My latest for NOQ Report

My latest commentary piece for NOQ Report: On the embarrassment that is the recent Stacey Abrams profile in the Washington Post and how it exemplifies the national news media’s devolution into partisan public relations work. (NOTE: The image below is not part of the NOQ Report article.)…/05/18/a-tale-of-two-veep-candidates/

Abrams Palin

🎼 One of these things is not like the other…

Words of wisdom (especially now)


Prager U: “A Fine Time to Become an American”

I found this short video from Prager U to be interesting and reaffiriming, what with the 4th looming. While it does have a bit of a political POV (it’s @PragerU, after all), it was not as heavyhanded as I expected.


“A Fine Time to Become an American” via @YouTube

A dangerous time to tell the truth in America…and Portland

Just a quick observation and prediction (of sorts) regarding two high-profile attacks involving gay men of color in 2019.

When then-“Empire” star Jussie Smollett claimed that he had been the victim of a hate crime in January – he said he was assaulted by two white men invoking Trump – it generated extensive coverage and media hand-wringing for weeks. This coverage ensued despite suspicions very early on that the attack was a hoax. Of course, those suspicions turned out to be true.

Yesterday, journalist Andy Ngo was viciously assaulted by (ironically labeled) “Antifa” thugs during protests in the increasingly dystopian city of Portland, Oregon. Ngo has been covering Antifa’s illiberal and illegal activities in that city for quite some time, documenting both the excesses of that extremist group as well as the deliberate fecklessness of Mayor Ted Wheeler in addressing the problem. Yesterday’s attack sent Ngo to the hospital; initial reports on Twitter indicated that he might have a brain bleed among other injuries.

If the same media “firefighters” who have railed endlessly about the dangers of journalism since 2016 are largely silent in the coming week, what does that tell us? What is different about this attack? It involved a gay man of color, a journalist at that, and it happened during this “dangerous time to tell the truth in America”. 

The attack on Ngo dominated a portion of the conversation on Twitter that evening, though sadly, the outpouring of sympathy and shock was accompanied by some vile remarks lauding the assault. Even some journalists and pundits were quick to make excuses for Antifa’s thuggery. In a few cases, some went full “blame the victim”, ludicrously suggesting that Ngo was targeted not for his journalistic work but for alleged racism on his part. In other words, “he had it coming”.

The following day, Ngo’s assault got brief – and I stress “brief” – mentions on “Reliable Sources” on CNN as well as stories from CBS, Fox, and others as part of almost-as-brief coverage of the Portland protests overall. Let’s see if those accounts regarding the beatdown of a gay journalist of color doing his job are the beginning of significant media coverage or the end of a perfunctory CYA exercise on the media’s part.

But surely, this won’t be the end of the coverage, right? The media will treat this actual, on-the-job attack on a gay journalist of color at least as extensively as they did a fake attack on a gay non-journalist of color like Smollett, right? After all, how many journalists and media pundits have opined ad nauseam since the 2016 election about how it is “a dangerous time to tell the truth in America”.

If the same media “firefighters” who have railed endlessly about the dangers of journalism since 2016 are largely silent in the coming week, what does that tell us? What is different about this attack? It involved a gay man of color, a journalist at that, and it happened during this “dangerous time to tell the truth in America”.

Here’s what it will tell me: If the attack doesn’t get significant coverage in the coming week, it can be used as prima facia evidence that many in the national media don’t really care about threats to journalists unless those journalists toe the party line regarding the progressive narrative.

We’ll see.

The New York Times has jumped the shark

The “Old Gray Lady” is turning blue…code blue.

The once venerable New York Times – supposedly the nation’s premier newspaper – today published an op-ed calling for the harassment of low-level government employees as part of the ongoing immigration issue at the border.

Let that sink in. This is not some radical partisan ragsite like Vox or Infowars. It was The New York Times. America’s “newspaper of record” did this.

image.pngThey provided a platform on their opinion pages for an open-throated call to identify, shun and – let’s be realistic here – harass ICE employees at all levels. The article specifically noted that “foot soldiers” (low-level employees) should also be targeted. The author – a humanities professor and attorney in the United Kingdom – claims she is not calling for doxxing. Apparently, she naively believes that her recommendation would not lead to doxxing, cyberbullying and perhaps even violence.

The author’s dangerous and objectionable suggestion is not what primarily concerned me, reprehensible though it was. The fact that such a reckless call to action could find sanctuary in a presumably responsible newspaper is what raised red flags. Is this what journalism and media at the national level in America has come to?

Multiple polls like this one show that Americans increasingly distrust media sources. Even polling that reflects modest rebounds still show an anemic level of trust in American news media. I would argue that this sentiment is both understandable and appropriate if we are talking about the national news media in America – i.e., national newspapers and the national news broadcasters. I would also include most online “news” sites in this assessment. (I still maintain that local journalism is a profession where reporters are producing a good product that gets it right more often than wrong. The “elite” in the national and online news media could benefit from emulating their local peers more often.)

And what has happened to make the media seem so untrustworthy? A number of factors are involved, but I would posit that a large part of the dynamic is financial. In an age where more and more pressure is placed on news media organizations and the journalists within them to turn a profit, standards seems to be increasingly giving way to an emphasis on website visits and social media engagement – i.e., “clicks” – which can be monetized vis a vis ad revenues. This might explain why a presumably responsible editorial board like the one at The New York Times would provide a platform for a de facto incitement to harassment and perhaps even violence. Then again, maybe they like what the author suggested. It is impossible to say.

Of course, op-ed columns do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial boards that approve them. But does the editorial leadership not ultimately decide what does and does not get space on their pages, digital and otherwise? Presumably, they have criteria and standards they apply to this decision-making process, and they don’t let just anybody argue their cases in their opinion section. Whether Times editors agreed or disagreed with the positions that this author took is immaterial. But do they actually believe that her commentary was responsible…particularly in the context of today’s hyper-polarized, tinder box environment? Or, has the need to drive clicks and revenue pushed even the Times to the point where such questions are secondary?

The column in question makes me wonder.

If this is the beginning of a trend, what is next? For example, I noticed recently that there is an emerging debate in and around the LGBT community about promoting children in drag. It came up several times in recent weeks during the Pride Month observance. (As with the immigration issue in the Times op-ed piece, I do not mention this to take sides on the issue of drag kids. Both issues are separate from the point of this blog post.) However, the drag kid controversy suggests an informative analogy here. While responsible newspapers and media outlets can and should provide a platform for commentary on both sides of the day’s issues, where should the line be drawn regarding what is acceptable fare? The reprobates at NAMBLA have been vocal on the drag kid issue. Would America’s newspaper of record offer a spokesman for that organization a byline on its pages? Until recently, I would’ve laughed at an idea like that. Now… I’m not laughing. Whatever else one could say about a NAMBLA-bylined op-ed in a major newspaper or outlet, it would unquestionably prompt a tsunami of clicks, social media buzz, and so on if it were allowed. And that seems to be the overriding goal in more and more of what the national and online news media do.

image.pngMost Boomers and GenXers know the origin of the phrase “jump the shark”. It stems back to an episode of the once-wildly popular ABC series “Happy Days”. Long story short – “jumping the shark” is shorthand for when a TV show starts engaging in desperate (and sometimes embarrassing) attempts to maintain its viability. Over time, this phrase has evolved for use beyond the small screen.

If today’s New York Times column is an indication of things to come, perhaps the Old Gray Lady and the editors at some other once-prestigious media outlets should start waxing their water skis.


Trump’s failings as a man mean he doesn’t get to “count” as a president

If you need proof that Donald Trump is not a good president, today’s decision by the Supreme Court is another proof point…although perhaps not for the reasons you are thinking.

As explained by the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 not to issue a ruling on the controversial decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Instead, the decision was kicked back down to the lower courts for further action. Given the deadline to finalize the 2020 census questionnaire, this move leaves in doubt whether a citizenship question will be included.

Full disclosure: I’m not a Trump supporter, I didn’t vote for him, and I’ve never really cared for him. He’s always struck me as a smarmy, egotistical, grown-up trust fund child. (Perhaps I should say “aged” instead of “grown-up”.) That said, I do like a few of the things he’s done while in office. Two examples are tax reform and the general move to rein in the overregulation of previous administrations. I find it hard to argue that those moves have not greatly contributed to the economic upsurge since he took office. Moreover, I like the proposed citizenship question on the census. It makes no sense that a country should not know…or at least attempt to know… the actual number of citizens and non-citizens living within its borders. The opposition to the question, primarily from Democrats, progressives and leftists, strikes me as self-serving tripe. They claim to be opposed on “moral grounds”. The fact that it a citizenship question would likely reduce the electoral and congressional power held by deep blue states such as California New York is just a coincidence. 🙄🙄🙄

Like much of the left’s rhetoric involving illegal immigrants, immigration and citizenship, their slogans about people’s inalienable humanity and “personhood” are really just cover for “We need to swell the voter rolls with potential supporters this way because our ideas are unpalatable to the majority of actual U.S. citizens.”

Of course, any matter of immigration gets to the heart of why Trump is a fundamentally flawed president. Our immigration system is broken and in dire need of reform. But despite that and the prima facie case that can be made for including a citizenship question on the census, the Trump administration’s ability to act is hamstrung by Trump being…well, Trump. While I don’t like the decision the court issued today, the fact that they or anyone would look askance at any move by Trump involving immigration or citizenship is understandable. That sort of thing tends to happen when you open your presidential campaign with a speech that skips racist dog whistles and goes straight to racist bullhorns.

Trump’s ability to be an effective chief executive in the public sector is minimal at best. Today census question setback is just the latest proof of that.

Compounding the problem is the fact that a figure as loathsome as Trump is naturally going to have difficulty recruiting the best people for his cabinet. Enter Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who has done a less than stellar job in preparing the administration’s case regarding the citizenship question (see the article linked above). I guess we shouldn’t expect too much intellectual prowess from Wilbur, given his previous demonstration of same vis a vis the Campbell Soup can fiasco when tariffs were announced.

I understand why a lot of people voted for Trump. The urge to shoot a colossal middle finger to the establishment during the last election was understandable, particularly given that the Democrats chose to nominate one of the most unelectable, unlikable people in the world besides Trump himself. But politics in today’s polarized nation requires skill if you’re going to get anything done. And while Trump has shown himself at times to be a skilled campaigner, his ability to be an effective chief executive in the public sector is minimal at best.

Today census question setback is just the latest proof of that.

Rorshach 2.0’s first tweet


Twitter is indifferent to me. I’ve seen its true face. The TLs are extended gutters, and the gutters are full of hot takes; and when the trends finally fade away, all the vermin will drown in their menchies.

The accumulated filth of all their GIFs and tweets will foam up about their keyboards, and all the pundits and blue checks will look up and tweet “Save us!”

…and I’ll log on, and subtweet “Why even bother?”

— Rorshach 2.0’s digital journal, October 12th, 2019

An open letter to my Twitter troll

Interesting experience this week: For only the second time since I got on Twitter six or seven years ago, I started getting harassed by an honest-to-goodness troll. He/she is literally the kind of tweeter that opens the conversation with vulgarity and then goes down from there. In this case, my troll opened with an image of a toddler extending the middle finger. My offense, in his/her eyes, was that I criticized Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. This apparently makes me a “fascist, cuck, Trumpian, etc.” who should “eat him”. (I mean, I voted for Johnson and have denigrated Trump since the turn of the millennium, but who am I to say who I actually support?) Needless to say, I was dealing with a class act with a razor-sharp intellect. He/she kept tweeting discourse-free bile and rage at me despite me repeatedly making it clear that I didn’t want to engage.

Finally, even though I’m no fan of blocking, muting or reporting accounts – it seems inconsistent with my free discourse mindset on social media – I finally had to do the latter two. This troll would not let up – he/she has been stalking my posts since Wednesday despite knowing that I reported him/her to Twitter.

Anyway, once I stopped being annoyed with my troll, I started to think about the life such people must lead, and I started feeling really depressed for him/her/them.

I spend a lot of time on social media. I often debate issues with people, sometimes pointedly, so I know how even restrained interactions like that can get to feeling a little toxic over time. That’s why I occasionally take a sabbatical for a few weeks from all social media. So when I thought about what it must be like to live on social media like my troll does, endlessly engaging in pointless bile…

I’m not a particularly sentimental person, but I felt legitimately heartsick for people like my troll when that thought hit me.

“…once I stopped being annoyed with my troll, I started to think about the life such people must lead, and I started feeling really depressed for him/her/them.”

I suspect that my troll is reading this, given the aforementioned stalking of my Twitter feed. Thankfully, I won’t know if he/she replies, given the mute. Regardless – and I am speaking directly to my troll now – I meant what I said above. I genuinely feel badly for you. Life is too short, dude (or whatever the feminine is for “dude” these days). Give yourself a break and find a healthier way to channel your views/angst/etc.

Look, I’m all for advocating the positions I believe in on social media and trying to raise awareness of/persuade people on the matters I care about. But what you’re doing is nothing of the sort, whether you realize that or not. I hope at some point you realize that what I’m saying here really is not meant as a cheap shot or dig. You need to seriously reassess how you’re spending your time online. Get off the computer more, and go interact with real people – maybe even some people who you disagree with. Learn to phrase your arguments in ways that might actually further the causes you care about. Most of all, find a way to channel your feelings in a manner that can actually make you happy.

Because if you think that what you’re doing now makes you happy…that’s a really troubling sign.

Free speech… how do some people STILL not get it?

Having lacked the time in recent months to do any blogging, I’ve been looking forward to the summer break so that I could get back to the practice. Fortuitously – though somewhat unfortunately, given this post – a recent incident provided a timely impetus to start typing.

As anyone who follows me on Twitter (@MikeBreslin815) or reads my blog knows, two things that I am passionate about are free speech and media studies. As a career communicator who spent much of his career before academics dealing with the news media, I’ve always had a fascination with the industry. My interest in free speech should be somewhat self-evident given my profession, though I would hope that everyone cares about free speech, regardless of their vocation. Given all that, an online encounter I had with the editor of a leading educational news website gave me pause.

In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of coverage, both in academic and mainstream media, about an article written by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Tennessee. In it, she compared and contrasted the cases of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, posing some thought-provoking questions on issues of transgenderism and transracialism. In sadly predictable fashion, many in academe reacted furiously, claiming that Dr. Tuvel and the editors of Hypatia, the journal where it appeared, were products of “white and cisgender privilege” for daring to write/print the article. Hundreds of academics signed a petition calling for the article to be retracted, forcing the journal to offer a groveling apology.   So much for the spirit of open and free inquiry in academics. But I digress…

While perusing my weekly news email from Inside Higher Ed earlier today, I came across an article that I mistakenly thought was about the Tuvel situation. Upon opening it, I discovered it was about a different person, a professor at Texas A&M, who had raised the ire of some because of comments he made on racial issues several years ago. What struck me as interesting about the article was the fact that the editors of IHE had closed off the comments section that went with it, despite the fact that the article had only been posted two days earlier. Out of curiosity, I looked up the most recent IHE articles on Tuvel situation, only to discover that those comment sections were still open despite the fact that they had been online for more than a week. Upon seeing that, I posted a question for the editors (see graphic) in the comments for one of the Tuvel articles. Within minutes, I received the reply noted in the graphic.


I replied to the editor as follows:

“Appreciate your quick response. However, the latter half of your point is troublesome, to put it mildly. “Usefulness” in whose opinion? Considering the highly sensitive topics at play here (and in many other cases), it seems antithetical to the ideas of free expression, free speech, etc. to engage in such a practice, especially when inconsistencies are so easily identifiable. In an era where the media are under more fire than ever, I would hope that journalists (i.e., practitioners whose very profession relies on related freedoms, vis a vis freedom of the press) would be more disinclined than ever to do anything that could be construed as contrary to the principles expressed in the First Amendment. My two cents.”

I realized rather quickly that my hopes about journalists and their attitudes towards free speech were misplaced, at least in this case. My pending comment was deleted and not posted. Two subsequent comments that I made on this matter, pointing out the problematic nature of such censorship, were also deleted without posting. (Perhaps my comment  about the linkage between free speech and free press hit a little too close to a sensitive area.) It was only later, after I complained further through the publication’s Twitter feed, that my post finally went live.

Now, let me be clear about a few things before I go further. First, I fully recognize the right of any website owner to monitor/censor/edit anything on that site, including user comments. I, like anyone else who spent more than 10 minutes online in the last 10 years, realize how toxic the environment can become on comments pages, social media and the like. However, as a matter of journalistic principle, I would hope that all news media outlets and editors would be reluctant in the extreme to engage in anything that could even seem like censorship, particularly given the times we live in. Public confidence is already badly shaken in the media, via “fake news”, bias, sensationalism, infotainment (or pornewsgraphy®, as I termed it in a previous blog). As such, it seems counterintuitive that anyone in a profession that depends on the protections of the First Amendment, and which is under more negative scrutiny than ever, would be anything but supportive of those same rights for others.

Further, I am not suggesting that this incident or the actions of this editor are indicative of every journalist out there. I would like to think the truth is far from that. But this is certainly not the only time that I’ve seen instances of people engaging in behavior that is contrary to the ideas of free speech and open dialogue – many of whom should know better. I increasingly see it in news reports about higher education, where some professors and students posit that the answer to objectionable speech is not more speech, but censorship, disruption and/or (in extreme cases) violence.  Sadly, the people engaging in such behavior don’t realize that the solution to “bad speech” is not censorship or less speech; it is more speech.  Please note, I said more “speech”, as in words – not violence, childish behavior and the like, which some people mistakenly think constitutes acceptable expression. Sorry, but if you can’t make your point effectively without shouting people down or limiting their ability to be heard, there’s an excellent chance your  position is flawed to begin with. And, on the off chance it’s not, you’re simply defeating your own cause in the long term by making it anathema to reasonable people. That’s the sad part about such efforts – they are ultimately self-defeating, but the people behind them seem oblivious to that fact.

In the current environment, where so many people are speaking out about perceived losses of freedom, it seems ironic that so many of those same people are trying to erode the very rights that allow them to speak. In such cases, it seems apropos to note the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for – you might get it.”

A good question…