James M. Redwine

Fox News

Believe It Or Not

by Leave a Comment

How does a new religion get started? Islam fourteen hundred years ago? Christianity two thousand years ago? Judaism twenty-four hundred years ago? The Romans and Jupiter twenty-five hundred years ago? The Greeks and Zeus three thousand years ago? The Egyptians and thousands of gods four thousand years ago? Gentle Reader, these are just my guesses; you are, of course, free to make your own estimates or consult Google as you see fit.

However, my actual concern is the religion of presidential politics as practiced currently on cable TV in America. And I know when these new beliefs began. With FOX News, the new Defender of the Conservative Faith arrived when Donald Trump came down that golden escalator in 2015. As for CNN and MSNBC, their faith in a Liberal Deliverance was restored only a couple of months ago when Kamala Harris arose like the mythical Phoenix from the ashes of Old Joe.

As best I can tell, the liturgy of these conflicted beliefs relies heavily on denigrating whichever candidate a particular TV network does not like. Portentous warnings from talking heads claim that the election of the “wrong” candidate will cause crops to fail and Taylor Swift to become the new Pied Piper of American youth.

These dire warnings from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC and even occasionally, PBS, have become as ubiquitous as commercials and as vociferous as a Pentecostal sermon. CNN convenes numerous panels of “Never Trumpers” who have heard directly from on high that a Trump election will immediately boot America from our Promised Land. And FOX asserts that a Harris win will reign fire and brimstone all over our democratic Garden of Eden, or at least, everywhere but New York and California.

But, just as one religion after another from the dawn of recorded history has appeared and disappeared, we can all pray that this election will end before Armageddon begins. I foresee hope for salvation from this endless cacophony of vapidity, FOOTBALL! As we Americans have done since the first football game was aired on TV, we clutch at the hope our team will rise above the fray. We can seize onto the faith in our champions on the gridiron and set aside the ennui brought on by the gaggle of gloom bearers on TV. Unfortunately, football season only lasts through the Super Bowl in February of 2025. Of course, the networks are doing their best to force us to buy every game and the new Transfer Portal and Name, Image and Likeness rules are sorely testing our faith.

And, of course, whoever wins the election will be subject to four years of damnation from some of the disappointed anchors. Those sore losers will likely begin endless recriminations for venal sins they assert just over half of the electorate will have committed by worshipping a false idol. As for us in the captive viewership, maybe the INSP network will have enough Gunsmoke reruns to sustain us until the next two graven images are nominated four years from now.

Mental Gymnastics

by Leave a Comment

Former President Donald Trump is facing both state and federal charges in several courts of law. These charges present difficult challenges to the judges in each case with the most important judicial task being to guarantee that all parties receive a fair trial. However, that duty to the people directly impacted by each case must be carried out without violating the right that our Founders knew to be the right that was essential to guaranteeing all of our rights, Freedom of Speech.

While several of the Founders championed freedom of expression as fundamental to democracy, Benjamin Franklin, a newspaper publisher himself, led the debate:

“Freedom of speech is a pillar of a free government;
When this support is taken away, the Constitution of
a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.
Republics derive their strength and vigor from a popular
examination into the action of the magistrates.”
 

Benjamin Franklin was born in 1706 and was immersed in the printing of politically focused newspapers in Philadelphia when fellow printer John Peter Zenger was prosecuted for libeling British Governor William Cosby in New York City in 1734. Zenger was jailed pending his jury trial but when he was tried the jury acquitted him in spite of the clear violation of the British Colonial law. The jury made up its own mind in spite of an atmosphere of bias from the government.

Currently, some of the judges in Donald Trump’s cases have fashioned gag orders that threaten punishment if Trump says things about the possible evidence, the witnesses, the prosecutors or the judges. The reasons given by the judges for these gag orders all claim they are to protect the parties and witnesses from attempted coercion and to prevent the tainting of any future jury pool. In other words, the judges have no faith that potential jurors can do what judges must do in every case. That is, put aside any irrelevant matters and decide Trump’s cases only on the law and the facts.

As a judge for over forty years I find this lack of confidence in jurors ill founded. Judges decide almost all cases without a jury if there is no plea agreement in criminal cases or no settlement in civil cases. In other words, people have confidence a judge in a criminal case may receive an indictment from a grand jury the judge impaneled or approve a charge brought by a prosecutor and still decide the case. Or, a judge may issue an arrest or search warrant based on in depth out of court statements and then set that information aside and still fairly decide guilt or innocence. If one person, a judge, can do this so can twelve. Of course, statements by parties that threaten physical harm should not be tolerated. However, comments about the evidence, the prosecutor or the judge that offend the judge come with the robe, even if those comments are unfair, unkind and untrue. Just ask John Peter Zenger, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., etc.

