And the Cable Babel Continues . . .

Arthur Solomon

On July 29, the below paragraph was included in a column about the primary season.

(In my opinion, cable news TV programming is a modern form of yellow journalism. In an effort to increase viewers, programming and reporting is tailored to keep viewers by playing to emotions and by letting anyone express unsubstantiated opinions without the majority of anchors or reporters challenging the alleged facts. Listening to the “excited” voices of reporters when covering a controversy reminds me of what is taught in acting school in contrast to the mostly calm and factual reporting before the advent of cable TV. In many cases questions are asked to c reate discord, even if just one person protests, instead of just getting information and reporting in a composed, dignified manor like reporters from major print publications when they are interviewed. In particular, MSNBC’s Steve Karnacki seems to relish rabblerousing reporting. Cable’s emphasis is on “he said, she said” journalism. The result is that serious political reporting has largely been drowned out resulting in less politically educated viewers.)

Another month has passed, and my opinion about not relying on cable TV for political news only grows stronger. Here why:

Since dissecting all the political commentary and what passes for news on the cable networks would provide enough examples to fill up the entire issue of the next O’Dwyer’s magazine, here are some prime examples from late June to Labor Day. (I decided to limit this column to that time span because beginning in a few days there will be a competing spin cycle – baseball clubs who won’t make the playoffs conveying their sure-to-win plans for next year, football clubs filling the sports media with how improved their teams are from last season and probably, if you believe history repeats - and it does in the NFL - the NFL spinning how the concussion problem is solved and how players involved in DWIs and spousal abuse, etc.,etc.,etc. are receiving tough punishments).

Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump supporter, spins so much so fast during her TV appearances that it’s best not to listen to her version of facts or you might be confused about fact and fiction. But the most over-the top spokesperson I have seen is Katrina Pierson, the national spokesperson for the Trump campaign, who has the ability to uncover supposed facts that even other Trump spokespeople can’t defend. Both sound so fanatical that they are probably only preaching to the choir.

A few specifics:

On June 27, Trump surrogate Pierson said, “I know the news media was reporting that the initial ban was against all Muslims, and that simply was not the case.” Perhaps she wasn’t paying close attention to Trump’s statements because she was too busy thinking up how to spin when asked about her candidate’s remarks.

On July 19, about the lifted word from Michelle Obama’s speech, Pierson said, this controversy was started by the Democrats. “That’s the political process,” as if sprouting lies is okay.

On August 2, Trump surrogate Pierson blamed the death of Army Capt. Humayun Khan on President Obama and Hillary Clinton, even though Captain Khan was killed in 2004 while George Bush was president. Instead of banishing her for an outright lie, she continues to be allowed to appear as a spokesperson.

Pierson has made so many over-the-top (or under the belt) comments that it’s difficult to choose which one is most odious. But it will be difficult for her to utter a more perilous and depraved statement than the one she made August 9 on The Lead, when she defended Trump’s statement about gun control, during which Trump said, 2nd Amendment people might be able to do something to prevent Hillary Clinton from picking Supreme Court justices.

On August 18, she suggested on MTP that Clinton had dysphasia. An all time low for Ms. Pierson? Don’t bet on it. There are still many weeks for her to be appalling.

By now you get the idea. Ms. Pierson’s comments are so Machiavellian-like and fictionalized that even the Trump campaign had to back away from her publicly.

On August 4, under questioning on the New Day TV show, Sam Clovis, Trump’s national campaign co-chairman and policy advisor, admitted that Pierson gave unproven stats when she appeared on the telecast. (Lesson Learned: If you disseminate misinformation, make certain that the facts you use cannot be checked for accuracy.)

But obviously, Ms. Pierson ignored the lesson because on August 14 she said Obama started the Afghanistan war and was again caught for writing history as only she sees it.

