Has the Fourth Estate Elevated Itself to Ruling Class?
For 25 years I have made my living in public relations. Over the years I have established relationships with members of the New York City Press Corps who have allowed me to pitch story ideas. The stories that get picked up must pass intense scrutiny by reporters and editors who look for facts to back up my claims – that’s because the New York City Press Corps consists of the savviest people the “fourth estate” has ever known – upholding their responsibility to report the unbiased truth to the masses at all times.
Hundreds of years ago, the press was dubbed the “fourth estate” because it shared a relationship of trust with the “people”, whereas the first, second and third estates represent the elite and ruling classes who often use propaganda to keep the “people” in check. The trust between the “people” and the press is so strong that our founding fathers included the right of free speech in the American Bill of Rights. They wanted all Americans, especially the press, to feel free to speak out against their government without fear of arrest or retribution. That relationship was the focus of a recent movie titled, “The Post” based on a 1971 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post to report on the top secret “Pentagon Papers” without risk of censorship or punishment from the Nixon Whitehouse.
Preserving the trust between the fourth estate and the masses is so important that reporters and editors have gone to jail to protect their sources, that’s why I find it sadly ironic that in today’s society the press is calling on the President to edit his words to protect the fourth estate.
It began in 2015 when candidate Trump coined the phrase, “fake news”, accusing the New York Times and other news outlets of promoting Hillary Clinton while criticizing him. At the time I sided with the media because I shuddered at the thought of what would happen if the fourth estate began to exercise its power to direct the masses instead of inform us. Unfortunately, after the election I was forced to accept the truth that the fourth estate had broken its trust with the American people when it shamelessly began treating the President and his staff with disdain – the proof of which is evident by a recent statement from Jeff Zucker, President of CNN Worldwide after a series of bombs were delivered to offices of various news outlets and elected officials. The statement was issued via Tweet from @CNNPR and read, “There is a total and complete lack of understanding at the White House about the seriousness of their continued attacks on the media. The President, and especially the White House Press Secretary, should understand their words matter. Thus far, they have shown no comprehension of that.”
Mr. Zucker, is absolutely right – words do matter and his words are hypocritical. Just as The New York Times and The Washington Post stood up to protect free speech, even if it meant exposing government secrets and jeopardizing those fighting in the Vietnam War, every American, including the President, has the right to criticize those in power. Unfortunately, the entity in power in this case “IS” the fourth estate because it has clearly shown its open disdain for the American public and their choice of President.
Mr. Zucker prefers to blame President Trump for the negative perception of the press rather than admit that the fourth estate has breached its trust with the masses by using propaganda and public shaming to force people to succumb to political correctness.
Critics of President Trump say that he has lowered the standard of the office with his Tweets and rallies. Perhaps that is the natural by-product of the fourth estate elevating itself to “ruling” class.
Why the unraveling of American society will be traced back to “Sanctuary Cities and States”
Governors and Mayors across the country are proudly declaring that they are offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants living within their governing district. Instead of being criticized for their unabashed defiance of federal immigration laws these executives are being celebrated by their citizens, encouraging them to take their defiance one step further.
Recently, California State Senator Kevin deLeon announced that he has appointed Lizbeth Mateo to serve on a committee that advises the California Student Aid Commission. Mateo is a Mexican-born attorney and immigrant rights activist who came to the U.S. with her parents at age 14. She is an undocumented immigrant.
According to Fox News, in accepting the appointment Mateo said, “While undocumented students have become more visible in our state, they remain underrepresented in places where decisions that affect them are being made.”
De León called Mateo “a courageous, determined and intelligent young woman who at great personal risk has dedicated herself to fight for those seeking their rightful place in this country. While Donald Trump fixates on walls, California will continue to concentrate on opportunities.”
The feds have filed a lawsuit against California for their defiance of federal immigration laws. That news is now trending on social media.
So why should anyone care if Ms. Mateo is allowed to serve as an appointee to a government agency? She is educated enough to have passed the bar and at 33 years of age, she has spent enough time in America to understand policies and customs. With problems like school shootings and trouble with North Korea looming large, surely the government appointment of an undocumented immigrant isn’t a big deal right? Wrong! Here’s why.
A law is only effective when the majority of society agrees to obey it. If large numbers of citizens decide to stop obeying laws, there aren’t enough government officials to enforce them. If laws aren’t enforced, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
Across America, governors and mayors are openly defying federal immigration laws and a vocal group of citizens are encouraging them to continue. So what would happen if citizens who didn’t agree with the defiance decided not to pay their taxes because they feel that their mayors and governors are acting illegally and they don’t want to support illegal activity? Would they be within their rights to do so?
Let’s take it even further – what if large groups of citizens who don’t agree with other federal laws decide to defy those laws? Who will prosecute them? If they are prosecuted, will the defiance of these governors and mayors be used as a precedent in their favor? Will any federal law have teeth ever again?
As a democracy we change our government by electing representatives who create and pass bills that reflect our wishes. When government officials defy laws they are pulling on the loose threads in the fabric of America which can ultimately lead to the unraveling of our society.
If we want to remain a strong nation, we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to follow. We can, however, pick and choose representatives who will fight to change our laws instead of acting as if they are above them.
What is “fake news” and has it crept into mainstream media reporting?
What is “fake news” and has it crept into mainstream media reporting?
“Fake News” has been around since the advent of the internet. The short definition is a sensational headline presented by professional looking websites designed to get people to click so ads can be delivered – also known as “click bait”. The American public didn’t pay much attention to “fake news” until the 2016 Presidential Elections when then candidate Donald Trump accused mainstream media of creating “fake news” to increase ratings.
Almost immediately upon its utterance, “fake news” became an American household phrase – often used by conservative minded individuals who feel that the news media is slanted towards liberal point of view.
So is mainstream media guilty of slanting stories to attract likeminded individuals? And – if it is true, how does it impact the American way of life?
Let’s examine a recent New York Times story about the special election for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District. Democrat Connor Lamb faced off against Republican Rick Saccone and Libertarian Drew Miller. The Democrat has 49.8% of the vote – the Republican has 49.6% of the vote and the Libertarian has 0.6% of the vote.
Most experienced newspapers would report this election as a straight “too close to call,” because, even with 100% of districts reporting, there are still absentee ballots and military ballots left to count in addition to a likely recanvas of machines to ensure that there were no mistakes when the original count was taken. But the New York Times – the “Gray Haired Lady” of newspapers’ first paragraph in their story about the election stated this, “The Democrat and Republican in a special House election in the heart of Pennsylvania’s Trump country were divided by a few hundred votes in a race that was too close to call early Wednesday — an ominous sign for Republicans in a district that Donald J. Trump won by nearly 20 percentage points.”
Since the story doesn’t carry quotes from any Republicans stating that they are nervous or feel that the tight race is an “ominous sign”, the reader has no choice but to believe that the statement is the opinion of one of the three reporters writing the story.
Can this be considered “fake news”? Would the story attract the same attention if it reported – “18th Congressional Special Election Too Close To Call?” Or “Libertarian Candidate Plays Spoiler in Red District Special Election”? Both are facts but neither provide the reporters with the opportunity to berate the President of the United States as weak.
CNN reporters are unabashedly stating that the Democrat will win this seat and that fact should be a wakeup call for President Trump and the Republican Party.
The Washington Post reported the story this way: “A special election for a U.S. House seat was too close to call late Tuesday as Democrat Conor Lamb and Republican Rick Saccone were separated by several hundred votes in a race that had become a test of President Trump’s political clout.
With thousands of absentee and provisional ballots outstanding, Lamb earned 49.8 percent of votes cast and Saccone earned 49.6 percent, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press, which said the race was too close to project a winner.
A recount is possible if the candidates are separated by 0.5 percentage points or less.
Shortly before midnight, Saccone told his supporters that “it’s not over yet.”
Many of the facts are the same however the story is devoid of slant which was once a source of pride for media outlets.
So why should Americans be upset that mainstream media is reporting slanted stories? The answer can be summed up in one word – RUSSIA. Whether or not you believe that Russia had a favorite candidate in the 2016 elections our government has condemned Russian operatives for using social media and other media outlets as a vehicle to deliver election propaganda. If you are someone who believes that the Russian election propaganda impacted the election, then you must also admit that slanted news being delivered by mainstream media is also impacting the way Americans vote.
As millennials born into the internet era are coming of age to vote, we must, as a responsible industry, be diligent to unbiasedly report the facts. As consumers, we must demand no less from our media outlets for if we do not, we will suffer the same fate as the Russians, Germans and so many other countries who control media outlets in order to bombard their people with propaganda.
“Group think” is a dangerous thing and the antithesis of a free nation. The last time this country’s freedom of thought was threatened was during the Victorian Era when women of means suffered self-imposed body mutilation in their quest to achieve the fashionable tiny waist. It took women more than a century to break free of that destructive type of thinking. We cannot stand by and watch as a new form of group think grips our nation stripping away individuality from an unsuspecting generation.
We must demand impartiality from our American news media and reward those who provide it.
By the Numbers – Why a Female, Cuban/Greek Can Become New York City’s Next Mayor
By Leticia Remauro
As a former Republican County Chairman and a political operative, I have a certain affection for numbers – especially when they are in the form of demographics, voting trends, polling data and political analysis. To me, and others like me, those numbers are the basis for every political campaign. I used those numbers when, in February 2015, I predicted that Trump would likely be the Republican nominee even though I was supporting someone else, and again on November 8th 2016 when I appeared on PIX11 morning show declaring that Trump would beat Clinton in Florida and win the Presidency.
How did I know that Trump would win? The same way I know that a female, Cuban-Greek candidate can win this year’s Mayoral contest – I thoroughly analyze, numbers and voting trends.
There are many pollsters that get it wrong. A recently issued Quinnipiac University poll on the Mayor’s race showed that de Blasio had the highest approval rating of his term and that he beat both the male and female Republican candidates in the race. The press release that accompanied the poll carried a quote from Maurice Carroll that the hot race for Mayor would occur four years from now. Qunnipiac’s numbers may paint that picture, but their October 2016 poll also had Clinton beating Trump by more than 6%.
Besides the fact that the Qunnipiac poll was taken just as Malliotakis was entering the race – the other reason I consider the poll to be flawed is that the margin of error in key categories which favor a Republican candidate is higher than for those that favor a Democrat candidate. The margin of error for Staten Island voters in the QU poll is 11.32% and for Republicans is 8.95%. The acceptable margin of error for me is 3% even within categories. The QU poll margin of error for Hispanic voters is 7.63% which further skews the results against Malliotakis who has a connection with these voters due to her Cuban heritage.
Other factors that might skew the poll (I say might because there is no mention of how many voters were surveyed within each borough) is whether the number of voters surveyed accurately reflects the percentage of voters registered and turned out in each borough. Records show that more voters are registered in Brooklyn with Queens, Manhattan, Bronx and Staten Island following in descending order. However, voting trends in the last six election cycles where the entire city votes for an office ie: President, Governor and Mayor, shows Brooklyn leads in voter turnout followed by Queens for a majority of the elections. If the QU poll did not have the correct percentage of voters surveyed in each borough then it can’t be accurate.
With that out of the way, let me tell you why I think Malliotakis has a chance to beat an incumbent for the second time in her career. The female Cuban/Greek candidate connects with voters of Brooklyn and Staten Island because she currently represents them, being returned to office with increasing percentages of victory. She is the more likely candidate to connect with Queens voters who tend to lean more conservative because they face similar challenges as those voters living in Staten Island. She naturally connects with women whose turnout increases to 3:1 in New York City when a female is on the ballot. Lastly, she connects with Hispanics whose voter enrollment has grown by more than 4% as of 2016 (Malliotakis’ mother is a Cuban refugee). If Malliotakis can present a message that deepens the connection between herself and these groups of voters, she can beat incumbent Mayor de Blasio and find herself living in Gracie Mansion.
