In A Snippet-Driven Society, It's Time For 'Slow News'

On Saturday, I was listening to a roundtable on NPR that was essentially three guests verbally aggregating things they had read instead of providing actual opinions of their own. When asked a question such as "What do you think of the president-elect's behavior this week?", a guest would answer by saying "Well, as X wrote in Slate this week, blah, blah, blah." This is what passes for intellectual expression in 2016. Even on public radio.

We have elected a president who seems to get most of his core political beliefs from other tweets and random pieces he's read in the newstream on his smart phone. Even the best of our political reporting is weighted down in links that point to basic facts that in any rational context wouldn't need to be credited to a third source. Entire pieces are aggregated Frankenstein-style from thirty different sources and the result is reporting that is jammed with facts, but devoid of any context or original thought.

That aggregation-as-reporting migrated over to cable news in the past couple of years and the result is a perplexing mix of tweets as news, op-eds turned into panels and incessant recountings of conventional political wisdom disguised as news. Afraid to put forward an actual opinion, cable news in particular turned to political strategists to do their dirty work. It's cable news aggregation at its most soul-draining. Bring on a guest who has written/tweeted some controversial point and aggregate a response to them. In that way, cable news was able to cover all sorts of random opinions without ever having to take responsibility for any of it.

Post election, national media types have become obsessed with "fake news," and rightfully so. The practice of sites cranking out pieces they know are false just to make some money is loathsome. But fake news is also the inevitable endpoint for a political news complex that is crippled by the cognitive dissonance of a system that seem unable to change. They disapprove of fake news, but spent months letting it on their airwaves for base, cynical reasons. They ask themselves "Why didn't we see the unhappiness in the country?", while at the same time their airwaves are filled with a rotating procession of politically-connected reporters and political types. They bemoan the Right's successful campaign against the media without asking the obvious question: "Why was that campaign so successful? How did our behavior help make this possible?"

All of this comes at a time when it's increasingly difficult to discover new points of views and unorthodox thinking. It's the sad irony of technology that increasing the digital connections between us and the speed we can reach out doesn't correlate with increased clarity. Twenty years into the Internet age and we are a nation of people who have traded conversation and original thinking for an aggregated world that often feels empty and cold.

The only response to the rise of aggregation in our lives is to seek out new opinions. Talk to fresh faces. Assemble your own political thoughts and express them confidently. Be willing to disappoint others. Be brave enough to burn some bridges. Have an opinion of your own and share it. Breath.

And be cautious with your use of social media. Twitter & Facebook are snippet machines, perfectly designed to push a lot of short, random thoughts at you. Often on your phone, which means you are likely seeing the info while you're killing 30 seconds at a traffic light. View everything you see in social media as suspect, or at the very least, lacking in the context that might bring new meaning to that outrage you just read in 20 seconds.

My main goal in 2017 is to bring context to my life. We are living in increasingly troubled times. And the answer to that is not to attempt to changes hearts & minds with some tweets and references to "that piece in Politico." I need to "de-aggregate" my life as much as possible. To spend more time in real life, with real people. To pay less attention to the random outrages that I see on social media. To ask more questions about news stories I read and see if there's context missing that might change the intent of the piece. It's important for me to form my own opinions and demand the same from friends, family and the media.

The "Slow Foods" movement was formed in 1989, and:

Its stated mission was to counter the disappearance of local food traditions and people's dwindling interest in the food they eat and where it comes from.

In the same way, I find a "Slow News" approach to be a very tempting way to live in the coming year. To spend less time concerned with unsettling tweets from our president-elect and more time on the issues I can directly effect. To worry less about some random comment made in the midst of a choreographed TV news panel and more time on the underlying legislation that matters. I'm going to tune out the attempts by certain news outlets to turn the Trump Administration into the ultimate blood-and-circuses ratings bonanza that will make some big media companies very rich. I am going to reward deep reporting and context-driven news pieces with my clicks and my support. I want to know where my news comes from, and why.

There is much more to say about this and that is without even getting into Silicon Valley's culpability in our evolution into an aggregation nation. I'll be writing more about this and other related issues in the coming weeks. But I'd also like to hear from you. Send your thoughts, comments and feedback to me via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. You can also follow me on Twitter at @aysrick.

Wednesday, 14 December 2016 13:06
Written by Rick Ellis
Category: Between The Coasts

The Founding Fathers Supported A Free Press. What Can't Donald Trump?

During his entire campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump was consistent about one thing. The press couldn't be trusted. They were often liars, frequently partisan and they refused to support his point of view in every circumstance. That attitude has continued after the election, with the president-elect continuing to attack specific media outlets for what he describes as "terrible" reporting. And today brings word that the Trump White House might get rid of a number of traditional interactions between a President and the press, including the daily press briefings from the White House press secretary.

All of this might sound like whining from the media or just another "inside the Beltway" battle that doesn't impact the rest of America. But the press matters. Press conferences, briefings and other regular contacts with an Administration are a vital part of American politics. It's part of the reason the United States has remained strong while some other democracies across the globe have collapsed into despotism.

One of the first moves any dictator or despot makes when they take control is to stifle and/or shut down the independent press outlets. Because they all realize that a free and unfettered press provides a counterweight to the ambitions of any strongman-in-waiting. It's much easier to disarm and overpower unhappy citizens than it is to battle a chorus of independent voices highlighting all of your misdeeds.

America's Founding Fathers were well aware of this fact and that is why the so often discussed the importance of a free press. Newspapers in the 1700s were often wildly partisan and often published more rumors than actual news. But even with all of their flaws, America's greatest leaders understood that even an inaccurate is better than no press at all.

Which is why I find the attacks of Trump and his minions on the press to be so perplexing. They claim to be interested in following the Constitution and the wishes of America's founders. And yet, they continue to make the argument that the U.S. would be better if the press had more restrictions and less access to power.

But based on these comments, I think our Founding Fathers would disagree:

"If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."

— Benjamin Franklin

"But none of the means of information are more sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America, than the press."

— John Adams, second U.S. president

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

— Thomas Jefferson

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court justice

"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state."

— John Adams, second U.S. president

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

— Thomas Jefferson

But it's not just a free press that the founders felt was important. They believed the press should be able to speak up against power, no matter how unpopular the topic. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump argued that he hoped to change the libel laws in the United States. That would be a shock to America's founders, who had seen first-hand how British libel laws had been used to stifle political dissent.

In the 1700s, the British government used the charge of "seditious libel" as a bludgeon to stifle dissenting voices. British subjects were free to say or write whatever they liked, but if a member of the social hierarchy or government deemed remarks offensive or harmful, subjects engaging in free speech could be prosecuted and punished, regardless of the veracity of their statements. That appears to be the future our new president would like to see put into law in the United States.

Which begs the question. If the founding fathers clearly understood the need for a free press - even if it was sometimes partisan - why can't our president-elect and his supporters?

Wednesday, 16 November 2016 19:57
Category: Between The Coasts

The Online News Association: An Open Letter To Donald Trump

The ONA is joining a coalition of media organizations in a letter to President-elect Trump requesting his commitment to the historic tradition of a protective press pool for the sake of transparency: “This isn’t about access for the press itself; it’s about access for Americans in diverse communities across the country."

Dear President-elect Trump,

We, a group of diverse journalism associations representing thousands of journalists from the nation's capital to every corner of the country, begin this letter on a hopeful note. Your administration is a blank slate and we are eager to work with you to perpetuate one of this nation's great strengths: our freedom of the press.

As the new leader of the free world, we expect that you will preserve longstanding traditions that ensure coverage of the Trump presidency. The idea of a press pool that covers all of the president's movements is one that dates back to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. Every president of both parties has treated this important tradition with respect. The role of the press pool is critically important to our country, whose citizens depend on and deserve to know what the president is doing. This isn't about access for the press itself, it's about access for Americans in diverse communities across the country. Your constituents receive information from a variety of platforms to learn about what our president is doing.

