CSotD: In other news …
Skip to comments
A substantial portion of the public really likes Kamala Harris, but, as Phil Hands notes, the press is losing patience.
Having posed the question of how she can make up for lost time with the elections so close, they aren’t very happy with her answer of taking her message directly to the public instead of sitting for interviews.
Harris did step aside at a recent rally and invite the press to ask her what they wanted, but they had little significant to ask. Steve Kelley (Creators) paints that as her cutting off meaningful inquiry, but other critics accused the press corps of asking foolish questions, the answers to which they’d have heard in her speech or that were about the horserace rather than anything substantive.
Anyone who has watched the Sunday morning talk shows should grasp what a colossal waste of time it is to sit around exchanging talking points.
They are far more likely a chance to embarrass yourself than to advance any serious positions, as Vance proved this past weekend. And that’s less an observation about him than it is about the shows themselves.
The reason to go on those Sunday morning shows, or to sit down for a one-on-one interview, or to stage a press conference, is to flatter the press corps and get some face time.
Granted, Harris may learn that flattering the press corps is how you get them to cover your rallies, since there appears to be a disparity in whose rallies are carried live and whose are summarized in a three-minute report later.
Meanwhile, Lisa Benson (Counterpoint) accuses Harris of not having any policy proposals, which may be a result of her outlining her plans at those rallies rather than on Sunday morning talk shows.
Funny aside: I was interviewing a station manager who didn’t have a Sunday talker, and he tossed a gibe at the competition, whose public service program was called “Involvement.”
“Have you seen the ratings for that thing?” he bellowed. “‘Involvement?’ Involvement in what???”
Point taken. And to bring it up to date, Harris gets more involvement from a consistent series of rallies than she’d get sitting around a studio chatting, and with less than 90 days left, she hasn’t got time for both.
As Chip Bok (Creators) suggests, it would be good to differentiate her policy proposals from Trump’s. Conservatives are angry that, Trump having proposed dropping the tax on tips, Harris has done the same, but it’s apparently not the same proposal.
The GOP version is reportedly vague and could allow well-paid professionals to receive additional benefits without being taxed for them, while the Democratic version would limit tax-free tips to wait staff and similar low-paid service workers.
The open-ended version suggests what, in Family Law, is called “purported income.” This is when a non-custodial parent negotiates a low salary on which to base child support, but sweetened with, for instance, unlimited use of a company car or a generous deal on a company-owned apartment.
Similarly, opponents of the Trump version charge, someone could receive a dubious “bonus” and declare it a “tip” in order to dodge paying income tax on it.
If the press corps is serious about wanting to ask questions, they should toss this one into that September 10 debate. But if they going to toss puffballs, or ask silly, grotesque questions like the one about the rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis, the debate, too, will be a waste of everyone’s time.
While Guy Venables’ summary of the Musk/Trump conversation offers proof that access doesn’t necessarily guarantee insight, though Dear Leader’s appearance at the NABJ conference certainly did.
Jeff Stahler (AMS) suggests that maybe some voters are beginning to tire of braggadocio and would like to hear some real proposals.
The answer is for the press to get over themselves, quit covering the horserace and start paying attention to what is being said, and to ask serious questions about what isn’t.
Meanwhile, much as I resist starting before Labor Day, it is back to school time and time for this
Juxtaposition of the Day
I was lucky to have retired from visiting classrooms just about the time cellphone usage exploded, though my grandkids became part of the issue shortly thereafter.
Classroom management was never easy, and I learned the tricks of standing near an inattentive student’s desk or having everyone stand up for no reason beyond resuscitating the nappers. Those strategies are as old as school itself; some I learned from teachers and others I learned from having been a student.
But here’s the thing: We had transistor radios, but we couldn’t bring them to class. Comic books and other distractions were confiscated on the spot. Somehow, we survived these traumas.
Similarly, I remember early days when cellphones had to be kept in lockers or in pouches by the classroom door. What happened to that?
John Darkow remembers the Olden Days when phones had cords and schools had rules.
What happened, I gather, was helicopter parents who insisted that they might have to remind Nicole to go to her orthodontist appointment after school and wanted to be sure Jason could call home to let them know he forgot his lunch.
I had to go to the orthodontist every Friday. In fact, I had to walk! Maybe it was every other Friday. I don’t remember now but I certainly remembered then because I wasn’t kept on an electronic leash.
What I remember as a father is that, if I saw a lunch-bag on the counter after the kids were gone, there was a moral dilemma over whether I should teach him a lesson or drop it off at the front office on my way past the school.
But there are sensible limits. I just had a flashback of Molly Ringwald’s character Claire in The Breakfast Club, unpacking her fancy little sushi bento box while the other kids had paper bags with sandwiches. Sheesh.
Claire and her folks won the early battles in the cellphone wars, but it seems the helicopters have now been grounded.
Save your ammo. As Walt Handelsman notes, there are far more crucial wars ahead.
Tough parents who wouldn’t bring their kid’s lunch to school are now determined to bring all their baggage there instead.
Comments 9
Comments are closed.