Jurors can be trusted, just as judges can be, to do their duty. CNN or FOX News can be eliminated from the jury room. The voir dire procedure is designed to exclude potential jurors who cannot do that. Does the legal system occasionally fail and a biased judge or jury render a decision based on pre-trial publicity or emotion? Unfortunately, that happens. But to deny America the vital protection of the First Amendment in an attempt to eliminate human frailty is a fool’s errand and an affront to our Sixth Amendment, Right to Trial by Jury.

Gentle Reader, I would like to share with you one of my own experiences as judge as an example of the public’s faith in the ability of a judge, or jury, to set aside bias and still fairly handle a case. Now, I might not process this case today the way I did a few years ago but I will let you be the judge of what happened then. Anyway, what follows is true, if perhaps, somewhat askew legally.

When I received my honorable discharge from the United States Air Force the only job I could find in Indianapolis, Indiana where I lived with my wife and son was selling P.F. Collier Encyclopedias door-to-door. We only owned one car, a 1956 Ford Fairlane convertible. I really liked that car but we decided we needed a new one so I sold it to a guy I worked with on the basis he would pay me each week. Well, the week after I gave him the keys he disappeared with my car. I did not see him again for twenty-five years when he appeared in my courtroom charged with a home burglary.

I had forgotten his name and he surely did not recognize mine. He and his attorney and the prosecutor had filed a plea recommendation and requested that I approve it based on a pre-sentence report prepared by my probation department. After reading the report I realized this man in front of me had stolen my car. When I confirmed that fact, I told him I would recuse and get him another judge. He said, “Ah, Judge, were you going to take the deal before you remembered who I was?” I said, “Yes”. He said, “Well go ahead.” I said, “No, go out and talk to your attorney”. He did. Then he and his attorney and the prosecutor said, “Judge, we really want you to stay on the case so we can get this done now”. I said, “Okay, but what did you ever do with my car?” He said, “Well, when we got to Oregon it quit running and my wife had me cut off the top and fill it with potting soil then she made a planter out of it.”

Now, I know I had other options but one thing this case showed me was a judge or jury can be fair even when personally offended. So suck it up judges and have faith the jurors will not be any less pure than you.

 

The Mass Shooting Tocsin

by Leave a Comment

The definition of a “mass shooting” in the United States is a moving target based on the source of who describes an incident. While there is no neutrality on the issue of guns, the non-profit organization, Gun Violence Archive (GVA), defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are killed from gunshots. Applying these criteria, the GVA has published its figures for the period of January 01, 2023 to April 10, 2023 and compared it to the same time for 2014. In 2014 there were 59 incidents of mass shootings in the U.S. and in 2023 there were 146.

While those who announce the statistics may have motives to mischaracterize the figures, the statistics starkly establish an alarming trend upward. In a country of 330 million people where more people commit suicide with guns than commit mass shootings, and more than 30,000 die in vehicle accidents each year, it may appear that mass shootings in America are not out of control. But the tocsin should sound to alert us to a possible greater danger of a change in our national character.

It is not the inanimate objects of firearms that may be our greater concern but the animus we feel for one another. The most significant issue we should concentrate on is not the number of guns in our country nor who can access them, although these are important. What may be in play is why are we as a people engendering a degree of nihilism in some members of our society that so devalues oneself and others that “death by cop” and the deaths of unknown others is preferable to living.

I own guns, have since I was a boy. We had long guns in the pantry right next to our family’s dining table. There were no locked gun cabinets and no need for one. If I wanted to go hunting, I pulled back the curtain on the pantry, grabbed one of the guns and went hunting. Every boy and man I knew owned or had access to guns. Guns were not a means to achieve attention. We knew approval came from school and work and how we treated others, disapproval too. National attention was not on our radar but if it had been we knew it would need to come from helping others not indiscriminately murdering them. Our family was like most others and if we ever achieved any news media notoriety it was for some small contribution to local culture. It did not compute for most people that fame and infamy were equally desirable as long as they spelled the names right. So, what happened? What went wrong and how can we fix it?