Being president is an enormous responsibility and working with the White House Correspondents’ Association to ensure journalists' access is one small but important part of that. We call on you to commit to a protective press pool from now until the final day of your presidency. We respectfully ask you to instill a spirit of openness and transparency in your administration in many ways but first and foremost via the press pool.

We also call for access to you via regular press conferences and pool sprays and to your key decision-makers. You have an opportunity as incoming president to set the tone for your staff speaking on the record for the sake of transparency. We also hope your administration will improve response rates to FOIA requests as a way to show the American people, and the world, that the republic belongs to the people.

A great America depends on having sunlight on its leaders. We expect the traditions of White House press coverage to be upheld whether in Washington or elsewhere. Again we, a joint group of diverse journalism associations, speak as one as we respectfully ask that you take these steps to ensure access to our members covering your administration.

Thomas Burr
President
The National Press Club

Barbara Cochran
President
National Press Club Journalism Institute

Lynn Walsh
President
Society of Professional Journalists

Mizell Stewart III
President
American Society of News Editors

Mike Cavender
Executive Director
Radio Television Digital News Association and Foundation

Delphine Halgand
US Director
Reporters Without Borders/RSF

Courtney Radsch
Advocacy Director
Committee to Protect Journalists

Sandy K. Johnson
President
National Press Foundation

Sarah Glover
President
National Association of Black Journalists

Brandon Benavides
President, Board of Directors
National Association of Hispanic Journalists

Bryan Pollard
President
Native American Journalists Association

Paul Cheung
President
Asian American Journalists Association

Jen Christensen
President
National Association of LGBTQ Journalists

Elisa Lees Munoz
Executive director
The International Women's Media Foundation

Allison Sherry
President
Regional Reporters Association

Joshua Hatch
President, Board of Directors
Online News Association

Sandra Fish
President
Journalism and Women Symposium

Melissa Lyttle
President
National Press Photographers Association

Wednesday, 14 December 2016 12:14
Written by Rick Ellis
Category: Between The Coasts

What Hollywood Can Do To Fight The Trump Administration

Hollywood and politics have a lot on common. Both have too much focus on star power and celebrity. Both industries can get caught up in their own hype and the lives of celebrities and politicians can often be worlds removed from the rest of America. But while most politicians know they can't have much impact on Hollywood, show business types are often frustrated because their power doesn't extend into Washington.

Granted, moguls such as the Murdoch clan or other media company owners can use their power and money to impact public policy. But even the most important movie star or TV showrunner never gets much past the "watch me tweet out this snarky comment" phase. Part of the problem is a lack of time to devote to political change. But it also gets down to the industry understanding its limitations and strengths. By doing that, it is possible to move political mountains.

All of this is especially important as we move closer to the official start of the Trump presidency. It isn't just that he seems focused on rolling back every social and political change since the FDR administration. Donald Trump also seems immune to public criticism or economic pressure. How do you push back against a man who is simultaneously arrogant and intellectually lazy? And specifically, how can people in Hollywood most efficiently leverage their money and celebrity to thwart the Trump Administration's efforts to roll back nearly every social and economic gain we've made in the past fifty years?

If you work in the entertainment industry and you'd like to do something more substantial than moaning about today's news on social media, here are five substantial ways to effect change over the next four years. It's easy to get caught up in the outrage of the day. But if you want to win the war, it's time to adopt some of the techniques used by the people who helped Donald Trump become president.

1) Educate Yourself And Make Some Calls
One of the most effective ways to get the attention of legislators is to contact them by phone or snail mail. No emails, no phony online petitions. Pick a piece of legislation that matters to you and make some calls. A good place to start is by subscribing to the re:act newsletter. Each week, the newsletter recaps some important proposals or committee hearings and provides concrete info on who to contact and what to say. Click Here to subscribe to the free newsletter.

