Gore Vidal’s and William F. Buckley’s political views were as diametrically opposed as they could be, but the two men shared one major characteristic: They were both insufferable narcissists.

That’s one of my main takeaways from “Best of Enemies,” an excellent documentary chronicling a series of television appearances by Vidal and Buckley during the 1968 Republican and Democratic presidential conventions. According to the film, someone at ABC News had the innovative [at the time] idea of putting the ultra-conservative Buckley—editor of the politically influential National Review—in a studio with Vidal—the best-selling author, screenwriter and liberal pundit—and having them debate the issues arising at each convention. The results were explosive—and they paved the way to much of what passes for political debate and news reporting today.

I wish I could say that I remember the series. I did, in fact, watch the 1968 conventions—mostly in horror, especially when the Democratic convention in Chicago devolved into a police riot against anti-war protesters. But I wasn’t watching ABC—no one watched ABC when CBS had Walter Cronkite and NBC had Huntley/Brinkley—so I missed the whole debacle within the debacle.

And If I ever did know about it, I had long ago forgotten the infamous low point, when Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-fascist on live tv, prompting Buckley to clench his fist, call Vidal a “queer,” and threaten to punch Vidal in the face right there..

That confrontation is the central image of “Best of Enemies.” But there’s a lot more, both in the lead-in to that moment and in the follow-up on its aftermath. Much of the documentary consists of contemporaneously filmed and videotaped news broadcasts of the day. I’m happy to report that the filmmakers do not seem to have remastered the tapes—so we see them much the way they appeared live on our tv’s—grainy, sometimes out of focus and static-y, and often clumsily produced. The result is a time-machine ride back to the way we actually saw things in 1968. [And the opportunity to name-check politicians and celebrities who appear in the background in some of the coverage. Everett Dirksen! Bob Dole! Muhammad Ali!]

Between the live broadcasts are interviews with people who were behind-the-scenes: a former president of ABC News, William Buckley’s seemingly nicer younger brother, a close friend of Vidal’s, and television-interviewer extraordinaire Dick Cavett. Their candid remarks bring to life the seething animosity between Vidal and Buckley, which endured long after their television series ended: Their mutual hatred was not staged, and not just a matter of radically different political philosophies—it was personal, and it showed.

In the debates themselves, both exemplified the worst traits of people who enjoy calling themselves intellectuals. They were pompous. They were condescending. They struck intellectual poses and rolled their eyes at each other’s statements. They spoke in the affected tones of the Eastern-elite class of the day.

Both came prepared to try to decimate the other, or to cause him to self-destruct. Vidal practiced his zingers with reporters before the debates. He gave Buckley’s magazine the Voldemort treatment: He refused to utter its name and claimed that he never read it. For his part, Buckley came armed to one of the debates with a surprise dirty trick apparently designed to completely unnerve Vidal: He produced what he purported to be a hand-written note from Robert Kennedy, in which Kennedy bad-mouthed Vidal [who was a close confidante of Jacqueline Kennedy]. Buckley’s move was in especially bad taste, considering that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated less than three months earlier.

In the end, the whole thing boiled down to a clash of giant egos. It was more about putting down the other guy, serving up the best one-liners and winning gotcha points than it was about which political philosophy was morally defensible and better for the country and its people. Their on-screen clashes turned out to be headline-makers that boosted ABC’s also-ran ratings. TV executives learned from Vidal and Buckley’s confrontations that giving obnoxious people air time was financially beneficial. The media’s war on substance had begun, or as one commenter in the film put it, it was the start of the tug-of-war between “illumination and viewability.”

I think we know who won.

The post “Best of Enemies:” 1968’s Buckley-Vidal debates, and how they helped spawn Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Make no mistake about it. We’re now approaching thirty years of serious scientific data gathering on climate change. And the consensus among scientists in the field across the globe is clear and unequivocal. Yet many Americans remain confused about the facts. That should come as no surprise, as the decidedly confused (and confusing) reporting by American media on the facts, the causes, and the future of climate change has been mostly sabotaged by corporations with a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus and creating doubt on the subject. For too many years, the fossil-fuel industry and members of Congress, whose campaign coffers are filled with the industry’s largesse and whose after-politics lives have seen many of them move seamlessly into cushy jobs in the industry, have successfully gamed journalism’s traditional commitment to reporting that is “objective” and “balanced.”

The good news is that a few media outlets are not only calling out the confuseniks and fringe deniers but are also taking steps to shut the game down.

Here’s what’s happening. In the past two years various media outlets have been engaged in some quiet but serious soul searching. 2013 and 2014 have emerged as watershed years for a growing number of news agencies that are taking a hard look at how they cover issues related to climate change. Staffs have been re-evaluating their responsibilities as serious journalists to readers and viewers. Editors, from the top down, are rethinking and revising their best-practices guidelines.

At the core of this soul searching is a discussion of the most fundamental journalistic tenets of objectivity and balanced coverage. In journalistic parlance, “objectivity” implies that when journalists gather the facts and report the story. they set aside their own pre-set beliefs. “Balanced” implies that all sides are presented in a way such that the reader, the viewer, or the listener is exposed to more than just one side of the story.

The prickly question for journalists and media outlets in terms of climate-change reporting has been whether or not “balanced” reporting requires devoting equal time and space to those denying the science—what we usually refer to as facts—when 97 percent of climate scientists have demonstrated through fact-based studies that global warming is a scientific reality. Fully aware of the subtleties and traps inherent in the concept of “balanced” reporting and sensitive to charges of censorship, most of the media outlets that have gone out on a limb to revise their best-practices policies in terms of climate coverage reiterate that their primary responsibility in all reporting is not to support one side of the debate or the other but to guarantee the accuracy of facts and information in print, online, and on television.

Policies at media outlets on accepting or rejecting content concerning false or misleading information on climate change varies. For example, in 2013 Nathan Allen, reddit’s then-moderator of the online forum, announced that all submissions concerning climate change to the social networking and news website be sourced solely from reputable, peer-reviewed journals.

In the same year, The Los Angeles Times announced that, since it views its primary responsibility to keep errors of fact from appearing on the pages of its letters to the editor, letters based on false claims by climate-change deniers and skeptics would no longer be welcome.

The Sydney Morning Herald took a slightly more nuanced approach. When the paper published its policy on letters to the editor on global warming, the editors stated clearly that they did not intend to officially ban climate skeptics from sharing their opinions, but stated that the publication would no longer allow misrepresentation of facts.

In 2013 as well, Popular Science surprised the online community when the publication withdrew from the controversy altogether by disabling all commenting on their online website – not just commenting on climate change. Suzanne LaBarre, the website’s content editor, observed that comments on a range of topics (not just climate change) were “undermining scientifically sound” information. She went on to explain to readers that lacking the time or money to moderate the comments, the publication made the difficult decision to eliminate the commenting section altogether.

This year, a venerable institution called The BBC Trust waded into the controversy. We should all stand up and applaud the BBC’s integrity in finally taking the lead on the meaning and implications of false editorial balance. After an exhaustive study of BBC News broadcasts on climate change, trustees of The BBC Trust acknowledged that many of their journalists had fallen into the trap of equating the conclusions of peer-reviewed scientific studies with the opinions of non-qualified skeptics and deniers. The Trust’s report recommended a sea change in coverage by giving “greater emphasis to the weight of scientific consensus rather than continuing to try to provide pseudo-balance.” To that end, it’s been reported that two hundred BBC journalists have participated in re-education seminars and workshops to improve fact-based coverage. The recommendations of the BBC report are unequivocal:

The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. . . . Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.

Here in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists shares that view. Being scientists, the organization decided to gather the facts about climate-change coverage in the media. In 2013, the organization undertook a study called “The Science of Spin.” The report looks at climate coverage at the three most widely watched cable news networks: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. The report’s findings clearly show how American media, journalists, and media watchdogs have their work cut out for them.

Their objective findings reveal that Fox News has the least accurate reporting on climate science, with fully 72% of its climate-related segments containing misleading statements. Of those, more than half occurred on one program, “The Five.”

CNN fared a bit better. 30% of CNN’s segments featured misleading statements. Most occurred during debates between guests who accepted established climate science and guests who disputed the findings.

MSNBC proved to have the most accurate coverage. Even so, 8% of news segments on MSNBC contained misleading statements. Interestingly, the inaccuracies were all similar. They overstated rather than understated the effects of climate change, particularly the link between climate change and extreme weather—such as tornadoes.

With numbers like the above reflecting serious gaps of accuracy in television news coverage of climate change and the fact that 55% of Americans report television as their main source of news, is it any wonder that confusion reigns?

The post News organizations are changing their coverage of climate change appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week, a reporter from St. Louis’ KSDK-TV decided it would be a dandy idea to test the security measures of some local high schools. His inquiry—and suspicious-looking behavior—at suburban Kirkwood High School caused administrators to lockdown the school for more than 40 minutes.

KSDK likes to call itself “NewsChannel 5.” Its slogan, in recent years, has been “Where the News Comes First.”

In this instance, the news clearly did come first—but not in a good way. The news department’s eagerness for a scoop really did come before everything else—including common sense, journalistic ethics, and the emotional well-being of the locked-down students and their panicked parents.

In a world that has almost completely disappeared, to be a journalist meant to observe and to report the news, not be the news. I guess the crew at St. Louis’ KSDK-TV was absent when that subject was discussed in whatever passes for journalism at some schools these days.