The problem with McEnany’s and Pierson’s act is that it’s stale, hackneyed and in need of still another show doctor. They’ve already brought in a new director, Kellyanne Conway. By automatically refuting every anti-Trump comment, no matter what the topic, and trying to change the subject, they are perceived as programmed actresses in a Trump production of Stepford Wives. (And the vitriolic manner in which they deliver their shtick is additional proof, in my opinion, that Dorothy Parker was correct when she said, “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.”)

Male leads as Stepford husbands can be filled by Mr. Clovis, Jeffrey Lord and Boris Epshteyne, who along with other Trump surrogates think the Trump show is ready for a White House debut. At this stage, it looks like it might close out of town. (Beginning mid August, additional African-Ameicans and Hispanics were added to the cast in an attempt to broaden the audience, but the attack acting technique remained the same.) But would be theatrical producers might be interested to bankroll a show about Trump’s campaign titled, “Statements I have made that backfired because people don’t understand sarcasm.”

The spiniest of spins I’ve heard to date was on August 18, when Trump’s new campaign manager, Ms. Conway, said on CNN that, “I think it helps us to be a little behind. It lights a fire under us . . . .” She was backed up by GOP strategist Alice Stewart. (Both advocates of the Rumpelstiltskin election theory of spinning straw into gold?) Ms. Conway also said on New Day about Trump, “Let Him Be Him.”

Question. Isn’t that what got him into trouble with voters in the first place?

After listening to the Trump surrogates for over a year they remind me of the ancient alchemists that tried to turn lead into gold. Clinton surrogates also try to dismiss questions, but at least they don’t seem loaded up on caffeine like Pierson and McEnany. (Spinning must be difficult for Trump surrogates given the many different flip-flops they have to defend each time there is a campaign shakeup, new strategy or when the candidate contradicts himself.)

Recently, some cable TV anchors seem exasperated when the Trump surrogates refuse to answer their questions, interrupt opposing viewpoints and anchor’s comments, Epshteyne, Pierson and McEnany in particular, but keep on inviting them back to let them sprout their propaganda instead of cutting them off. Democratic spokespersons are more polite and not as strident, maybe because their candidate is winning.

A typical cable TV political report goes something like this: Reporter: “The Trump campaign has said the following (whatever) about Hillary Clinton.” A Democratic spokesperson is asked to respond. And cable considers that good journalism. In addition, all of the questions asked are generalizations without asking for the fine print specifics that appear in major print publications, probably because the cable reporters don’t know the specifics. Cable reporters equate tough questioning with asking questions in a stern, self-assured voice.

As I’ve long said, cable TV political reporting is less than journalism 101. It’s the anti-journalism. A better name for cable political reporting would be ‘Repetition Babel.”

If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny the way cable TV lets spinners get away with their contradictory statements. When Trump was ahead in the polls they consistently alluded to them; once Clinton took the lead, these same spinners said that August polls are meaningless, but changed their mind when the polls tightened at the end of the month.

Political reporting on cable TV holds a special place in the journalism Hall of Shame. Coverage resembles the movie “Groundhog Day,” as pundits repeat the same humdrum analysis dozens of times a day, 365 days a year. Coverage is usually limited to opposing views from partisan spokespersons echoing party or candidates’ talking points. Or interviews are conducted with think tank experts without the hosts telling the viewers the tankers’ philosophy, giving the impression that they are listening to unbiased experts.

Most often tough questions are never asked; neither are unexpected questions so the guests are rarely caught off guard. Are tough questions not asked because many of these programs would cease to be if guests were asked tough questions and refused to appear? Or maybe the determination about who appears is that they are paid by the political campaigns and not by the cable shows.

I believe that cable TV political reporting fosters a less informed voter. By permitting demagogic-like statements by surrogates, the truth is minimized to all but the truly politically-informed viewers.