2) Give Money Strategically
Conservatives have built an entire infrastructure of like-minded media outlets and pundits who spend their entire working day trying to push their agenda. Billionaire businessmen have donated hundreds of millions to candidates, but they've been most successful creating an entire industry of journalists writing conservative blogs and creating shareable memes. Don't donate your head-earned money to the Democratic Party or to some well-known PAC. Use your money in a more strategic fashion. Earmark money for candidates and local organizations back in your hometown. Find a blogger or struggling writer you admire and offer them some seed money so they can spend the next few months arguing the case on a full-time basis. Donate time and money to science organizations defunded by the Republican Congress. Support efforts to teach evolution in schools. Choose a food bank in some random rural area and donate some money. There are hundreds of ways you can have a direct impact on America without just tossing away $1,000 on some DNC fundraiser.

3) Use The Power Of Your Celebrity Locally
If you're an actor, director or writer with a bit of celebrity, the temptation is to use your fame to try and discuss important political issues during your regular workday. But while discussing climate change on "Conan" might make you feel better, you'll have as much impact on the topic as you would just stopping random people on the street. Where your celebrity can have an impact is locally.

Here's an example. You're the star of a modestly successful television show. Your comments about the dangers of "Fake News" during an interview in People Magazine won't accomplish anything. But making a personal appearance in a local community affected by a fake news story will get massive coverage in that town. And depending on the news day, it might even get picked up nationally. So maybe it's time to book a visit to the infamous D.C. "Pizzagate" restaurant "Comet Ping Pong."

4) Resist The Urge To 'Educate'
Let's be honest. Liberals do have a tendency to talk at people who disagree with us. We can be a bit arrogant, a touch elitist and more than a bit overbearing. We can't believe that people don't see the world as we do and we can come across as if we think anyone who doesn't agree with us is a moron. Your role isn't to teach anyone. It's to provide attention and funding to those people and institutions best suited to making the case for you.

This is just a quick rundown of the smallest steps we can all be taking over the next four years. If you have any suggestions or comments, share them by email atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. '; document.getElementById('cloak11591').innerHTML += ''+addy_text11591+'<\/a>'; //--> or follow me on Twitter at @aysrick.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016 18:55
Written by Rick Ellis
Category: Between The Coasts

Breitbart News Is A White Nationalist Website: Feel Free To Sue Us

Sure, it's been less than a week since Donald J. Trump became president-elect of the United States. But his administration-to-be has already sparked enough weird twists, surreal turns, conspiracies and double-dealings to fill a season's worth of one of those "Real Housewife" TV shows.

If you thought Trump's decision to select Stephen Bannon, former executive chairman of Breitbart News, to be a Trump White House counselor and strategist was ill-advised, let me introduce the next step in this escalating campaign of presidential-level trolling. According to The Hill, Breitbart News is promising to sue a major media organization for referring to the company as a white nationalist website:

"Breitbart News Network, a pro-America, conservative website, is preparing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a major media company for its baseless and defamatory claim that Breitbart News is a ‘white nationalist website,’” the statement reads.

"Breitbart News cannot allow such vicious racial lies to go unchallenged, especially by cynical, politically-motivated competitors seeking to diminish its 42 million monthly readers and its number one in the world political Facebook page. Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will," the statement continues.

"The diversity of the company’s news coverage and its staff continue to embody Andrew Breitbart’s colorblind, distinctly American commitment to ‘E pluribus unum’—out of many, one."

Now to be fair, Breitbart News is not exclusively a white nationalist website. It also includes plenty of racism and misogyny as well as the occasional actual news story. And I also don't think that the Breitbart News editors and reporters are all white nationalists. I think for the most part they just play the part because it's good for business.

I also don't believe there's much of a chance Breitbart News would actually sue a major media company. Because the last thing it wants to is defend its editorial mix in a court of law. This statement is all about bluster mixed in with a modest attempt to scare off some criticism. It's an effort to bully smaller publications into normalizing their behavior and portraying it as somehow just being part of the normal universe of political reporting.

I can't speak for any other media site - major or not - but we aren't intimidated. Breitbart News is a white nationalist website and I'd feel intellectually dishonest if I described it any other way. If they don't like it, this is a free country and anyone can sure anyone for just about any reason.

But until we receive the court papers, this headline stands.