Where do Paul Massey and Bo Deitl fit in? Flawed as it may be, the Quinnipiac poll showed that Malliotakis and her primary challenger, Paul Massey were even in name recognition – this despite the fact that Massey has spent eight months and $4 million dollars on his campaign to date. Massey out raised incumbent Mayor de Blasio in two of the three reporting cycles but that did little to help him gain traction. That’s because Massey hasn’t been able to draw a distinction between himself and de Blasio – in fact, Massey gave the maximum contribution to de Blasio in 2013, a fact that de Blasio is sure to use against him if Massey should manage to win the primary which is unlikely.
As for Bo Deitl, because he is a widely known television character who has enormous energy and is given to humorous and outrageous commentary, he may have been able to help Mayor de Blasio win a second term if he had been given the Independence or Conservative Party line. But since he is creating his own line that will be far down on the ballot, he will have little impact on this year’s election.
Now comes the big question – how important is it to have more money than your opponent in an election? The answer is easy – Hillary outspent Trump; Cuomo outspent Pataki; Catsimatidis outspent Lhota; Hyer-Spencer outspent Malliotakis. In all cases, the less funded candidate won. Why? Because money is necessary to run a viable campaign but it is not the most important component to achieve victory.
In a New York City race where registered Republicans make up approximately 10% of registered voters, a winning Republican campaign begins with the candidate. Can that candidate connect with voting groups that cut into his/her opponent’s base? Is the candidate distinctly different than his/her opponent? Will a higher percentage of likely voters connect with the candidate over the incumbent? Does the candidate have the energy and means to get his/her message out to the public?
The Malliotakis vs. de Blasio match up provides a clear contrast for voters. Malliotakis is a Cuban/Greek woman who sued de Blasio. She has a natural connection to women & Hispanics who are primarily registered Democrats. She has been elected to four terms by voters in Staten Island and Brooklyn. She proved she could raise money because she out raised both de Blasio and Massey for daily intake during the last filing ($9,400+ a day to their average $7,000 daily intake). Lastly, running in a Primary against Massey will help to elevate Malliotakis’ name recognition thereby erasing any negative impact resulting from her entering the race late.
Malliotakis knows how to take out an incumbent; has a natural connection to several large voting groups; is a proven fundraiser and can draw a clear distinction between herself and Massey and herself and de Blasio. For these reasons I give Malliotakis a good shot to become Mayor of New York City in November.
How PC Caused a Huge Upset in DC
By Leticia Remauro
On November 8, 2016, pollsters, newscasters, the Hollywood elite and big city dwellers were all dealt a shocking blow when Donald Trump was elected as the 45th President of the United States of America. I watched the returns in my home, surrounded by my family who had spent the last 18 months glued to the television following the campaign on 24 hour news shows such as CNN and Fox & Friends. In the 23 years I have spent in politics, never has my family been this interested in an election.
What made this election different from elections past was that they had a candidate with whom they could identify. A straight talking, unabashed, billionaire who didn’t mince words and who gave a voice to millions of people who feared punishment by the PC police if they dared to speak their mind.
Americans have been forced to acquiesce to pressure from newscasters, college professors and those who make their living in the sports and entertainment industry to strike certain words from the English language because those words might make people feel bad. They tell us that it is better to be “fake” than to speak honestly and risk hurting someone’s feelings because, as Americans, we all have the right to feel good all the time.
Well, fake is what they wanted and fake is what they got. All those polls that showed Hillary Clinton winning were flawed because the masses didn’t answer the questions honestly.
Anyone who bothered to venture out of the big city and speak to voters one on one could have told these political pundits that Donald Trump was going to win. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Women, Men, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Gay, old and young all had the same opinion about government – it didn’t represent THEM. They felt disenfranchised and they wanted to vote for someone who sounded and acted more like them – so they did.
Many of my political pundit friends have spent the last few days scrambling to figure out “what went wrong” with the election. That question, in and of itself, demonstrates why their election predictions were flawed. Nothing “went wrong” with the election – what went wrong was their belief that people would give them an honest answer while the political talking heads and Hollywood elite were telling them that only racists, idiots, the uneducated and right wing lunatics would cast their vote for Donald Trump.
It amazes me how the “thought police,” who preach sensitivity and acceptance for all people have zero compunction about shaming those who believe differently than they do.
In the days following the election, Madonna, Cher, Lady Gaga and Mark Ruffalo have abandoned their PC philosophy to march alongside protesters holding signs calling President-elect Trump “Hitler” while his likeness is burned in effigy. While they have every right to express their political views, they shouldn’t be surprised when the people who supported Donald Trump become offended and stage a boycott against them.
Just look at what happened to the NFL when they went down the PC path by allowing Colin Kapernick to kneel during the National Anthem. American’s responded by boycotting football games causing ratings to plummet by double digits.
Speaking at a Dealbook conference last week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell ignored that fact and instead blamed the ratings tank on the broadcasts being too long and the referee’s calls being bad. Maybe he needs to do what the political pollsters didn’t do and give a bit more credit to the American public before it is too late for him too.
Campaign 2016 – Comey, Commies, the KKK and Wikileaks – how the 24 hour news cycle has affected the 2016 Presidential Election
Some would say that the Presidential Election of 2016 has been one of the most contentious cycles in our nation’s history, and they may be right. Not because of the animosity between the candidates but because of the way in which Americans are receiving information about the candidates and who is voting for whom.
A look back in time shows that the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes as the 18th President of the United States was likely the most bizarre and divisive election because the Presidency was decided in a backroom deal in the Wormley Hotel rather than at the ballot box. New York Governor Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but was one electoral vote shy of the required 185. Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon’s electoral votes were tied up with allegations of fraud and corruption so Congress established a 15 member commission of senators, congressman and Supreme Court justices who gave the election to Hayes in exchange for the Republican removing all US troops from the south, allowing Democrats to control the region and reverse the gains African Americans made in the post Civil War era.
While the unconventional election of Hayes shook American democracy to its core, few people actually know about it because during those times news traveled too slowly to actually impact elections.
Today, thanks to digital newspapers, social media, and a 24 hour news cycle that more resembles theater than reporting of facts, Americans are exposed to a steady stream of information and disinformation which they are asked to decipher. Even with instantaneous fact checking during debates, the tone and bent of how those facts are delivered greatly impact what we believe. Add to the mix, the advent of reporting on early voting from key states and the ball of confusion grows ever larger.
The two major party candidates have the most unfavorable ratings of any other Presidential candidates in history so information for or against those candidates can literally sway the election. That fact is borne out by the see-sawing polls that are delivered to us daily. So whose responsibility is it to control the information delivered to the American public during a campaign? Some say that it should be the role of government by controlling campaign spending. Others say it should be the role of media which has an obligation to remove bias from reporting. For a libertarian leaning Republican campaign consultant, I say the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the American voter.
There is no doubt that messaging plays a huge role in every election cycle and the impact of FBI head, Comey’s letter to congress re-opening then re-closing the Clinton email investigation; information posted on Wikileaks supposedly obtained by Russians and the endorsement of Trump by a KKK backed newspaper will impact the way we think. But in the end it is the voter’s responsibility to make his and her decision based on the information s/he believes is most important.
If this campaign taught us anything it is that digital media and 24 hour news stations are delivering information in a volume so large that it may impact the amount of money a candidate needs to spend to be successful in future campaigns.
When we follow the money in the 2016 Presidential Campaign cycle, it’s ironic that those who raised and spent the most money weren’t the clear winners. Bernie Sanders outraised Hillary Clinton yet lost the primary. Jeb Bush outraised and spent Donald Trump and he lost the primary. In the general election, Hillary Clinton has outraised and spent Donald Trump by a 2-1 margin, yet on the eve of the election, polls are showing them neck and neck. This is a clear contradiction to those on Capitol Hill who are calling for campaign finance reform and limiting the amount of money candidates can spend in a campaign.
While no one can say for certain what will happen on Election Day 2016, (or months after if the polls turn out to be true and the election is handed to Congress to decide) we can safely say that in this election cycle, free and social media had a greater impact on voters’ opinions than the amount of money each candidate raised and spent.
2016 may well be the election cycle when the phrase, “follow the money” is replaced with “follow me on Twitter.”
Leticia Remauro