There were probably several other ways to get this story without scaring the hell out of an entire school community. You could, for example, simply pick up the phone, call the school, and tell them what you’re working on—maybe even get them to agree, in advance, to a secret-shopper gambit. You could interview people—kids, teachers, administrators, the school cop. But, of course, those conventional strategies would require actually interacting with people, perhaps even taking notes and checking facts—things that you can’t do via text messaging—things that aren’t nearly as fun, easy, and sensational as an ambush.

The result of NewsChannel 5’s poorly-thought-out sneak attack was not a news story that informed us about the various states of school security in an era of gun-crazy school shootings: The story became what the reporter did and its effect on students, staff and parents.

By the way, if the reporter intended to say that Kirkwood High School’s security was lacking, he got that wrong, too. His own behavior—walking in unannounced, asking to speak to the school security administrator, disappearing, and then not responding to cell phone calls to confirm his status as a reporter—set in motion a security response—the lockdown–that  seemed completely appropriate, even if it is an unfortunate, extreme by-product of the times.

Notice, too, that I have not used the name of the reporter. Although we learned his name a few days later, NewsChannel 5 did not initially identify him. So, while news outlets are usually very quick with names of alleged criminals, terrorists and victims, KSDK went all private when its own employee was at the center of the story.

I don’t have a problem with enterprising reporters who get out from behind their desks to nail down a legitimate story through solid interviews, no-nonsense questions, and serious study of primary documents.  In fact, we should welcome that kind of news gathering, because it is the—rare—exact opposite of what we often get: newsreaders essentially, blindly repeating press releases and talking points issued by politicians, police, political parties, and entertainment sources.

KSDK has publicly apologized for the screw-up. It’s  not the first, and it won’t be the last, news outlet to use poor judgment, let an overzealous reporter go too far, get sloppy, or create news where it otherwise might not have occurred. This is simply another example of the continuing degradation of news values in a corporate-driven, profits-first , news-as-entertainment environment.

It’s been said that Mt. Everest makes its own weather. We can’t control that. But it’s simply not okay for news outlets to create–and be–their own news.

The post A journalistic low: Being the news appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s hard to decide whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a hero or a criminal. What’s much clearer is that we live in an era in which we get far too much junk information about celebrities, scandals and unfounded, unscientific notions about things like Mayan end-of-the-world prophecies, and not nearly enough real information about what governments are doing.

People who abhor WikiLeaks and Assange have made it very difficult for that organization to operate, by cutting off its main funding mechanisms. In December 2010, under pressure from some members of Congress, Visa, MasterCard and Pay Pal announced that they would no longer accept transactions for WikiLeaks. Those donations represented an estimated 95 percent of WikiLeaks’ funding. Then, according to the New York Times, WikiLeaks “suspended publication of documents because of financial distress, which it said was a result of what it called ‘a banking blockade.’”

Now, a new non-profit group advocating more transparent government has entered the picture. Launched in December 2012, the Freedom of the Press Foundation says that it plans to act as a conduit for donations to organizations like WikiLeaks. The foundation’s board of directors includes Daniel Ellsberg, a hero of the freedom-of-information world for his actions in the 1970s in leaking the Pentagon Papers, which exposed U.S. policy in Viet Nam.

The foundation’s website outlines it purpose this way:

The Freedom of the Press Foundation is dedicated to helping promote and fund aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government. We accept tax-deductible donations to a variety of journalism organizations that push for government transparency and accountability.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation is built on the recognition that this kind of transparency journalism — from publishing the Pentagon Papers and exposing Watergate, to uncovering the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program and CIA secret prisons — doesn’t just happen. It requires dogged work by journalists, and often, the courage of whistleblowers and others who work to ensure that the public actually learns what it has a right to know.

But in a changing economic and technological age, media organizations are increasingly susceptible to corporate or government pressure. This can lead to watered-down or compromised coverage, or worse: censorship.

Wikileaks will benefit from the new foundation, but so will other groups. So, if you’re not sure that WikiLeaks is a great idea, but you agree that we need more—not less—information about what government is doing, take heart: The Freedom of the Press Foundation will also be taking contributions for:

MuckRock News, which serves as a proxy and a guide for people seeking to make Freedom of Information requests;

The UpTake, a citizen journalism site that generates online video news;

The National Security Archive, a repository of declassified government documents.

The post Freedom of the Press Foundation to boost WikiLeaks and other freedom-of-info groups appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Denver Post endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008, and Obama has earned their endorsement once again in 2012.  This endorsement is particularly important because Colorado is considered a swing state.  The Post says:

With the nation mired in two wars and amid an economic meltdown, we endorsed a largely untested young senator from Illinois for president in 2008.

