media underestimates his crowds — and him

This one is worth citing because while it’s headline suggests Trump is being wronged by the media, it covers him at a state fair in Oklahoma City where the crowd clearly loves him.  That’s pretty good coverage in my eyes.

Here’s the issue with this story: it never bothers to point out to the reader that there’s no explanation for Trump being in Oklahoma, other than his mission to go anywhere he can find a friendly crowd.  That’s not a presidential candidate. It’s an Off Broadway show.

The first contest for the nomination is Iowa. The first actual vote, in New Hampshire. Then comes South Carolina. Oklahoma doesn’t come into play until March, on a day when (as of now) 14 States, including delegate rich Texas will vote. So why is Donald Trump, the Manhattan Billionaire, hauling his 747 to the heartland at the end of September 2015?  My guess is that is where he was able to find a crowd.

And the net-worth of that crowd?  That’s what I’d like to see the media figure out, both with and without Trump in attendance.

intellihub.com

Annoy The Media  9.1.15

Since I am so quick to call Donald Trump a hypocrite, a friend has asked if I would apply the same moniker to Barack Obama because he’s in Alaska seeking support on climate change intiatives even as his administration has only just approved off shore drilling permits to Shell Oil.

Obama Is A Climate Hypocrite. His Trip To Alaska Proves It

When you look at the entire picture, the balance of his actions in six and a half years in office come down heavily on the side of long term reduction in greenhouse gases.  In particular, the extended EPA standards that will raise MPG on all vehicles by 2025 to 54 MPG.  These are two small examples and there are many more

Autos must average 54.5 mpg by 2025, new EPA standards say

White House to Toughen Fuel Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
I actually believe the need to curb man’s effect on climate change — in practice — must also be balanced with the reality of where the economy and our national security needs stand.  While most of Obamas changes kick in years from now, they allow for transition less likely to shock the economy and undermine national security.  Those are real issues that must be balanced with the need to transition to clean energy and I believe when you get into the thick of it, the reality of the need to balance is going to appear as hypocrisy from time to time, but not when viewed in it’s full perspective. Alaske, after all is not the only place where the battle to slow climate change exists. I guess you win some and lose some but overall hope for a good winning percentage?

N.C. to fight Obama climate change plan that cuts carbon emissions

When A Trump calls for penalizing all corporations who take their manufacturing out of the country — even though that is the only way he manufactured his clothing line, there is no bigger picture there.  That is rhetoric simply for the sake of bombast.

When a 6.5 year sitting President visits Alaska to highlight the reality of the melt — even as he approved offshore drilling that is still important to the local economy — he has a greater record to refer back to, upon which to judge his overall actions.  Including the limits put on that drilling. Read about those here:

U.S. Will Allow Drilling for Oil in Arctic Ocean

In short, if you look at this through a narrow prism you find hypocrisy.  If you look at it in regard to his overall record on the issue, I think you see real action tempered by the responsibility to administrate inconvenient reality.  In this situation, those on the left see only what’s immediately in front of them with Alaska as the sole crucible.  But when you look at the bigger picture of the battles fought everywhere on this issue you get the sense this White House sees the much bigger picture.