Has the fire consumed us?

September 3, 2018

CUYAHOGA FALLS, OH, Sept. 3, 2018 — More than 220 years ago, George Washington warned his country about the dangers of political faction. In his Farewell Address, Washington cautioned against the “baneful effects” of factions, calling them “A fire not to be quenched.” He wrote. “It demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

As we pause today in gratitude to our nation’s workers for their hard work and ingenuity, it’s apparent to many that partisan factions have in fact consumed every aspect of daily life. Sports? Check. Media and entertainment? Check. Religion? Check. Family relations? Check. Government and law enforcement? Sadly, check.

Journalism? Huge checkmark goes here too. While a few media outlets still strive for balance and objectivity, the vast majority are now easily classified as “left” or “right” in how they report and in the narratives they employ. Here is a chart which Sharyl Attkisson https://sharylattkisson.com/, long-time CBS News investigative reporter who’s now on Sinclair Broadcasting with a Sunday news analysis show named “Full Measure” has developed.

Suggestion: Refer to this chart whenever you are reading or following stories about government and politics. It will enable you to better evaluate the source and detect possible bias.

Thwarting the peaceful transition of power

What differentiates the U.S. from other nations? One shining aspect of our democracy is the peaceful transition of power from one duly- elected candidate to another, from one political party to another. As Nicandro Iannacci of the National Constitution Center recalls the words from Ronald Reagan about this in his first inaugural address:  “… few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”

Now, enter Donald Trump’s and Russia “collusion” into this equation. The question of what Trump did with respect to Russia in the 2016 election received an amazing high level of media coverage in January 2017 in the weeks prior to and just after Trump’s inauguration. In hindsight, stories about possible Trump-Russia collusion had a sense of apophenia in their approach.  Apophenia is a tendency to see patterns or shapes in random situations. Many in our divided public couldn’t accept the fact that Trump had won the electoral vote, and there must be some unique or unparalleled reason for it.

Ready-made to explain why, almost on cue, came charges of Russian tampering with the 2016 Presidential elections and possible Trump collusion with Vladimir Putin. It “fit” almost perfectly, since all it would have taken is a shift of about 50,000 or so votes in a handful of states to change the electoral vote outcome.

Within his first 120 days of being in office, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and then found himself subject of a Special Prosecutor’s investigation headed up by a former FBI director, Comey’s predecessor, Robert Mueller. Mueller’s mandate: To investigate Russian interference in the elections, and to look for any connections between those and the Trump campaign. Conspiracy would be a more precise term than collusion for what Mueller is seeking, by the way.

Trump and his supporters quickly reacted with cries of “witch hunt” and pointed out the double standard of the FBI’s investigative process. Tens of millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation from numerous international sources, including Russians. Hillary Clinton and her team were recklessly disobeying laws and protocols with securing their own e-mail communication, and the FBI looked the other way.

Almost lost in this titanic tug-of-war is this: For the first time in our democracy, one partisan side refused to go along with the peaceful transition of power. In 1960 Republican Richard Nixon could have litigated questionable vote tallies in Illinois and elsewhere, but chose to place country over politics. In 2000, Democratic candidate Al Gore could have continued to battle Florida, but put aside further fighting for the good of the country.

The opposite took place in 2016-2017. First there was a concerted effort to persuade Electoral College electors to not cast their votes for Trump. Next, rather than accept a Trump presidency, we saw boycotts of the inauguration, witnessed counter demonstrations, and heard calls of “Impeach 45” from Democratic Congressmen, all in January 2017. These same partisans saw the slightest shred of Russian involvement in the 2016 elections (unconnected to Trump) as a pattern of conspiracy – apophenia.

This non acceptance of an election’s outcome has but one parallel in nearly 230 years of our nation choosing its President under our Constitution. That was in 1860-61, when South Carolina and six other states seceded from the Union in response to Abraham Lincoln’s election. Next there came the Civil War.

A DISinformation Campaign

It is with this perspective need to enter a brief look at both Christopher Steele and his Steele dossier, and top FBI officials Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

Steele is a former British spy (MI6) with numerous contacts to top Russian intelligence agents, including current FSB and SVR (Russian federal security and spy) members. He was in essence “double dipping” in 2016, being paid by both the FBI and Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm which (for this project) had as its client the Democratic National Committee.

Steele produced a dossier, or a collection of documents about Trump and the2016 election, which alleged (among many other things) conspiracy between members of Donald Trump’s election team and Russian agents. Rather than repeating all these allegations, look at the dossier (largely un-redacted) which the media outlet BuzzFeed published last year. A link to it is below. Judge for yourself.

As a stand-alone, Steele’s dossier seems to contain damning information against Donald Trump and its campaign. But it’s just a small part of a much bigger picture. While Steele was composing and sharing his dossier with the FBI, high-level Bureau members Peter Strozk and Lisa Page were focused on exonerating Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing and ensuring that Clinton would end up winning the November presidential election. This is according to a Washington Post story which examined thousands of text messages which the two (who were having an affair) exchanged. Strozk interviewed Hillary Clinton as part of the e-mail investigation, examined Russian involvement in the election and – until removed – was on Special Prosecutor William Mueller’s team as well.

Here are two agents’ texts, quoted  verbatim from the Washington Post:

Aug. 8, 2016

Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

 

Aug. 15, 2016

Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe) office — that there’s no way he (Trump) gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

 

Later, after Trump’s election but before the inauguration, Steele leaked portions of his dossier to media members. Later still came Mueller and the Special Prosecutor. Here’s another text message:

May 18, 2017, shortly after the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III

Strzok: “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with [the Clinton investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.”

If one looks at the actions which Strozk, Steele, Bruce Ohr, and others in the FBI took, it is strikingly reminiscent of a DISINFORMATION campaign.

Not misinformation. We know that many are making efforts to misinform us. But as authors Ion Pacepa (a defector from Romania) and Professor Ron Rychlak explain in their book “Disinformation,” a disinformation campaign takes a kernel of truth, wraps a false narrative around that kernel, and then widely disseminates that narrative to deliberately discredit someone or something.

If we “connect the dots” as to what transpired within the FBI from June 2016 to May 2017, what we see is a high-level effort to draw attention away from Clinton and to discredit Trump, so much so as to make it  severely difficult or impossible for the latter to govern.

That is a horrible assessment of where our FBI was sitting only a short time ago. This is light years removed from the peaceful transition of power prescribed in Article I, Section 4 and Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution. It’s more reminiscent of “Seven Days in May” instead.

Just three years ago …

I predicted in this blog that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination for President.  Here is a link to that posting:

Friends questioned my sanity then. They don’t now, because some of them also understand how the public has an almost toxic reaction to the media. According to Pew Research, trust in the media hit an all-time low in 2017-18. Only 21 percent of the public has a lot of trust in national news organizations. Twenty-nine (29) percent have little or no trust in them.

What’s worse – younger adults pay no attention to the news. Research indicates a large percentage of those under 25 pay attention only to whatever stories pop up on their “most popular” feed from the social media services they most frequently use. Many are reading or watching no news at all.

What’s probably worst of all is that few executives in the free press, either on the editorial or the publishing/advertising side, seem to fully comprehend the long-term detrimental effects of a knock-down, drag-out war between the Fourth Estate and the current occupant of the Oval Office. There will be no winners if this continues, and the biggest loser is our democracy.

A link to the Labor Day 2015 blog, predicting Trump’s victory, is here: https://jkerezy.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/media-memo/

Why journalism still matters

Larry Nassar might still be abusing gymnasts today if it wasn’t for the outstanding investigative reporting of Marisa Kwiatowski, Mark Alesia and Tim Evans  of the Indianapolis Star.  This trio of reporters poured through thousands of pages of court records and interviewed dozens of Dr. Nassar’s victims. Finally they found one person — Rachael Denhollander  — willing to go “on the record” and be publicly quoted for the story.

After that, the floodgates to the ultimate disinfectant, the sunshine of truth, poured out. Nassar will now spend the rest of his life in prison for his crimes. A link to the New York Times story about this trio of reporter’s work is below.

There are tens of thousands of horrible criminals and wrong-doers in our nation and beyond. There are crimes to be uncovered, corruption that needs to be rooted out, and victims whose stories need to be told.

That’s why journalism matters, perhaps more than ever, in an age where we receive only snippets of stories from cell phone feeds and make snap judgements on meaning.

Depth matters. Verification of sources and stories matters. Quality reporting and editing matters. Journalism matters.

 

SOURCES FOR THIS BLOG POST

Sharyl Attkisson’s chart

https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/08/28/media-bias-a-new-chart/

Peaceful transition of power

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/nothing-less-than-a-miracle-the-constitution-and-the-peaceful-transition-of

To read the Steel dossier:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Strozk and Page

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.c4f722c0c23b

Disinformation

Pacepa and Rylchlak, “Disinformation,” pages 96-96 Copyright 2013 NWD books, Washington, DC

Pew Research (great read by the way)

http://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/pj_2018-06-18_fact-opinion_0-11/

Indianapolis Star – Larry Nassar

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/media/indy-star-gymnastics-abuse.html

 


MEDIA MEMO NO. 3: For the media and President Trump

February 22, 2017

Having heard some of President Donald J. Trump’s news conference on February 16, and having seen and read dozens of media stories about the first month of President Trump’s presidency, here five words of advice for both parties.

Stop fighting. Get along. Collaborate.

First – to the managers, directors, editors, publishers and reporters who comprise the media in 2017: To turn one of Brooke Gladstone’s phases a bit, you have the government you deserve. Public opinion survey after survey shows that distrust of the media, and a belief that the media is biased, are both at all-time highs. President Trump’s election came about, in part, as a result of that distrust. So if you’re unhappy about the outcome, you’ll find one leading cause for it just by looking at a mirror.

A lot of media analysts have stated this as well, as have countless editors and reporters working within the profession. One is Derek Thomspon, senior editor of The Atlantic and author of Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction. Below is a link to his article citing four main reasons for the distrust. There are more reasons, but this is a strong starting point.

Billy Graham has been on the Gallup Polls as one of the “Ten most admired men in the world” for the past 60 years. His son, Franklin Graham, has a blunt assessment that concurs with President Trump: The media is lying. When the occupant of the White House and major religious leaders agree on an issue as important as this, the owners and managers of newspapers, television news-gathering divisions, and news-based websites had better take notice and change their ways.

Let’s also admit the obvious:  All too often, today’s media has become the pawn (willing or unwitting) of special interests. The WikiLeaks revelations from John Podesta’s emails included the existence of a lengthy list of media members who were “friendly” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign. It also revealed details about a huge party which dozens of media on her “friendly” list attended, around the time Clinton announced her candidacy for President in Spring 2015. Gallup and other polls show that the public believes the media supports the Democratic Party, by a margin of 3.5 to 1.

 

aaaa-trump-wisconsin

A screen shot of Fox News’ coverage of President Trump’s speech on August 16, 2016

One way the media could begin to redeem itself is to change its direction and focus. Don’t be overly concerned about the White House, but instead look at the plight of the average Jane and Jose in our land. It’s quite telling that Margaret Sullivan, public editor of The New York Times, admits that her newspaper made a mistake by not thoroughly covering the Flint, Michigan, water contamination crisis.

Part of what made journalism great in the last quarter of the 20th century was its ability to focus on what Ed Murrow and Fred Friendly (creators of “See it Now,” the first in-depth television news program) called the little picture. This concept of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable,” as stated in a column in the Chicago Evening Post 125 years ago, is something still taught in journalism colleges and universities across the country.

It’s time to refocus. How many more Flints are out there in the nation? If the media returned to a vital role of being a champion of the little people, its reputation would improve.

Now, let’s look at what’s happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in the Executive Office Building, and elsewhere in the Trump Administration, with respect to the media and the practice of journalism.

Mr. President: You gave a prescient speech about six months ago on the campaign trail. On August 16, in Wisconsin, you said this:

Every day you pick up a newspaper, or turn on the nightly news, and you hear about some self-interest banker or some discredited Washington insider says they oppose our campaign. Or some encrusted old politician says they oppose our campaign. Or some big time lobbyist says they oppose our campaign.

“I wear their opposition as a badge of honor. Because it means I am fighting for REAL change, not just partisan change. I am fighting – all of us across the country are fighting – for peaceful regime change in our own country. The media-donor-political complex that’s bled this country dry has to be replaced with a new government of, by and for the people.
(Emphasis added.)

You not only won the election, you defeated the very complex which you eloquently identified on the campaign trail. Now you face a new challenge – Working with at least a portion of the enemies you conquered. Some of them are political. Some are donors. And some are members of the media.

aaa-fake-news-boston-globe

The editorial page “spoof” describing the beginning of (what it hoped would be a fictional) Trump Presidency. This was published as a mock front page in The Boston Globe in April 2016.

Whether or not the media deserves it (in my humble opinion, most don’t), as a statesman and the leader of the world’s greatest democracy, you need the media to report, accurately and fairly, upon your administration and its accomplishments. If democracy is to grow and thrive around the world, then the U.S. media is in a unique position — has a unique responsibility — to broadcast truth and light in places where all too often there are only messages of hate and doom.

They don’t get it. They don’t understand that your usage of Twitter belongs in the same category at John Kennedy’s employment of live TV news conferences or FDR’s radio fireside chats. You are utilizing a newer medium to communicate directly to improve the lives of the people – the oppressed, the downtrodden, and those who seemingly have had no voice and no way to improve their own lives.

Because they don’t get it, you need to exhibit both exceptional leadership and exceptional restraint in showing them a path towards some degree of collaboration and respect for each other.

Here’s a suggestion – Try some one-on-ones. Invite new NBC News President executive Noah Oppenheim to the White House. Have dinner with the New York Times’ Dean Baquet.  Do a two-for and have both Marty Baron (executive editor) and Jeff Bezos (owner) of The Washington Post over for a conversation.

Let them realize that you understand the business challenges and pressures they face. Give them an opportunity to have an exclusive and see if they are willing to work with you or continuously write or broadcast story after story which attacks you.

You have proven that you don’t need the media to campaign and win an election. However, governing is easier if the public isn’t divided and walled off into dozens of “echo chambers” where everyone is seeing and hearing nothing but their own point of view.

Something beyond winning or losing an election is at stake here. E Pluribus Unum should be more than just a motto.  Extend an olive branch from your position as the victor. Media leaders would be wise to accept that offer. Then, just maybe, we can obtain some equilibrium in a land that’s becoming increasingly less civil and more hostile.

Our first president could have been a king, but he wanted a democratic republic to govern the land. George Washington said, “While a courteous behavior is due to all, select the most deserving only for your friendships.”

Try imitating President Washington’s advice, at least for a while, with respect to the media, President Trump. Give them some courtesy, and offer an opportunity for them to change course. It’s in everyone’s best interests – including the nation — that this happens.

shamina merchant john kerezy

John Kerezy with Ohio State University student Shamina Merchant at a presentation at Cuyahoga Community College in spring 2015

I am an associate professor of journalism/mass communications at Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C). These views are my own, and not those of Tri-C.

SOURCES:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/why-do-americans-distrust-the-media/500252/

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rev-graham-trump-says-what-we-all-know-news-media-has-been-lying-fake-news

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/17/donald-trump-speech-with-transcript-the-decisive-moment/

http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/the-rules-of-civility-and-decent-behaviour/

Hanson, Ralph, “Mass Communication,” Sage Publications, sixth edition, pages 127-128

https://ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org/2016/11/28/fake-news-trumps-true-news/#more-2748

ALSO VISIT:

https://jkerezy.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/media-memo/

https://jkerezy.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/media-memo-2/

 

 

 

 


Prayers for this election

September 24, 2016

There are times when those who believe in Christ Jesus might forget the words in 1 Peter 5:7,  “Cast all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.”

With this foremost in mind, here are a few guidelines in prayer and in action for believers as we watch the 2016 Presidential Campaign wind down to its final days, beginning with the first Presidential Debate on Monday night.

  • PRAY FOR THE VOTERS

For nearly 230 years, the U.S. has depended upon civic involvement through voting to determine our leaders. We have held debates, shed blood, and changed our governing document – the Constitution – to allow more and more Americans to cast ballots in elections and chose the course of this land. Let’s pray that voters will seek to discern between truth and falsehood, put the national interest above self-interest, and seek God’s wisdom (James 1:5)

Image result for intercessors for america pray elections

  • PRAY FOR THE MEDIA

Many times in the 2016 election cycle, the media and its coverage has become just as controversial as our two major candidates for office. At their core, media outlets should remember their highest obligation is to accurately inform and report on events – not to become supporters and/or endorsers of any one candidate or party. “Seek the truth and report it” is the first cannon of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). Pray that truth in reporting for the remainder of this election will become a high value, and that bias will decrease or even disappear. Let’s also pray that messages of hope – optimism for our future – will receive time and attention as well.

  • PRAY FOR THOSE RUNNING FOR OFFICE

Candidates, family members, and top campaign aides become the subjects of microscopic inspection during campaigns. This intense scrutiny discourages some very well-qualified civic leaders from even seeking elected office. Every candidate, indeed every elected and potential leader in our nation, needs prayer support. Let’s pray that candidates for office would surround themselves with Godly advisers, and that the candidates would focus on issues and not on negative attacks that only further soil public discourse. Let’s pray that candidates would be courageous and stand for right and righteousness, even if it’s unpopular.

  • PRAY FOR GOD’S WILL TO BE DONE

Many reading this learned the Lord’s Prayer at one point in their lives. “Thy kingdom come, they will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” is Matthew 6:10. As believers pray about national elections, we should also make our own desires subservient to God’s ways and His will. Our heart’s longing should be for God’s purposes to come about in our cities, states, and nation.  Let’s pray that the U.S. would rturn from evil, and seek first the kingdom of God. Let’s pray that the election results would please God, and that He would see a change and release blessings and favor over our nation once again. Finally, let’s pray that God would be honored in the entire election process.  (More reading in Proverbs 8:15, 21:1, Daniel 4:25, and Romans 13)

CLOSING THOUGHT: Pray that as November 8 arrives, we would see candidates and a country more God-like in word, thought and deed.

 

NOTES/SOURCES

Some content excerpted David Butts “Election Prayer Guide” and the National Day of Prayer Task Force.  © 2014 Harvest Prayer Ministries, Prayer Connect magazine

https://www.getouttheprayer.com/pray-over-our-elections/

 

http://www.poynter.org/2013/about-this-blog/217393/


History, videos, and lesson plans on Presidential debates

September 17, 2016

A resolution. A constructive speech either in favor of or in opposition to the resolution. Evidence supporting contentions in the speech. Direct cross examination of each other. A clash on issues raised. Rebuttal and summary speeches.

All of these are standard fare for high school and college debaters. And nearly none of these will happen on Monday, September 26, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump meet at Hofstra University in New York for the first of four debates (three Presidential, one Vice Presidential) this fall. The 2016 Commission on Presidential Debates series will begin 56 years to the day after the first-ever televised Presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in 1960.

In fact, virtually all Presidential debates have lacked the elements that comprise a debate. Some news observers and even one of this year’s moderators, Chris Wallace of Fox News, are instead calling these events simultaneous news conferences.

Back in 1960, there were far fewer media choices. Seeing the major candidates standing toe to toe and responding to a reporter’s questions was fresh, new and exciting. About 70 million Americans tuned in on that September night in 1960, the largest audience ever to watch a televised event at the time.

Image result for kennedy nixon debate
Donald Hewitt of CBS, who produced that first debate, talked about its significance in an interview 40 years later for Joe Garner’s book Stay Tuned. “It was like Miss America. You picked the more attractive of the two men. That’s how Jack Kennedy beat Richard Nixon….,” Hewitt said. “Jack Kennedy making speeches is a bore. Jack Kennedy debating Richard Nixon is an event.”

Even more important, according to Hewitt, was the confluence of political leaders and television executives. The Nixon-Kennedy debates radically transformed the landscape of American politics. “In the middle of this thing, the politicians are looking at the television executives and thinking, those guys have a reach in everybody’s living room,” Hewitt explained. “The television executives are looking at the politicians and saying they are a source of unlimited advertising dollars. That a bottomless pit.”

“That night changed the face of American politics That was the night that television and politics eyed each other, flirted with each other, got engaged, and eventually got married,” Hewitt added. “And because of that you cannot hold office in the USA or even think of running for office unless you’ve got the money to buy television time. Politics in America is now a money game, and it all weaned off  the night of the first television debate.”

Hewitt was right. In the 2012 election cycle,  candidates for all federal offices in the U.S. spent seven billion dollars on campaign activities.  The plurality of those billions were devoted to purchasing television ads. Even with the rise of the internet and mobile media, TV is receiving the lion’s share of campaign dollars. Ask anyone living in a “battleground” state (such as Ohio) what commercials are running on television right now — they’ll tell you.

Here is a link to the video which accompanied the book “Stay Tuned” about the 1960 Presidential debates. You’ll see Walter Cronkite, Hewitt, and — of course — Nixon, Kennedy, and debate moderator Howard K. Smith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Zk9RiFRHw&noredirect=1

THE NEW NIXON: A notable outcome from first Presidential debates: Richard Nixon abhorred future one-on-one clashes with an opponent as a result of the 1960 election. When he re-entered the political realm and won the Republican Party’s nomination for President in 1968, he eschewed debates and instead produced live “made for television” events called Man in the Arena. Today we would call these programs part political advertisement, part infomercial, and part reality television. It was a precursor to another form of political TV which became quite common in the 21st century, the town hall meeting. Producing Man in the Arenawas a young television expert who had learned his craft with the Mike Douglas show, Roger Ailes.

Ailes selected about 20 “man in the street” panelists for the program, some of whom would ask questions of Nixon and also make brief statements about conditions in America in 1968. Bud Wilkinson, a regular on ABC’s Wide World of Sports and former Hall of Fame college football coach, hosted the program. Nixon and Wilkinson engaged in friendly banter at the beginning of each broadcast. It worked, as viewers came to see Nixon as a fighter for the middle class. In November 1968, Nixon outpolled both Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace to become the 37th president of the U.S.

The New York Times’ Tom Wicker called the Man in the Arena television programs a “masterly new political concept.”  The viewing public thought that Nixon was being questioned freely, “while running little risk of a hostile inquiry, a damaging answer, or some other mistake,” Wicker wrote. Nixon would hear nothing of a debate in the 1972 Presidential election. But after Watergate and Nixon’s departure in 1974, there was a consensus among the Republican National Committee and the Democratic Committee that there should be debates.  Thus — starting in 1976 — we’ve had at least one debate in every election cycle ever since. It took some time, but the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987 to “…provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.” It governs the debates today.

TRANSFORMING MOMENTS

It’s really impossible to prove whether a candidate might win or lose an election as a result of or more Presidential debates.  Those conducting polling in 1960 reported that a vast majority of undecided voters that year ended up casting ballots for Kennedy. Yet no one could prove whether the debates tilted a “scale in the minds” in Kennedy’s favor.

Most Presidential debate observers do point to a few poignant moments in debate history. The first was in 1976, when reporter Max Frankel of the New York Times asked a question about US-Soviet Union relations of President Gerald Ford. Frankel was a member of three-reporter panel, plus moderator Pauline Frederick of National Public Radio. It was the second Presidential debate, taking place in San Francisco in October 1976. Ford’s response to Frankel was a gaffe, insisting that Poland was a free nation at the time. It was not, and the misstep might have cost Ford the election. See the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

In the first 1984 debate between President Ronald Reagan and former Vice President Walter Mondale, Reagan was hesitant and halting, and looked even older than his 74 years of age. Although Reagan was ahead in the polls, voters were wondering if he was up to four more years of the physical and mental challenges of the Presidency. In the second Presidential debate in Kansas City, the “Great Communicator” masterfully turned reporter Henry Trewhitt of the Baltimore Sun’s question about his age into a response so funny that even Mondale laughed at it. Reagan then paused and reached for his glass of water to let his zinger linger. He won re-election in a landslide the following month. See the clip here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc&feature=youtu.be

There was a Cleveland connection to the 1988 Vice Presidential Debate, which was held early in October in Omaha. Northeast Ohio Cong. Dennis Eckart was an “opponent stand in” for the Democratic nominee, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, for practices ahead of the clash. After the debate, Cong. Eckart told local media outlets that, in fact, the Democrats had anticipated that Senator Dan Quayle, Republican VP candidate and Bensten’s opponent, might attempt to compare himself to John Kennedy. Watch Senator Bentson’s double response – first to Quayle’s statement, then to his ‘unfair’ retort afterward:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ5CIkSlUFI

NOTE: in the 2012 Vice Presidential debate, VP Joe Biden echoed this with a remark to Republican Candidate Rep. Paul Ryan about tax cuts: “Oh, Now You’re Jack Kennedy?”

Here’s a link to a web page explaining the formats which will be used for all four of the presidential debates in September and October 2016:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates

LESSON PLANS

If you are a teacher in grades 3 to 6, and are planning a lesson in language arts or civics, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library has some great resources on Presidential debates. The link below includes objectives and outcomes, connections to curriculum standards from National Standards for Civics and Government and from NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts for grades 4, 5, and 6.  Here is the link:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Education/Teachers/Curricular-Resources/Elementary-School-Curricular-Materials/Televised-Debates.aspx

Here are some good additional links to lesson plans and resources for many different grade levels:

https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/cpd2000.pdf

http://lessonplanspage.com/sslaelectionscandidatedebatesidea48-htm/

The link below is a terrific resource for using all aspects of the election in the middle school and high school classroom:

https://teachingbeyondthetextbook.wordpress.com/tag/presidential-debates/

SOURCES

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/09/04/fox-s-chris-wallace-its-not-my-role-presidential-debate-moderator-be-truth-squad/212845

Garner, Joe “Stay Tuned: Television’s Unforgettable Moments,” © 2002 Garner Creative Concepts

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-2012-campaign-fec-says-087051

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/27/1388297/-1968-Richard-Nixon-stuns-the-political-media-by-listening-to-voters

For information about the Commission on Presidential Debates, transcripts, video excerpts and more, link here: http://www.debates.org/

www.jfklibrary.org

Pictures from: History.com and the Reagan Presidential Library