If I said I was a fat thug who beat up women and sold bad coke, would you like my story? What if instead I wrote that I was a recovered addict who obtained sole custody of my twin girls, got us off welfare and raised them by myself, even though I had a little touch of cancer? Now we’re talking. Both are equally true, but as a member of a self-interpreting species, one that fights to keep disharmony at a remove, I’m inclined to mention my tenderhearted attentions as a single parent before I get around to the fact that I hit their mother when we were together. We tell ourselves that we lie to protect others, but the self usually comes out looking damn good in the process.”
I think this is one of the most powerful and nakedly honest paragraphs ever written in a memoir. If you have not watched his book talk from C-SPAN 2, you need to do so right now.
I will confess that I was underwhelmed by Justin Timberlake’s Super Bowl halftime show. Now I’ve never been much of a JT fan, so I didn’t come at the show with high expectations.
And if we must join the consensus, joining a widespread backlash beats bandwagon-jumping every time. It restores our faith in the notion that, as a society, we can abandon bad ideas. We can stop decorating our homes with lead paint. We can stop smoking cigarettes on airplanes. We can, in fact, stop “the feeling” and say goodbye to a pop superstar, which really isn’t much, but in these senseless times, somehow feels like some kind of start.
Much was made of the tribute to Minneapolis icon Prince during JT’s show, but to be honest it only made me miss Prince’s 2007 halftime extravaganza in the pouring rain that much more. Prince’s performance has to be considered the greatest Super Bowl halftime show of all time, now and forever:
https://vimeo.com/324824976
This video may or may not stay live. They have a habit of being forced down. (Updated 2/3/20)
I have rather cynically noted that Super Bowl entertainment is generally “pop tarts or old farts,” and for the most part that is a fair assessment. But I will confess that I was really impressed with Lady Gaga’s show last year, and her sly inclusion of a couple of lines from Woody Guthrie’s subversive love song to America, “This Land is Your Land.” (Lady Gaga, in addition to being a great singer and dancer, also has a good appreciation of protest music history, as illustrated by her singing a Phil Ochs anthem during a free concert during the Democratic National Convention back in 2016.)
Every time I teach Commentary and Blogging at UNK, I have a blogging competition or two. This year, my students had the opportunity to do an instant blog post somehow related to the president’s 2018 State of the Union address. While they were welcome to talk about the speech itself, they were also free to take any approach to the theme they wanted.
There are links to all the entries below. After you’ve read as many as you like, you can vote for your favorites here. (It’s ranked voting, so you get to rank order your top three choices.):
“If you don’t do anything wrong for a period of three minutes, then the spirt of the music rushes in there and occupies it full time.”
– Songwriter Michael Peter Smith discussing his song “The Dutchman.”
Michael Peter Smith’s classic song about growing old, “The Dutchman,” popped up on my Facebook memories this morning, and it got me thinking about that very limited genre of songs about what it is like to be living with people who are growing old. This is a song I don’t dare listen to in public. It brought me to tears when I was young and my parents and in-laws were my age. Now it can be almost unbearably sad for me to listen to as I have family dealing with dementia, and yet has such a deep truth to it, I can’t help but listen.
In the first of these videos, you can hear the late great Steve Goodman perform The Dutchman, which appeared on one of his earliest albums. The second video is of songwriter Michael Peter Smith discussing how he came to write the song.
Steve Goodman and Jethro Burns playing “The Dutchman”
Michael Peter Smith discusses how he came to write “The Dutchman.”
And finally, here’s singer/songwriter John Prine with his own classic on growing old, “Hello In There.”
John Prine’s “Hello in There from his first album in 1971.
Today is the anniversary of the publication of what may be Edgar Allan Poe’s best known work, the narrative poem The Raven. It was printed on this day in 1845 in the New York Evening Mirror.
The poem tells of a young man slowly descending into madness while gazing at a visiting raven while he mourns the loss of his beloved, Lenore.
The poem’s fame has lived on in part because of how is has repeatedly come to the forefront of popular culture.
There was also the Roger Corman movie made it in 1963 with Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff, but it was much more a screwball comedy than a horror movie, even though it was written by horror master Richard Matheson. (Think of it as more of a predecessor to Young Frankenstein, perhaps.) Here’s the trailer, but it really doesn’t capture the film’s real style:
If you haven’t read it since you were in high school or middle school, take a look at it now:
The Raven By Edgar Allan Poe
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore – While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. “‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door – Only this and nothing more.”
Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December, And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor. Eagerly I wished the morrow; – vainly I had sought to borrow From my books surcease of sorrow – sorrow for the lost Lenore – For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore – Nameless here for evermore.
And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain Thrilled me – filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before; So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating “‘Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door – Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; – This it is and nothing more.”
Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer, “Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly yours forgiveness I implore; But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping, And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door, That I scarce was sure I heard you” – here I opened wide the door; – Darkness there, and nothing more.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before; But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token, And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore?” – This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!” Merely this and nothing more.
Then into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning, Soon again I heard a tapping something louder than before. “Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice; Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore – Let my heart be still a moment, and this mystery explore; – ‘Tis the wind and nothing more!”
Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore; Not the least obeisance made he; not an instant stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door – Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door – Perched, and sat, and nothing more.
Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, “Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven, Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore – Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”
Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly, Though its answer little meaning – little relevancy bore; For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door – Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door, With such name as “Nevermore.”
But the Raven, sitting lonely on that placid bust, spoke only That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour. Nothing further then he uttered – not a feather then he fluttered – Till I scarcely more than muttered, “Other friends have flown before – On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.” Then the bird said, “Nevermore.”
Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken, “Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore – Till the dirges of his Hope the melancholy burden bore Of ‘Never-nevermore.’”
But the Raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling, Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door; Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore – What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”
This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core; This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o’er, But whose velvet-violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o’er, She shall press, ah, nevermore!
Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer Swung by seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor. “Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee – by these angels he hath sent thee Respite – respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore; Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”
“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil! – prophet still, if bird or devil! – Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore, Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted – On this home by Horror haunted – tell me truly, I implore – Is there – is there balm in Gilead? tell me – tell me, I implore!” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”
“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil – prophet still, if bird or devil! By that Heaven that bends above us – by that God we both adore – Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn, It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore – Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”
“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting – “Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! – quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”
And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door; And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming, And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor Shall be lifted – nevermore!
Tip of the hat to my UNK colleague Sam Umland for sharing this anniversary on Twitter this morning.
Last weekend, the U.S. government shut down for three days. There was a lot of debate, especially in the partisan press, about what it all meant, and who the winners and losers were.
And we’ve reached a point, especially if you watch cable news or listen to talk radio, that any debate about this will involve lots of shouting and stomping about. But you know, it doesn’t have to be that way.
For example, look at this article:
The Daily 202: Seven takeaways from the failed Democratic shutdown
This is a daily newsletter from James Hohmann at the Washington Post that usually contains a lead essay on the most important story of the day followed by a roundup of other consequential stories. It’s almost always one of my first reads of the day.
On Tuesday of this week, Hohmann led with his analysis of seven key issues from last weekend’s government shutdown:
“The Resistance will struggle when it tries to replicate the tactics of the tea party movement.”
“Senate Democrats do not really trust Mitch McConnell. They just needed an excuse to cave.”
“Moderates flexed their muscles.”
“Many House conservatives remain determined to pigeonhole any DACA fix that could pass the Senate.”
“This dynamic will put Paul Ryan between a rock (the establishment) and a hard place (the grass roots).”
“McConnell won the messaging war because Trump (mostly) stayed out of his way.”
“Dreamers (who can’t vote) feel betrayed, but Latinos (who can) will probably still turn out for Democrats anyway because of how much they hate Trump.”
All in all, a pretty good analysis of the shutdown from a non-partisan news analyst.
That article generated responses from a couple of thoughtful, though partisan, journalists. But the interesting thing was that these journalists, who have a distinct point of view, could still remain wedded to reporting and analysis based on reality, not partisan hackery.
Does the Left Lose because It’s Too Civil?
This is from writer David French from the conservative National Review (founded by William F. Buckley), who argues logically, politely and emphatically with a point Hohmann made that perhaps progressives lost because they were being “too nice” in their battles with conservatives. Needless to say, French isn’t having this. But he responds to it without insulting Hohmann nor assuming that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
Stop Whining, Move Forward This analysis comes from Josh Marshall, founder of the long-running progressive news site Talking Points Memo. He basically disagrees with Hohmann that the Democrats failed with their short shutdown. Instead, he suggests they did the most they could from a limited position of power. But like French (with whom he would not agree on a lot politically), he responds to Hohmann without insulting either the journalist, nor people who disagree with him. Instead, he focuses on tactics and policy.
If you take the time to read these three articles (well, the opening essay of The Daily 202. The whole newsletter is long…) you may come away with an understanding of what some of the issues surrounding the shutdown were, and how people from varying political points of view saw them. Which for my money would make the world a better place.
A couple of weeks ago President Trump generated a lot of news by making some highly offensive remarks about the country of Haiti, the continent of Africa, and presumably about a couple of countries in central America. The story resulted in The Washington Post and other news outlets using the word “shithole” in a headline for the first time, though the major story should not have been the word but rather then president’s attitude toward these countries.
Nevertheless, the president’s newsworthy language forced the press to confront their standards for using offensive language. (I wrote about it in Part 1 of this blog post last week.)
But this was not the first time the press has had to confront newsworthy offensive language coming out of the White House. In 2010 after President Obama’s health care legislation passed, Vice President Joe Biden was heard on an open mic saying to President Obama, “This is a big fucking deal!”
Back in 2006, I wrote a commentary for the Charleston (WV) Daily Mail about salty White House language. I’m reprinting it here:
Back in 1969, Monty Python’s Flying Circus ran a memorable sketch in which a reporter interviews a Mr. Sopwith who claims to be a “camel spotter” but who actually seems to be looking for and describing trains. When the reporter points out to Mr. Sopwith that he seems to actually be a trainspotter, the man replies, “Oh, you’re no fun anymore.”
I wonder if we’ve gotten to that point in the news business. If a journalist tries to write anything remotely fun about the president, someone comes up and complains that the reporter and his or her story is hopelessly biased.
“See, the irony is that what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s—, and it’s over,” Bush told Blair during their discussion
Now in my mind, this is completely different from Vice President Cheney telling a member of the Senate to go “f—” himself back in June of 2004. President Bush was using colorful language in what he thought (mistakenly) was a private conversation, and he used it in a way that few people could take offense at. Let’s face it, there is a lot of “S Word” going down in Lebanon these days. And it’s certainly in character for the president. He affectionately calls his adviser Karl Rove “turd blossom,” a reference to a flower that grows out of cow patties in Texas.
The Chicago Tribune’s blog The Swamp, produced by the paper’s Washington bureau, gave lightly humorous spin to the president’s comments to Blair during the G8 summit dinner, noting that Bush could be heard chewing his food on the tape. The blog entry was great because it gave a fun, human look at world leaders caught saying something candid and heartfelt at an otherwise scripted event.
What I find fascinating is that the very first response posted to the blog entry was to accuse the Chicago Tribune of liberal bias for reporting the story and including the detail about Bush chewing. The next hundred or so posts to the blog focused not on any news value of the story, but whether the story exhibited bias, whether you could love America without loving the president, and irony of calling a conservative paper liberal.
For the record, the Chicago Tribune is one of the most prominent conservative papers in the country. A look at the paper’s Statement of Principles shows that, “The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.”
It’s that belief in “freedom of expression” that tends to get lost these days. I think most of the major papers do a pretty good job of trying to report on the president. But it’s all too rare that we get to see a look at the president’s personable and thoughtful private side as an interesting contrast to his always on-message public persona. The press has learned to be cautious in what they say for fear of being charged with being biased. And that’s a shame because then the news really isn’t fun anymore.
(Originally published July 19, 2006, in the Charleston Daily Mail)
The news yesterday was that a major winter storm, a blizzard even, was on its way. Both the university and the public schools closed for today by noon on Sunday. And so everyone in Kearney, Nebraska waited for the weather to hit.