The news media is not to blame for fostering a climate of “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a newspaper columnist for 33 years, I am a member of the media and I deny responsibility for anyone else’s behavior. I have enough to do being responsible for my own. No, the media is simply following the demands and interests of the American public. Movies, songs, video games and television shows that garner ticket sales and awards for ad nauseam renditions of pornography and senseless violence are the harbingers of what news sources people will pay attention to. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others are in business. They follow the demographics and those demographics are that what sells is the denigration of our politicians and blood from our citizens. What does not sell is any mention of good character and acts of kindness.

So, what does a disaffected, depressed, detached and marginal person conclude from the media? If one wants to matter, he or she must denigrate others or spill the blood of innocent strangers and themselves. I realize we will not return to the Andy Griffith Show and Walter Cronkite country we transitioned out of when all politics and all news was local. However, we can reevaluate how we report, not comment, on people with whom we disagree or, perhaps, even despise. The facts should be enough. Adjectives as to a politician’s motives should be eschewed. If the object of a news story is wrong, the public can reach that conclusion without some news anchor repeatedly claiming, “That’s a lie!” A lie requires intent and how does the news anchor know one’s intent. It should be sufficient to state the evidence and leave it up to the viewer or reader to decide if it is a lie or a mistake or even a difference of opinion.

A gradual turning away from a culture where, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, might be a good place to start. Or, if not Shakespeare, how about our mothers’ advice, “If we can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all?”

I get it that this approach might take years to help assuage our epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings. But I ask you, Gentle Reader, do you think the problem will be solved by continuing to vilify everyone we disagree with? Maybe, at least, respectfully hearing out opposing views before we label someone a crook or a liar might pour oil on troubled waters and help reduce our national tendency to assassinate character. Such an approach of just reporting the news may tend to discourage people teetering on the edge from taking up arms and actually assassinating innocent people.

Mom Knows Best

by Leave a Comment

Tom Nichols is a staff writer for The Atlantic magazine. In his opinion piece of August 15, 2022, Nichols asserted the United States is living in a “new era of political violence.” Nichols compared our current political climate to America’s Civil War and declared:

“Compared with the bizarre ideas and half-baked wackiness that now infest American political life, the arguments between the North and the South look like a deep treatise on government.”

Of course, Nichols, as all of us do, meant those ideas he disagreed with. He wrote his article as a warning against “the random threats and unpredictable dangers from people among us who spend too much time watching television and plunging down internet rabbit holes.”

While I believe Nichols falls victim to the kind of incitement to political violence he warns the rest of us to avoid, I agree with him that much of our poisonous political atmosphere is both created and exacerbated by “instigators who will inflame them from the safety of a television or radio studio.”

When I try to glean news from Facebook, MSNBC, CNN, FOX News and even sometimes NPR and the regular commercial news outlets, I spend a lot of my time hearing the echo of my Mother’s sage advice, “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all.”

In our current political discourse it seems almost every discussion has to first set forth the commentator’s pro or anti Trump diatribe then morph into the “real news.”  I keep trying, with little success, to block out the opening statements as I wait for any significant new facts.

This atmosphere of dueling slings and arrows, some of which are more than mere rhetoric, is the “political violence” Nichols refers to. People committing random acts of physical violence against complete strangers for no reason other than to attempt to give some meaning to their uninteresting lives. And as many of us have suffered through the discomfort, or worse, of political conversations with our friends and family these last few years, it is not just random strangers who have accosted one another with Nichols’ “New Era of Political Violence”. Long-time friendships and relationships have often suffered due to competing political views.

A large contributor to the current “Era of Bad Feeling” is the tendency to classify those who do not share our political views as holding “half-baked” or “wacky” ideas because, in Nichols’ view, they suffer from “a generalized paranoia that dark forces are manipulating their lives.” The sense I get from our current political in-fighting reminds me of the McCarthy Era from the 1950’s when Senator Joe McCarthy held hearings that ruined countless lives with accusations of Communistic leanings among American citizens. Sure, eventually we, as a democracy, saw through the “Red Scare” but it was too late to save many good citizens.

It feels to me now as those Red Baiting times felt. We seem to go immediately to anger when the “other side” speaks its views. Perhaps we could learn from our history instead of repeating it. As Mom would have said, “Just because someone sees things from their viewpoint doesn’t make them wrong. And just because someone else voices an opinion opposed to ours doesn’t mean they are bad.” It kind of goes back to that old advice, “If it ain’t good, don’t say it.”

That does not apply to real news, only personal character assassination. We need our democracy to have unfettered access to information about many subjects. That is, we need facts to make good decisions. What we do not need is vituperative personal attacks masquerading as evidence.

Potsdam Revisited

by Leave a Comment

At the Potsdam Conference

Joseph Stalin (USSR), Winston Churchill (Great Britain) and Harry Truman (United States) met in Potsdam, Germany from July 17 to August 02, 1945 to “establish the post WWII order”. In 1945 the earth had 74 recognized countries. Some of the other 71 countries felt they should have been invited to the conference and have exhibited their displeasure from time to time since 1945.

When I turn on cable TV I sense that the heads of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC may have had their own Potsdam Conference and divided up the world’s news cycles. While it may appear to us viewers the news networks are competing, I suspect each is happy in its own sphere of influence. CNN regurgitates their favorite kicking boy Donald Trump whenever it wants to change the subject. For example, when they wish to ignore the question of whether Andrew Cuomo should lose his one-time COVID-19 sainthood. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski vilify the conservatives in Congress whenever their ratings sag, which is often. And Fox News revels in finding stories of liberal policies run amok.

But I suspect the umbrage each cable news anchor evidences is more act than actuality. They all appear pretty well situated in their own tunnel vision. The problem for the rest of us is there are actual problems that need to be addressed other than whether some celebrity has fallen from their pedestal. We need news! What we don’t need are mere opinions in search of agendas.

I have a modest suggestion. I recommend every cable news executive and anchor read a book. I know it is a lot to ask but instead of just talking heads we need heads with something in them. This was apparently what my best friend, Dr. Walter Jordan of Martinsville, Indiana, thought about me. He sent me a book for my birthday entitled Think Again. He has known me long enough to know I need the advice.

Adam Grant’s book suggests we all could be happier and more productive if we would approach life actively open-minded and instead of always searching for reasons we must be right search for reasons we might be wrong. Grant is an organizational psychology professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He’s a smart guy but his book is still actually useful and fun to read.

Grant posits that we have two general biases that impact our inability to see the fallacies in our extreme positions, such as, should we get a COVID vaccination or not? One is confirmation bias where we see or hear what we expect to see and hear. The other is desirability bias where we see and hear what we want to. Grant suggests we need to be more scientific in our approach to life and instead of analyzing issues by starting with what we want and expect, that is, starting with a set answer, we should lead with questions and look for all the evidence.

Of course, my particular experience as a judge leads me to believe that gathering all the relevant evidence on a topic before one reaches a conclusion is the best approach. First glean the facts, then decide. But I certainly have fallen short of this goal from time to time. What I find dangerous about cable news attempts to set our society’s agendas is that the cable news networks seem to have it as their talisman that their desired outcomes are the facts. They can and should do better and so must we.

Not So Bad After All

by Leave a Comment

As our country nears its 243rd birthday we Americans may feel as if all is gloom and doom. Members of Congress are calling for the impeachment of President Trump. President Trump is tweeting out claims that some Congress people are traitors. CNN accuses FOX News of being a sycophant for the White House. Rush Limbaugh proclaims CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not news agencies but simply “fake news” whose agendas have a single minded mission to remove the President from office.

At coffee shops and taverns throughout the United States one-time friends cannot carry on a respectful conversation. Even churches are choosing sides. In short, the last election drags into its third year and the next election is morphing into a mere continuation of the election past. Political pundits and politicians are donning sackcloth and ashes or arming themselves with skewers to assassinate the characters of those who have the temerity to disagree with them. It ain’t good, folks. Are we falling apart?

No! We are practicing the democracy bequeathed to us on July 04, 1776. A healthy lack of respect for the opinions of others is our birthright. As long as we simply “suffer the slings and arrows” and do not “take up arms to oppose them” it is all as clanging brass and hollow threats. In fact, our current political climate is about the same as it has been since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who both signed the Declaration of Independence, saw their close friendship dissolve over policy differences. It is America. We have the right, perhaps the duty, to voice our disagreements.

What we do not want to lose sight of is policy differences are important but should not be lethal. Maybe we should step back, take a deep breath and see how another country, North Korea for example, handles allegations of treason.

We do not know the facts and should be cautious of reports from either North Korea or other countries that may wish to harm North Korea. With that said, it has been “reported” that Kim Jong Un of North Korea was upset over the failed summit between Kim and President Trump to the point he imprisoned some of his negotiators and executed several others. He allegedly declared them traitors. Even if these reports are exaggerated, the contrast between America’s hyperbole and North Korea’s drastic actions should remind us of what the Fourth of July truly means.