PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

If you ever have been in the news or media relations business, you know about the axiom referred to in the headline for this blog.

The intention: Dump bad news on a Friday when reporters may not be paying as much attention as they would be during the week.

This used to be more true in the past than it is today. That’s because there used to be something called a “24-hour news cycle.” What happened on one day would be the subject of news coverage the next.

No longer. With rampant social media, there is a second-by-second news cycle, if there is a cycle at all.

Still, some practitioners in the media relations business may believe that dumping bad or controversial news on Fridays makes some sense if you want to limit coverage. At least it is more difficult for reporters to feed off each other if they are away for a weekend or if their replacements are on the job.

Consider the Trump Administration.

Writing for the Washington Post, James Hohmann recently commented on the Friday “trash news” day for the Administration.

“Every administration sees the end of the work week as trash day, the best time to get bad stories out of the way with as little public notice as possible. Fewer people read Saturday papers, cable viewership drops off and it’s harder to get newsmakers on the phone to react.

“The Friday news dump is one of the few norms Trump has embraced. It’s the rare illustration of his self-discipline and an ability to not succumb to a preternatural yearning for instant gratification.

“In classic Trumpian fashion, he’s also taken the time-honored tradition to a whole new level. Stories that the White House hoped wouldn’t grow legs, especially related to personnel, have dropped nearly each of the past 51 Fridays.”

Based on my own background, either in media relations, or as a lobbyist, I often also counseled releasing bad news on Fridays.

One example occurred back in my days at the Oregon Department of Human Resources. When a decision was made by the director to fire the administrator of the then-called Children’s Services Division, we announced the decision on a Friday, thus avoiding the intensity of news as reporters wrote about the issue over a weekend when readership or viewership was down and it was more difficult to gather reactions to the decision.

Now, is all of this good or bad policy? I say neither. The tactic is simply a recognition of a reality of the news business – or perhaps a past reality.

Today, it matters less with a continual news cycle. So, as readers or listeners, the advice is to stay connected no matter the day of the week.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Donald Trump and his allies have begun conversationally handicapping the president’s potential 2020 rivals.

Politico’s Annie Karni reports: “Former Vice President Joe Biden is seen as someone who could cut into Trump’s base.”

One former White House official outlined a theory of the case that has gained some traction: Trump’s policies will continue to be popular all the way through his re-election campaign, but his approval rating will never crack 45 per cent — creating an opening for Biden, or someone like him, to recapture the loyalty of white Rust Belt Democrats who helped elect Trump in 2016.”

“I hope CNN has Kirsten Gillibrand on every minute of every day. Love it. Bring it. She’s easy to destroy,” the former staffer said. “If you’re the president, or the RNC, you’re more worried about someone who looks like Biden — someone who has more mainstream appeal, who blue-collar workers could identity with.”

Well, of course, many political prognosticators say it’s way too early to begin talking about 2020 Democrat challengers, at least with any clarify.

But down here in La Quinta, California, where I am spending part of the winter, I had the good fortune to see a long-time Oregon Democrat leader who has substantial experience running Oregon and international businesses. In other words, he is not a typical Democrat.

Over drinks, he shared with me his aspiration. It is that (a) the Democrats will take over Congress in the mid-term elections, that (b) they will make political life difficult for Trump in the next two years, that (c) they will move to impeach Trump, but that (d) they will not convict him.

That would soften Trump up politically for a strong candidate to emerge out of the D field to take him on, relegating him to be a one-term president.

Of course, this individual, as smart as he/she may be, doesn’t call such political shots, especially over an eternity in politics, which is two-plus years away. No one does.

Further, at the moment, one year into the four-term Trump presidency, no one knows for sure whether Trump will run again.

So much for thinking too much about 2020. But it will be worth keeping eyes on the potential Demo field so see who emerges as the frontrunner – as well as to see if that person has an agenda for being in the nation’s highest political office…an agenda that is more than just anti-Trump.

On occasion, I find myself hoping for a quality third-party candidate to emerge, one who has solid ethical credentials, as well as the ability to see the benefit of middle-ground solutions to pressing public policy problems – plus the leadership to gain followers.

Fat chance, you say. Probably. But it doesn’t hurt to hold high aspirations.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The question in the headline is on a lot of minds these days as President Trump says one day that he deserves credit for a stock market boom, then says the next that the huge stock market slide is not his fault.

It’s been that way – taking credit or assigning debit – for years as political figures seek headlines.

Back when I was in Oregon state government, I watched as a litany of governors sought credit or assigned debit.

The best at doing neither was the governor for whom I worked, Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon, now about 35 years ago. He was smart enough to know that governors of states, especially small ones like Oregon, rarely had the wherewithal to stoke the economy overall.

What he did, though, was make sure everyone knew that Oregon was open for business. Over the years, he earned the nickname “Trader Vic” for his aggressive stance in favor of enticing business from Japan to another location on the Pacific Rim – Oregon.

He succeeded mightily.

In contrast with many governors and given the power of the presidency, even with the checks and balances among the three branches of government, presidents do have the ability to prod economic growth or, in the alternative, enact policies that stem growth.

I was reminded of all this earlier this week as I read a column in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Andy Puzder, former CEO of CKE Restaurants and a frequent contributor to the WSJ.

“Progressives,” he wrote, “are tying themselves in knots to avoid giving President Trump credit for anything positive. Take the economy. It isn’t really booming, they say, but even if it is, President Obama is the man to thank.

“The claim doesn’t add up. In 2010, the Obama White House forecast gross domestic product growth would accelerate in 2011 to 3.8 per cent” and “exceed 4 per cent per year in 2012-2014, consistent with the 4.3 per cent growth rate in the other 10 recoveries since World War II. That never happened. Actual post-recession growth averaged an anemic 2.1 per cent. And Mr. Obama’s last year in office saw measly 1.5 per cent GDP growth—hardly the springboard to our current expansion.”

Former Obama administration economists have circled the wagons in an attempt to explain away their boss’s dismal economic record as a product of structural factors rather than policy.

These claims, thus, have made it difficult for progressives to explain the 3 per cent average GDP growth rate during Mr. Trump’s first three full quarters in office. They’ve resorted, instead, to diminishing the president’s economic record by pointing to 2017’s full-year GDP growth of 2.3 per cent—relatively close to Mr. Obama’s 2.1 per cent post-recession average.

The problem for Mr. Obama’s progressive defenders is that analysts traditionally attribute the first quarter of a new presidency to the previous administration. President Bush, rather than Mr. Obama, got the blame for the negative 5.4 per cent growth during the first quarter of 2009.

“What was fair then is fair now,” Puzder contends. “The attempt to saddle Mr. Trump with responsibility for the economy’s performance during the first quarter of 2017 is disingenuous.”

A bigger problem for progressives, Puzder adds, is that Mr. Trump’s numbers easily could have been much better. Two hurricanes held GDP growth down in the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, businesses were waiting to see if Congress would pass tax reform setting lower tax rates and enabling them immediately to write off 100 per cent of their investments in plant and equipment.

Puzder says “I was a CEO for 17 years; I would have waited too. This hampered fourth-quarter growth but should accelerate growth in the first quarter of 2018. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is forecasting first-quarter growth of 4 per cent.”

The jobs numbers are similarly positive. In 2017, the economy added approximately 2.1 million jobs. Progressives counter that job growth actually slowed from the 2.2 million jobs added in 2016. But job quality also matters. The Obama economy was a “part time” economy that failed to generate the full-time jobs Americans need.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people working full time increased by 2.4 million in 2017, compared with only 1.6 million in 2016. In other words, the overall number of jobs added was lower in 2017, but only because hundreds of thousands of people left part-time for full-time jobs.

One of the recent problems is the waffling Trump has done as Wall Street took wild swings down and up. Instead, what he should focus on is regulatory relief and tax reform passed on his watch that are bringing more growth and better jobs.

“It’s a Trump Boom,” Puzder says, “but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer believes the president should thank Obama. Perhaps, but only for setting economic bar so low.”

Well, whatever you may believe, I believe Trump should follow Puzder’s advice. Claim credit where credit is due – regulatory relief and tax reform. Leave the stock market to its own unpredictable swings.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Well, there are probably many answers to the question in the headline, but for me one lack is paramount and can be listed in one word: Context.

It some ways, lack of context always has been the case as reporters for newspapers, radio stations and TV outlets struggle to fit content into constraints of space and time. But, today, the lack of context is more pronounced than ever.

The apparent journalistic quest today is either to race for a scoop in the battle for subscribers or viewers, or to place an emphasis on the battle between opponents rather than on the context of the battle.

In a great quote from a newspaper friend of mine, he said “reporters sit on the promontory watching the battle below, then go down to the field to shoot the wounded.”

The lack-of-context problem is even more severe given two conditions – one old and one new. The old condition, especially in the TV business, is a focus on getting pictures that get the audience’s attention. The context of the picture is often irrelevant.

The new condition is the huge prevalence of “social media,” which means there is no longer a news cycle. Or, the fact is that the “cycle” is a second or two in duration.

Add to all this another unfortunate, but true, fact: In the rush to produce, reporters often get facts wrong and rarely admit the same later as accurate information comes into focus.

In a piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal late last month, William Luti, a retired career naval officer and former special assistant for defense policy and strategy to President George W. Bush, paints a grim picture of reporting on the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War.

As an aside, remember that war and the Tet Offensive? If only because it occurred so many years ago, many in the generation behind me do not know much about it. But even though I did not go to Vietnam to fight, I remember the war very well, especially because a number of my friends were fated to enter that hell.

Luti asks the question: Did fake news lose the Vietnam War? And he contends that journalists wrongly portrayed the Tet Offensive as a U.S. defeat and never corrected the record.

Luti goes on: “Seemingly out of nowhere, a shock wave hit South Vietnam on January 30, 1968. In a coordinated assault unprecedented in ferocity and scale, more than 100,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers stormed out of their sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia. They went on to attack more than 100 towns and cities across South Vietnam.

“The following 77 days changed the course of the Vietnam War. The American people were bombarded with a nightly stream of devastating television and daily print reporting. Yet, what they saw was so at odds with the reality on the ground that many Vietnam veterans believe truth itself was under attack.

“Despite their ferocity, by most objective military standards, the communists achieved none of their goals. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces held fast, regrouped and fought back. By late March, they had achieved a decisive victory over the communist forces. Hanoi wouldn’t be able to mount another full-scale invasion of South Vietnam until the 1972 Easter offensive.

“But in living rooms across America, the nightly news described an overwhelming American defeat. The late Washington Post Saigon correspondent Peter Braestrup later concluded the event marked a major failure in the history of American journalism.”

I thought about Vietnam this week because a friend of mine, who lived through the war, but did not have to fight there, is heading over to vacation in that country. Several other friends have done the same.

For my part, I have no desire to go there – for vacation or any other reason. For me, it was a place of war and incalculable human suffering on all sides. No need to re-live that on site.

But back to my main point. Journalism in the Tet Offensive suffered, and so did our perceptions of a terrible war. If opposition to the Vietnam War was warranted, so be it. But opposition should not have centered on inaccurate and out-of-context reporting.

Learning lessons from Tet, as well as from a host of more recent events, we need better and more accurate reporting – reporting that is accurate and provides context.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Washington Post writer Richard Cohen asks a good question in a recent column.

“…in any reading of the rise of Nazi Germany, you come to a dead stop: How did this happen? How did a nut like Hitler manage to take over one of the world’s most advanced and civilized nations? The question becomes particularly acute when you consider the jumble of criminals, incompetents and ideological zealots he had around him. One answer to the question is that others in Germany thought Hitler could prove useful.

Then Cohen goes on to draw this parallel.

“Much the same thing happened in the United States with Trump. Trump was always a poster boy of the selfish, egomaniacal, ignorant, bragging, cruel rich kid, whose mirror was the sleazy pages of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post. Trump’s oxygen was the leaked item, without which he would die the suffocating death of being shown to a bad table.

“All this was known about Trump — that and his sly approach to women. But by the time Trump ran for president, he had also mounted the attack on Barack Obama that charged — against all evidence — that the African-American president was African only. This was a revolting and racist allegation to which Trump, to the knowledge of those who have recently asked him about it, still clings. The man’s true religion is a farrago of conspiracy theories. He believes, sincerely, in the unbelievable.”

For my part, I have drawn Trump parallels to Hitler before and rested uneasy then as now with the perception. And, then, I made what could be called a mistake last month by watching a program on the History Channel outlining the downfall of Hitler near the end of World War II.

It was an excellent program, but, for me, the mistake was that it was a reprise of the incredibly vicious regime of Hitler which remind me of a perspective I had more than a year ago: Comparisons between Hitler and Trump.

Unsettling? Yes!

Trump swept into office in a way similar to the process by which Hitler took over post World War I Germany.

Columnist Eugene Robinson has provided a list of comparisons between Hitler and Trump:

• Like Hitler, Trump has watched approvingly as his followers, during the election campaign, used violence to silence hecklers, dissenters and protesters.
• Like Hitler, Trump offers few real plans or strategies for confronting the nation’s challenges, giving voters instead the assurance that he, by force of personality alone, will conquer those challenges.
• Like Hitler, Trump presented the electorate a scapegoat for its fears and vulnerabilities. Hitler gave his people the Jews. Trump has given his the Muslims.
• Like Hitler, Trump proposes to register, surveil and restrict the scapegoat populace. Nor, like Hitler, is he overly concerned with the niceties of civil or human rights.

And, this from Robinson: “It all brings home something that has become glaringly obvious: While many of us have lamented Trump’s improbable rise to political prominence, the real problem is not him and never was. Rather, the problem is that thing deep down in some of us that responds to him, that small, primeval thing so filled with uncertainty, fear and fury that it will suspend both logic and compassion to worship a man whose very name has become a symbol of all that is hateful and violative of American ideals.”

No, Trump is not Hitler. Hitler was a singular figure who committed a singular crime. But Trump’s dominance of the Republican field during the campaign and his first year in office offer vivid evidence of the depth of alienation that he has both created and capitalized upon.

His use of the word “treason” to describe Democrats who did not applaud for him in his State of the Union speech is only the latest over-the-top utterance from this president.

The fact that Hitler’s fascism was able to steal the hearts and minds of Germans makes you ask yourself how a supposedly enlightened nation could have fallen for the lie.

That makes me wonder how we, as Americans, will reconcile ourselves to Trump’s conduct whether or not it smacks one of the most reviled figures in history, Hitler.