And waited…
And waited…
Some folks on Facebook started to question whether we were even going to get any snow. Others nervously said, “Let’s just get this over with.” By bedtime last night, the storm was stalled 10-15 miles to the west of Kearney.
But the view above is what greeted me early this morning. And it hasn’t gotten much better as the day progresses. We’ve now heard that the YMCA is closed (no snow day workout!) and our local newspaper will deliver tomorrow instead of this afternoon.
My version of the Solly’s cottage cheese muffins.
All of this calls for desperate action – in the form of what we refer to as Solly’s Cottage Cheese Muffins. They are my copy of the wonderful baked goods from Solly’s Bagelry in Vancouver, British Columbia. The originals are bit more like a popover, but both the originals and my copies are yummy!
My version of the recipe is based on this one from the Eat What You Sow blog:
‘Solly’s’ Cottage Cheese Muffins
Makes six jumbo muffins
Wet Ingredients:
1/2 cup (1 stick) melted butter or margarine. Set aside to briefly cool
3 eggs, beaten
1 cup full-freight cottage cheese (There’s nothing healthy going on here; don’t get the low-fat kind.)
1/2 cup grated sharp cheddar cheese
1/2 cup grated Asiago cheese
1/2 cup buttermilk
Dry ingredients:
1 3/4 cup flour
1/4 cup cornmeal
3 tbsp sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
Directions:
Preheat over to 350 degrees. I use the convection setting on mine.
Melt butter/margarine and set aside to cool slightly
Combine dry ingredients and set aside (I use a one-quart measuring bowl)
Beat eggs in a medium-sized bowl (I used my 2-quart glass measuring bowl)
Add three cheeses and mix together.
Add buttermilk and melted butter/margarine, mix together.
Stir in dry ingredients. Batter will be very thick, almost like a very-sticky biscuit dough. I add the flour in three doses. Don’t stir any more than you have to to combine.
Spray jumbo muffin pan generously with cooking spray.
Split batter between six cups. Don’t use muffin papers.
Bake for 28-30 minutes until browned on top and toothpick comes out clean. If you are using a convection oven, turn 180-degrees after 20 minutes or so.
Let cool in the pan for 3 minutes.
Shake loose and cool on a rack.
You can either serve immediately or freeze for later.
To serve leftover muffins, thaw, split in half, butter, and heat in toaster oven on preheated pan for five to six minutes.
One of the greatest honors of my life was being invited to speak at the Martin Luther King, Jr. candlelight vigil three years ago at the UNK student union, along with Kevin Chaney, who was then UNK’s women’s basketball coach.
This year’s vigil is Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the Nebraskan Student Union. Dr. Elwood Watson, Professor of History at East Tennessee State, will be the speaker. If you are in the area, I urge you to attend as we honor Dr. King.
Here’s what I had to say about Dr. King when I spoke:
When we think of public relations, we think of a professional in a suit trying to persuade us about something related to a large corporation. But not all PR is practiced by big business.
Civil rights leader The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a brilliant understanding of public relations during the campaign to desegregate Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.
The goal of the campaign was to have non-violent demonstrations and resistance to force segregated businesses to open up to African Americans. What King, and the members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, wanted to do was stage a highly visible demonstration that would not only force change in Birmingham, but also grab the attention of the entire American public.
King and his colleagues picked Birmingham because it was one of he most segregated cities in America and because it had Eugene “Bull” Conner as police commissioner.
Conner was a racist who could be counted on to attack the peaceful marchers. Birmingham was a city where black protestors were thrown in jail, and the racists were bombing homes and churches. There was a black neighborhood that had so many bombings it came to be known as Dynamite Hill.
Dr. King and his colleagues had planned demonstrations and boycotts in Birmingham, but held off with them in order to let the political system and negotiations work. But time passed, and nothing changed. Signs were still up at the lunch counters and water fountains, and protestors were still headed to jail.
King and the rest of the SCLC needed to get attention for the plight of African Americans in cities like Birmingham.
They needed to do more than fight back against the racism of segregation. They needed to get Americans of good will in all the churches and synagogues to hear their voices.
Starting in April of 1963, predominantly African American volunteers would march in the streets, hold sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, and boycott local businesses in Birmingham. As the protests started, so did the arrests.
On Good Friday, King and Abernathy joined in the marching so that they would be arrested. While King was in jail, he was given a copy of the Birmingham News, in which there was an article where white Alabama clergy urged the SCLC to stop the demonstrations and boycotts and allow the courts to solve the problem of segregation.
But King was tired of waiting, and so he wrote what would become one of the great statements of the civil rights cause. One that spoke to people who were fundamentally their friends, not their enemies. This came to be known as the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Writing the letter was not easy. Dr. King wrote it in the margins of the newspaper. He wrote it on scraps of note paper. He wrote it on panels of toilet paper. (Think about what the toilet paper was like if Dr. King was able to write on it!)
The letter spoke to the moderates who were urging restraint. To them, he wrote:
“My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas…. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.”
He went on the acknowledge that perhaps he was an extremist, but that he was an extremist for love, not for hate:
“But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.
Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” …
Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” …
And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.”
And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .”
So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?”
King’s jailhouse writings were smuggled out and published as a brochure. His eloquent words were given added force for being written in jail. As he says toward the end of his letter, it is very different to send a message from jail than from a hotel room:
“Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?”
Once King was released from jail eight days later, he and his followers raised the stakes. No longer would adults be marching and being arrested, children would become the vanguard. And as the children marched, photographers and reporters from around the world would document these young people being attacked by dogs, battered by water from fire hoses, and filling up the Birmingham jails.
King faced criticism for allowing the young people to face the dangers of marching in Birmingham. But he responded by criticizing the white press, asking the reporters where they had been “during the centuries when our segregated social system had been misusing and abusing Negro children.”
Although there was rioting in Birmingham, and King’s brother’s house was bombed, the campaign was ultimately successful. Business owners took down the signs that said “WHITE” and “COLORED” from the drinking fountains and bathrooms, and anyone was allowed to eat at the lunch counters. The successful protest in Birmingham set the stage for the March on Washington that would take place in August of 1963, where King would give his famous “I have a dream” speech.
We are now more than fifty years from King’s letter from Birmingham Jail. This letter was not one of his “feel good” speeches. It doesn’t raise the spirit the way his “I have a dream” speech did.
But it did give us a message that still matters more than ever today:
“I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”
As you can’t help but have noticed, on Thursday President Trump made some highly offensive remarks about the country of Haiti, the continent of Africa, and presumably about a couple of countries in central America. He was quoted in the Washington Post as follows:
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.
“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”
Let me just start by saying that this blog post (and its follow-up) is an attempt to analyze how the press covers statements like this, not to analyze the character of the president. (If you want to know how I feel – Father James Martin, journalist and Jesuit priest, sums up my feelings quite well.)
There has been considerable debate over what is appropriate and inappropriate for the press to do when the president or a member of his cabinet uses offensive language – especially to express an offensive idea or point of view. Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, told The Washingtonian:
“When the president says it, we’ll use it verbatim…. That’s our policy. We discussed it, quickly, but there was no debate.”
CNN used the full vulgarity on their chyron Thursday, in a way the network has not generally done:
On Thursday as the news was breaking, Fox News did not use the vulgarity itself on their homepage, but on the actual story used “s—hole” in the headline. For the record, Fox News also reported at the time that they had independently confirmed the president’s statements.
NPR initially did not use the word, referring instead to it as a “vulgarity,” but as the story progressed, the public radio network decided to use the word sparingly — approximately once an hour. MSNBC’s use of the term varied depending on the host. Some used it repeatedly, while Rachel Maddow used the actual word quite sparingly (as his her usual practice with offensive language on the show).
Twitter, of course, has been exploding over this topic the last few days, but to me, the most significant post I saw was from the Washington Post’s Karen Attiah global opinion editor:
I hope every media outlet that is going to produce outraged pieces about Trump’s “shithole" comments takes a long and hard look at its coverage of black and brown countries.
asking the reporters where they had been “during the centuries when our segregated social system had been misusing and abusing Negro children.”
for the March on Washington that would take place in August of 1963, where King would give his famous “I have a dream” speech.