Four years later, the Iraq war is over, the war in Afghanistan has a conclusion in sight, and the economy has made demonstrable — though hardly remarkable — progress.

Obama’s record of accomplishment under trying circumstances and his blueprint for a second term make him the best pick to move the nation forward.

Continuing with Obama’s accomplishments, the Post contends:

There have been notable accomplishments: rescuing the nation’s auto industry, passing comprehensive (though contentious) health-care reform, and delivering justice to Osama bin Laden.

The Post does not suffer from what the president calls “Romnesia,” the forgetfulness the Republican nominee Mitt Romney has regardinghis record in both business and government.  It also points out his persistent habit of flip-flopping over virtually every issue of importance.  It reminds us of the insensitivity that Romney has towards nearly half the American population:

His comments on the 47 percent of Americans who refuse to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” were a telling insight into his views and a low point of the campaign.

Romney’s approach is one of tax cuts for all, drastic Medicare reform, increased defense spending, and what would be catastrophic cuts to other discretionary programs. In the Republican primary, he said he couldn’t support a plan that included even $10 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue. To expect the country to balance its budget without additional revenue, in our view, is nothing short of fantasy.

The Post recalls the many holes that former President George Bush dug and which Obama either was forced to drive into or had to make a special effort to circumvent.  Additionally it points out that the president’s accomplishments have been limited by an obstinate Congress that has been controlled by Republicans over the past two years.

A largely intransigent Republican Party shares in the blame, however, particularly because of unwillingness to cede any ground to Obama in the last two years on policies — such as the president’s American Jobs Act — that attempt to bolster the economy.

The Post addresses an issue of education which Obama has repeatedly stated as key to the quality of life in America as well as economic growth.  Romney has largely been absent on the issue or disdainful towards those who need financial aid to attend institutions of higher learning and the students who attend them:

Obama has moved the country in the right direction on school reform. On higher education, he has taken steps to address affordability through increasing Pell Grants and streamlining the student-loan process. His executive order that allows qualified illegal immigrants brought here as children a chance to pursue college degrees is a positive step — though much remains to be done on immigration reform.

While Mitt Romney has no experience with foreign affairs except outsourcing labor and hiding personal money, the Post praises the president for his accomplishments.

As commander in chief, he has demonstrated himself capable in a tough situation. He eliminated the military’s discriminatory “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, limited this country’s involvement in Libya while still playing a role in the ouster of Moammar Khadafy, and hasn’t allowed the U.S. to be drawn into the Syrian civil war. He has remained a friend to Israel, but isn’t engaging in war talk over the Iranian nuclear issue. Moving forward, the administration owes the American public a thorough explanation of the troubling events surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi last month.

This is not a lukewarm endorsement.  The Post is not fooled by the Romney and Ryan rhetoric that the president has done little over the past four years and has no plans for a second term.  It recognizes Obama’s accomplishments in the face of persistent GOP obstruction.  It also points out the skills that the president has demonstrated to be an effective president.  The Post is confident that the president will continue to be an effective chief executive.  Therefore it gives him a ringing endorsement.

The post Denver Post: Re-elect President Obama appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the deluge of news, even the most dedicated junkie can miss a few intriguing items now and then. Occasional Planet’s sidebar feature, “Occasional bits,” tries to help fill in the gaps, with links to websites, blogs, articles, reports, charts, humor, and other attention-getters that show up in our daily ramble across the net. Here is a sampling of “bits” we’ve posted in the past few months, just in case you missed them, too. 

Shelter from the Storm: an eye-opening slide show of the makeshift shelters Haitians creatively cobbled together to make post-earthquake homes for themselves. With hurricane season upon us, will they endure?

A fun rock ‘n’ roll video that won the Government Services Administration’s competition to promote USA.gov website. So, government is cool? Who knew?

Feed a parking meter, help the homeless, an innovative program in Oregon.

Here’s what progressives are up against: a list of the wackiest planks in Republican state platforms. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Slate challenged readers to rewrite the Declaration of Independence in the 140-character limit of Twitter. Here are the winners. How would you do it?

What’s America’s mood? Researchers mashed up tweets, demographic data and other info to create a time-lapse, happiness/grumpiness map of the country. See which region wins the prize for being the most upbeat.

Architects recently voted for the most impressive buildings in the world. You can see a slide show of the top vote-getters here. A testament to human creativity and imagination, and to the visionary people who make it happen.

One-stop shopping for rating the political records of Congressional representatives, brought to us by The Hill. A handy chart tabulates the ratings given by 31 advocacy groups. Click on a lawmaker’s name to see his/her page.

The post Bits of news you might have missed in the info overload appeared first on Occasional Planet.