Perhaps the most despicable person on cable TV might be Sean Hannity, who in the past had to apologize when he was caught for “inadvertently” using old file footage to give the impression that the tape matched his current commentary. He throws out accusations without facts hoping that his true believers will accept them, reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy. His conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health might be the low point of unsubstantiated false comments by Trump supporters. Hannity’s excuse for his excesses is that he’s not a journalist, as if that makes misleading people okay.

Hannity’s babel has always been questioned, but Rudy Giuliani had some integrity until he began his anti-Clinton attacks, citing the internet as a research tool as evidence of Clinton’s health problems.

Sleaziness on cable TV isn’t limited to Hannity. On August 29, the networks jumped all over the news that Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin was separating from her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, with speculation that it might affect Clinton’s campaign and also reported on Trump’s tweet that because of the marriage he was worried that national security might have been breached. And the cable TV darling of the moment, Conway, supported Trump’s sleazy comments. Not surprising that when Conway worked for failed Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin she defended his statement about “legitimate rape,” saying Akin showed his principle.

Cable TV is also guilty of zeroing in on the most minuscule alleged wrong doing, in their opinion, and blowing it out of proportion by inviting opposing spokespersons to debate it. The producers of those contrived programs should refer to the Oxford dictionaries for the meaning of Yellow Journalism, not that they would ever change their practices because without fostering controversy they couldn’t fill their 24/7 time slots with truly important news.

The miniscule good news about cable is that recently more hosts are at least attempting, unsuccessfully, to stop sitting idly by while Trump spokespeople spin the truth or tell outright lies. The bad news is that for well over a year cable hosts let their programs become pure propaganda outlets. (Trump surrogate Boris Epshteyne on MSNBC September 2 and on CNN on September 3 is a prime example, refusing to answer host’s questions by attacking Clinton, as has been the wont of other Trump supporters since the beginning of the campaign.) That means countless thousands of one-sided inaccurate opinions are allowed that might influence voters. Instead of ending the interview(s), the cable hosts continually invite the “no answer surrogates” back on their programs. And that should be a no-no.

While cable news has shown a slight improvement in its handling of the political news recently, it still has miles to go for viewers to depend on it for complete, aggressive, important coverage. The latest on-going example began on

August 22, when Trump called for a special prosecutor to look into the many “pay for play” activities of the Clinton Foundation, which the cable networks couldn’t get enough of. But what was largely missing from cable’s anything goes reporting was that Trump’s accusations had not been proven. Just another example of what cable excels at: “Entertainment journalism.” Any comparison of cable news reporting to that of the AP, USA TODAY, New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or other major print publications is an oxymoron, although the AP was guilty of misleading, cherry picking reporting about Clinton meetings re the Clinton Foundation.

Even though a slight improvement has occurred recently, cable TV’s political reporting’s lifeline is still largely “he said, she said,” “gotcha” questioning, regardless of the facts or veracity of the topics. Unquestionably missing are reporters telling surrogates during their filibusters, ‘That’s not factually true.”

Also, cable TV “reporter educators” seemingly grade the candidates on a curve. Trump has been so outlandish in his comments that every day he does not say something outrageous cable says he’s pivoting (to what?) Clinton is always being attacked, perhaps because she refuses to give in to cable’s demand that she hold a press conference? The past accomplishments for the public good of Trump and Clinton have been locked in a cable box and deep- sixed. What would make the cable reporters happy is if Clinton would run the campaign the way they want her to, instead of sticking to her own strategy. She should do what’s best for her, not the optics obsessed cable TV reporters.

The inadequacy of cable news political reporting can be summed up by the following comments by anchors that are uttered frequently: “This is a very important question. You have ten seconds to answer it” or “We have very important breaking news that we’ll bring to you after a commercial break.” (Translation: Nothing is more important than our commercials or maybe the “important” information really isn’t that important.)

It’s been said many times that the gold standard of journalism has diminished because of financial pressures. Cable TV has replaced the gold standard with fool’s gold. Cable TV political reporting’s slogan should be: “Shibboleth is our lifeline.”

* * *

Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs.