Getting the final word right

by Pat Louise

William F. Buckley, Jr. Edited by James Rosen, A Torch Kept Lit. Great Lives of the Twentieth Century, Crown Forum, New York, 2016, $22, 323 pages.

Over the course of 53 years — from when he founded the magazine National Review in 1955, hosted the television show Firing Line (1966-99), until his death in February 2008 — William F. Buckley Jr. spoke or wrote the definitive words on the conservative viewpoint.

He also, over this time, wrote the last words on 250 historical figures he had met during his lifetime. His obituaries, most of which ran in the National Review with the standard headline of the deceased’s name followed by RIP, give an intimate, honest – sometimes brutally honest – portrait of many influential people of the last century.

The best of these essays have been collected into the New York Times bestseller, A Torch Kept Lit, chosen and edited by Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen. Published in October 2016, the book delves into Buckley’s thoughts on the famous of the famous, mostly those who were leaders in government, journalism, music and entertainment. In one section he shares his thoughts after the deaths of his parents and his wife Pat, who predeceased him the year before.

Another section covers some of the movers and changers who become personal friends. The final section, to perhaps illustrate that WFB truly did have the last word at this, covers his nemeses.

Rosen refers to these works as eulogies, but Buckley’s thoughts made public would hardly be acceptable by any funeral forum standards. Three weeks after the death of John F. Kennedy, one of five presidents included in the book, Buckley criticizes the national outpouring of grief.

 

READOUT: Extinguishing the flames of Camelot

 

“The rhetoric has gone quite out of control. The symbol of our emotional, if not neurotic excess, is the Eternal Flame at Arlington.… The lovely and tormented Mrs. Kennedy needs a gentle hand lest in her understandable grief, she give the air of the Pharaoh, specifying his own magnitude.’’

His essay about author Truman Capote includes the story of when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan joked about using Capote as bait to see if there were any homosexuals working for him.

Buckley opens his column about the death of Jerry Garcia with, “If I ever heard a song played by the Grateful Dead I wasn’t aware of it.’’ Buckley then goes on to criticize Garcia for not going public with his addictions to drugs and alcohol. “If he had done so, how many would have had better prospects for health, love and longer lives?’’ Buckley concludes.

And none of these even falls under the Nemeses category.

To show just how far Buckley could go in landing a death-blow punch to the dead, here is his opening for the essay about Ayn Rand, one of six nemeses in the book: ”Ayn Rand is dead. So, incidentally, is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it was, in fact, stillborn.”

He also shows no love for former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. “She treated all the world as her own personal slum project; and all the papers, of course, remarked on that fabulous energy – surely she was the very first example of the peacetime use of atomic energy. But some publications went to far as to say she had a great mind. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of Euclid.”

Not everyone receives such call-it-as-he-sees-it treatment. Buckley’s four family members receive the sort of glowing obituary routinely found in newspapers that encourage such glowing praise as they bill by the word. Buckley treats Johnny Carson with a bashful tenderness, a comment about how many of Carson’s ex-wives would have attended his memorial service aside.

Receiving such gentle treatment is rare, though, and a good thing. That Buckley candor makes this book a delightful read, a combination of intimate glimpses of some of the century’s most well-known figures, before – bam — Buckley skewers them, not just bringing them down to ordinary levels, but making readers recalculate their own high opinions of the dearly departed.

It is difficult, though, to feel sorry for the subjects. To have one’s death come to the attention of WFB rivals today’s stage of being mocked on Saturday Night Live. Yes, it is mockery in front of millions, but to be mocked on SNL is a sign one has reached the upper ranks of People Who Matter.

Buckley honestly acknowledges that what he is offering comes strictly from his viewpoint. Many of the essays begin with “I first met” as Buckley spins an opening anecdote from his perspective; none of them contain the usual facts required in an obituary, such as birth and death dates, lifetime achievements or honors.

Buckley seems to assume with these essays that his familiarity with the deceased parallels that of his readers, since he jumps in with his thoughts without much introduction of the subject. For each one Rosen provides an opening note that helps frame Buckley’s connection to the subject and provide background not contained in the essay. That adds significantly to the depth of enjoyment of the stories.

These 52 essays provide not just a quick character sketch of the subjects, but a more complex review of Buckley’s life, one well lived and peppered with interesting people. The title suffices for both the subjects to find a short resurrection to their glory days in these pages, but also a reminder of the joys of a journalist’s clean and pointed writing style.

Buckley’s death might have caused relief in some who feared what his tribute would say about them. But they, after all, wouldn’t be around to read them anyway. For those still earth-bound, A Torch Kept Lit provides a pleasurable way to confront the demise of others.

St. Louis Media History Foundation Hall of Fame event is Saturday

ST. LOUIS, March 15, 2017 — The St. Louis Media History Foundation, a nonprofit organization that researches and compiles artifacts and memorabilia related to the St. Louis area’s rich media history, will hold its 2017 Hall of Fame dinner and induction ceremonies on Saturday, April 15, 2017, at the St. Louis City Center Hotel downtown, 400 South 14th Street, near Scottrade Center.

The dinner and ceremonies will begin at 5:30 p.m. There will be a cash bar and free indoor and outdoor hotel parking for attendees.

Tickets for the dinner entrees — Grilled Salmon with a Citrus Orange Gastrique, Sautéed Chicken Picatta in a White Wine Caper Sauce, or a vegetarian Eggplant Stack — will be $55 for individuals or $550 for a table of 10.

Tickets can be purchased in advance through Eventbrite, or at the door. Discounted hotel rooms for guests also are available through the St. Louis City Center Hotel. Rooms must be reserved by March 31.

  • John Beck – Senior Vice President of Emmis Communications, who oversees all four Emmis radio stations in St. Louis: KSHE, KIHT, KPNT, and KFTK. He’s been general manager of KSHE since 1984.
  • Jim Brady – Pioneering news director at KTVI-TV. He later held the same position at KMOX Radio before becoming executive secretary of the St. Louis County Board of Police Commissioners.
  • Dennis Clancy, Art Dwyer, Ron Edwards, John McHenry, and Tom “Pappa” Ray – Jazz/blues producers for listener-supported KDHX when the station began broadcasting in 1987.
  • Peggy Cohill – Executive producer of “The Charlie Brennan Show” on KMOX Radio, and a program producer at that station for more than 40 years.
  • Jack Dorsey — @jack is a computer programmer and internet entrepreneur, co-founder and CEO of Twitter, and founder and CEO of Square, a mobile payments company.
  • Bob Dotson – Emmy-winning correspondent for NBC News, where he spent 40 years, including 25 with “The Today Show.” He’s a six-time recipient of the Edward R. Murrow Award for news writing.
  • Mary Edwards – Senior producer of KWMU-FM/St. Louis Public Radio’s “St. Louis on the Air” call-in program and its live broadcasts of the St. Louis Symphony. She has been with the station since 1974, and has been responsible for helping to shape KWMU’s innovative programming.
  • David Erich – Public relations executive for several St. Louis-area companies, including Pepsi and United Van Lines. He was the first ad executive for Six Flags when it opened in 1971.
  • Dan Forrestal – Longtime public relations executive with Monsanto who helped guide the company’s communications strategy as it maneuvered from a chemical company into one of the world’s leading agricultural companies. He also mentored many communications practitioners throughout his career.
  • Don Francois – Pioneering TV engineer who helped launch KACY-TV, one of the first UHF stations in St. Louis. He later helped other local stations transition from black-and-white to color broadcasts.
  • Margaret Wolf Freivogel – Award-winning St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter and editor. She also was founding editor of the St. Louis Beacon, a non-profit digital news startup that merged with KWMU-FM/St. Louis Public Radio in 2013.
  • Roy Harris – A Post-Dispatch reporter from 1926 to 1967, Harris won a Pulitzer Prize in 1950 for investigating election fraud in Illinois. He also helped the newspaper win three other Pulitzer Prizes in 1937, 1941, and 1948.
  • Rick Hummel – Longtime St. Louis Cardinals beat writer for the Post-Dispatch, Hummel – nicknamed “The Commish” — is a former president of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, a J.G Taylor Spink Award recipient in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
  • Sid Savan – A major figure in St. Louis advertising, Savan also was a longtime instructor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. His Savan Advertising also helped many ad execs get their start.
  • Clarissa Start – Gardening columnist for the Post-Dispatch from 1938 to 1972. Her column was serialized in Ladies Home Journal. After retirement, she wrote her column for another 30 years.
  • Jack Thorwegen – Co-founder in 1985 of the Zipatoni marketing firm, known for its creative work. His Proof Agency, founded in 2014, helps craft brewers and distillers compete against larger rivals.

The St. Louis Media Hall of Fame has recognized St. Louisans who have made a major contribution, in their work here or elsewhere, to their respective media in four different fields: Radio, Print, Television, and Advertising/Public Relations.

The Foundation also maintains an exhibit at the Karpeles Manuscript Library Museum, 3524 Russell Avenue, in South St. Louis. Admission is free. The museum is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Tuesday through Sunday.

The Foundation accepts tax deductible contributions to develop and expand its St. Louis media history collection, its website, local archives and repositories, oral histories, and the St. Louis Media Hall of Fame. For more information, visit the foundation’s Facebook page or www.stlmediahistory.com.

Mike Mike: a mother’s view

Lezley McSpadden with Lyah Beth LeFlore, Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil, Regan Arts, New York, 2016, $26.95, 254 pages.

By Pat Louise

Since Aug. 9, 2014, much has been written about Michael Brown, shot that day by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. In Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil, Brown’s mother tells her son’s life story before his death became a national story.

Author Lezley McSpadden, with author Lyah Beth LeFlore, takes up much of the story talking about her own life, including pregnancy at age 16 and then raising son Mike Mike and her other children before her oldest was shot on Canfield Drive. For those looking for a mother’s rant against police and government amidst racism in her town, this book deals up a surprisingly little of that. Instead, readers get a better understanding of the people behind the national news event.

The book opens with a punch to the heart of a mother’s learning her son has been shot and is lying in the street a few blocks away. As she races to the scene, McSpadden leaves us there, going back to telling the story of her childhood and then Mike Mike’s 18 years, before circling back to the shooting and its aftermath.

McSpadden seems to be exploring the questions of how did we get here and what happened. While she thoroughly answers the first, she says at the end she has yet to learn exactly what happened that day, as two of the three witnesses refuse to talk to her and the third is dead.

With a candor that doesn’t always put her in the best light, McSpadden chronicles her childhood, including disappointments with her father and her struggles to keep going to school and work once she has her son at age 16.  Her choice of writing styles with slang and incorrect grammar can be jarring, especially as she writes in a prose as if talking to the reader over coffee at the kitchen table.

She and Mike Mike bounce around living with her mother, on their own and with the Browns, parents of her son’s father. Her son – nicknamed Mike Mike to distinguish between his father Mike — is raised by an assortment of family members, but always with plenty of love around him, McSpadden says again and again.

Who the world would come to know as Michael Brown from Aug. 9, 2014, on is described as a laid-back kid, always too big for his age and the target of bullying because of his size. He is not a good student, forcing his mother to try a number of tactics to keep him in school and obtain a high school degree, something she was unable to do. Brown does earn his diploma, becoming a high school graduate who turned 18 just weeks before his death.

That kid who, according to his mother, might have given her grief in the home but never outside of it, becomes the counter character to the Michael Brown police originally said had a weapon, tried to harm an officer and had just been involved in a robbery.

McSpadden does not attempt to fill in the gaps leading up to the shooting; instead she details her quest to talk to the man Brown was with at the Ferguson Market and who saw him get shot. An attempt to talk to him – a person McSpadden said she never heard mentioned by her son – resulted in nothing truthful being told, she writes.

Whatever one’s views of the shooting – justified or police brutality – the description of McSpadden and her family racing to the scene and forced to see Brown’s body lying on the street for hours, unable to even touch him, makes for painful reading. But this is where McSpadden’s story makes the most impact, as she strips away the controversy and questions and flashes back to standing for hours wanting to get to her dead son lying on the street.

McSpadden skims through her appearances at press conferences and talk shows in the days and weeks after the shooting and then the grand jury report. She touches briefly by name on those in law enforcement and government in Missouri who made promises, offering her view of whether they were sincere or not.

She spends more time on problems between her and Brown’s father regarding the funeral and meetings with Missouri leaders to update them on the case. While the question remains of what it felt like to get pushed into the national spotlight and see the devastation in the city of Ferguson over the shooting, McSpadden sets all that aside to focus on her grief over burying her son.

It works because what the reader gets is not a national spotlight view but something more intimate.

McSpadden wraps up her story by saying she shook out of her depression by starting the Michael O.D. Brown We Love Our Sons and Daughters Foundation. The Foundation brings together mothers of other males shot by police, a group known as the Rainbow Mothers. The Foundation offers a variety of ways to help them adjust to their new normal of life.

She says as her book went to press late last spring that she has yet to learn the solid truth of what happened in her son’s final moments. “This isn’t a black versus white issue. This is an issue about Right versus Wrong,’’ she states at the end.

Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil might roil those convinced Brown deserved his fate, as McSpadden’s view is most definitely that he did not. But her opinion comes strictly as that of his mother, and that is what mothers do. Readers are given fair warning on the cover with the description of The Life, Legacy, and Love of My Son, Michael Brown. Anyone expecting a balanced outlook from Wilson’s perspective will not find it. Instead, what you get is a detailed look into one family’s life in the face of losing a loved one to a cop shooting.

Spinning presidential yarns

By Chris Burnett

Greenberg, David. The Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency (2016) New York: W.W. Norton & Company, $18.95, 540 pages.

In The Republic of Spin, historian David Greenberg provides the reader with a comprehensive summary and analysis of the development of public relations techniques used by U.S. presidents since the turn of the 20th century. Today it is impossible to imagine a world where presidents had no one on their White House staffs assigned to deal with the media or go over the Washington press corps’ heads to develop a positive image of the chief executive with the public. However, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century, with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, that chief executives began to aggressively court, or as we say today, “spin,” the media, with a concerted public relations effort.

Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University, has done an excellent job in writing a series of essays describing the nature of the presidents serving over the past century and how they have used the communications technology of their day. As a historian, he is well equipped to describe events that promoted the professionalism of presidential public relations. The 44 chapters, comprised of essays between 10 and 15 pages long, are written in a journalistic style the author has honed as an editor at Slate and the New Republic, and as a writer for the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic and other professional and scholarly publications. The book is especially useful for general readers wanting to know more about presidents and the press. The Republic of Spin is great for an undergraduate politics or journalism class, for the focus on people and events of the day make this book an easy read.

Greenberg’s main theme, developed throughout the book’s 540 pages with numerous examples, is that spin, defined as the “huge arsenal of tools and techniques (elected officials and their aides have used) to shape their messages, their images and our thinking,” has become an integral part of presidential campaigning and governing. Greenberg writes that spin involves the work done by an army of campaign consultants, press secretaries, handlers, speechwriters and other political handlers as well as hacks and flacks to make sure every public utterance coming from the White House or presidential campaign is portrayed in the most favorable light. Whether spin is a good or bad thing seems to be irrelevant to Greenberg. Spin is just there, and it is a key part of the modern presidency.

To support his theme, Greenberg takes the reader on a tour of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st, concluding with a superficial glance at the Obama administration’s spin efforts. He focuses more detail on the development of spin in the first three quarters of the 20th century, through the end of the presidency of Richard Nixon in 1974. In fact, Nixon’s failure to effectively spin the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters was arguably the most devastating in the history of the presidency.

Greenberg’s tour is entertaining, and the reader will learn a lot about how public relations’ early pioneers, such as Ivy Ledbetter Lee and Edward Bernays, who played a key role in developing presidential and political public relations. Certain presidents, such as Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, not surprisingly, played a big role in expanding the role of spin in the presidency. Woodrow Wilson, the first president to deliver his State of the Union address in person to Congress, also found success in the world of spin, though his later failure to get the Senate to ratify the treaty that would have brought the nation into the League of Nations marred the end of his presidency. John F. Kennedy was a master of spin through the first live televised news conferences and commanding performance in the first live televised debate in 1960 with Republican candidate Nixon. My favorite chapter of the book discusses the Kennedy campaign’s masterful handling of reporter Theodore White’s chronicling of the 1960 campaign in what would become The Making of the President 1960, which won the Pulitzer Prize and burnished a positive image for the president well before his assassination. By giving White unprecedented access to the Kennedy campaign, and charming his fellow Bostonian, Kennedy showed that special treatment of individual media members could help make for favorable treatment with future journalists and historians. White would go on to chronicle future presidential campaigns in the Making of the President series throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but it was his 1960 book that won the greatest acclaim. In effect, White showed that journalists can be persuaded to spin.

Another advantage of Greenberg’s historical approach comes from his mention (although it is by no means emphasized in the text) that presidents taking advantage of “new media” tend to be viewed as most successful. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) used his love of personal campaigning and celebrity status as war hero in the Spanish-American War to feed the thirst of the expanding print media of newspapers and muckraking magazines for political news. Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945) used the new medium of radio to deliver carefully crafted Fireside Chats and build the image of strong leadership that make him president until nearly the end of World War II. Kennedy (1961-1963) mastered the new medium of television, and Obama (2009-2017) was the first president to use spin to harness the power of the Internet, particularly Facebook, to build a strong positive image in campaigning and fund raising. The book was written before Donald Trump’s triumphant 2016 campaign, so future historians will get to analyze whether Trump’s use of spin with Twitter feeds will continue to help him build a following and allow him bypass a hostile Washington press corps.

Greenberg’s book, however, has its flaws. The historical approach he uses and emphasis on spin causes him to downplay the role historical events can play in presidential success or failure. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) was a successful president because he presided over a nation at a time of great prosperity more than because he mastered spin. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) was a legislative master but a poor television communicator. Yet it would be hard to imagine any president positively spinning the Vietnam War or the race riots of the late 1960s.

The book’s length, and scope, also make it at times appear to be overly stuffed with facts and people that it is hard for the reader to focus on what he considers to be the most significant factors influencing political spin. . Greenberg’s journalistic and historical approach makes the book easy to read, but the lack of focus can also provide the impression of superficiality. The author also focuses too little on more recent administrations. Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, two presidents who were among the more accessible to the media, get brief treatment, and the Monica Lewinsky scandal is the major focus given to Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms. The chapter on Obama emphasizes his campaign success but does not explain how or why his administration was unable to use its talent at spin to make at least a dent in the partisan opposition in Congress.

Despite these flaws, The Republic of Spin is a useful compilation of stories on the role political public relations plays in building successful presidencies. This volume is useful in that so much information on so many presidents is packed into one book. However, readers turning to this book for an analysis of the current relationship between presidency and the media will not find what they want in this otherwise impressive work.

 

‘Freedom Fighter” Mike Wolff says good reporting inspires social change

Michael A. Wolff, former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and dean of Saint Louis University law school, gave these remarks upon receipt of the GJR’s Freedom Fighter award at last month’s First Amendment Celebration.

by Michael A. Wolff

I am deeply honored by this award. I am impressed by the exaggeration of its title – “freedom fighter” seems an overstatement that my father would have enjoyed and my mother would have believed.

I consider myself a recovering reporter. Here is something I never have disclosed: At one point in my life, nearly five years after graduating from law school and leaving The Minneapolis Star I sent a note to my old managing editor asking if the paper might have an opening for me as a reporter. He did not write back. How soon they forget.

I truly am humbled by receiving this award from an organization whose members have so single-mindedly devoted their lives to telling the truth to the people in our community and nation. I will risk omitting some truly great journalists who are here and honor me by their presence, so I beg your indulgence in advance to single out my friend and occasional co-conspirator Bill Freivogel, Margie Freivogel, Charles Klotzer, whose St. Louis Journalism Review I started reading more than 40 years ago and whose legacy lives on in the Gateway Journalism Review and the able writers and editors who populate it and continue to provide the criticism necessary to keep our media performing their essential role in our society.

Let’s face it – we lawyers and journalism have something in common – if it weren’t for human frailty, greed, avarice, and at times simple incompetence, we would all be out of business.

Great reporting inspires our passion for social change. My friend and SLU colleague Roger Goldman read your reporting in the Post Dispatch 40 years ago about trigger-happy Maplewood officers whose deadly shots did not disqualify one of them for future employment in another municipality. Roger has spent 40 years of his terrific career seeking to hold police accountable through certification and licensing all over the country.

Great reporting builds a sense of community, sets the stage and furthers the progress made in all the areas you have mentioned … education, racial justice, health care, criminal justice. It builds a community of those who, like you who are here, have a shared view of reality and the motivation to do something.

Great reporting can shame our leaders, although shame from time to time seems to go out of fashion.

Put aside shame, for now. These days it seems truth has gone out of fashion, and that feels even more ominous.

But it is so essential that we know basic facts, that we tell basic truths widely to get some agreement on a sensible common course. We cannot be a well functioning democratic republic without shared facts. Correct information is essential to drive out misinformation. I cannot think of a time in my lifetime when great reporting and great editing were more needed.

I thank you for being essential truth sayers. I also am grateful for the comics among us. Satire is alive and well. Unfortunately it sometimes is hard to tell what’s real news and what’s Saturday Night Live. It reminds me of the time decades ago when the satirist Tom Lehrer (younger people, you can Google him) said that satire died the day they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.

As a lawyer and judge, I sometimes have had the experience you occasionally have when someone questions your motives, your fairness, your judgment. That’s when humor comes in handy. I may be an idiot but I know this because Garrison Keillor told us: You can go your whole life and not need math or physics for a minute, but the ability to tell a joke is always handy.

I have tried to be available, preferably without attribution, to help reporters understand the current events that they are writing about – I remember the feeling of having to write about several different subjects in a single week. I always have had respect for that daunting challenge that reporters and editors have put their talents to. When I was a reporter I sometimes felt like the wreck on the side of the road, hoping that someone would stop and help. I often felt that way as a lawyer.

Also on the side of the road are those who are taking up some cause of social justice in these challenging times. We should stop and help them if we can.

It is easy for us to ignore those who are trying to advance social justice. There are just so many problems. There are many ways that various contending factions define social justice. It is easy to be overwhelmed, and the temptation to do nothing is strong, to leave them on the side of the road.

I leave you with my profound thanks, not on the side of the road, … but without a quick and satisfying answer. Perhaps this will help, a thought from one of Missouri’s most cherished treasures, Mark Twain: “Always do right,” Twain said. “This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

‘Truth did not die,’ Garrett tells GJR audience

compiled for GJR

What is new … right now … is after years of Americans wondering if journalism matters … we have a renewed fascination and curiosity about what journalism is, what it does and what are the ethical and professional obligations upon which it stands.

The audience … hasn’t been this curious, this attentive in years. What will government do? What are the checks and balances? What are the institutional levels of power? How will the elegant system of co-equal branches of government the founders bequeathed us function amid the unpredictability of a Trump presidency? The stakes feel high and real and vivid. And they are.

Time magazine asked this week if truth is dead? It asked if god was dead in 1966…. God was no deader then than he or she is now. Neither is truth. Did truth die when John Adams signed the alien and sedition act? Did it die during the 19th century when politicians large and small bought newspapers, reporters and editorials like so many trinkets? Did it die during teapot dome or when robber barons tried to turn government into a clearinghouse for greed and corruption? Did it die during the cold war, during Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-contra, Bill Clinton’s impeachment or Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?

Truth did not die… because the search for it did not perish. Truth may have been delayed… but it was not denied. The question is not whether truth is dead … but will the search for it ever die. I say on behalf of journalism and the first amendment … never … not ever.

Asia media examine Trump: The view from China

by Lu Fan

“Messy.” That’s the best word to describe coverage of Donald Trump in the Chinese media. As the new president acts so differently from his predecessors and has attracted so much public attention in China during the presidential campaign, media here spare no efforts to cover all the details of Trump – everything from his political moves to the golden curtains in his office. The following demonstrate a range of views of Chinese media on Trump’s first “messy” month.

China in his imagination

According to the U.S. media, Trump called China “grand champions” of currency manipulation. This statement caused great concern among Chinese media. An article form Global Times, a publication of the People’s Daily, says: “He almost talks about China out of his own imagination. It looks like he does not know the actual currency policy of China or the direction or aim of China managing foreign currency.”

The resignation of Michael Flynn

An analytical article from Global Times argues that the resignation of National Security Adviser Flynn decreases the authority of Trump as a new president. “All facts prove that it is hard for Trump to be a tough president … it is difficult for his personalities to become the collective attitude and action of the U.S. system. The cost of him promoting his political orders could be the highest in history.”

The winner of Trump-media war goes to…

The protracted war between Trump and the U.S. media has attracted the attention from the world, including Chinese media. The news and analysis of the relationship between media and Trump outnumber those of any previous U.S. president.

Several articles say one of the reasons Trump is confident railing against the media is that the U.S. media are not financially healthy, and thus vulnerable and easy targets. Another reason is that the U.S. public no longer trusts its media as it once did. Although the U.S. media are sometimes seen as being partisan, such partisanship became extreme in the past presidential campaign. And such partisanship damages the objectivity and credibility of the U.S. media.

Anbin Shi, a professor and associate dean of the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University, recently published an article in Global Times, saying, “Trump’s declaration of war on mainstream media is a critical move to break the political game of the elites. But the outcome of the war is that he and media both win. The public’s interest in mainstream media increases, the responsibility of media supervising (government) and filter (information) also increases … do not forget that Trump is an astute businessman … the ‘war’ might be a strategy of compromising with the mainstream.”

Another article from Guancha.cn speculates that the war between Trump and media is actually a show paid by the public since more people are reading or watching mainstream media, so the “CNNs” are happy to be under attack. But how long such a win-win status could be maintained is up to the public.

Some media similarly think that no matter which party loses this war, it will bring a heavy strike to the U.S. system and the public.

And finally…

Regarding all the mess during the first month of Trump’s administration, some Chinese media say it is the result of Trump trying too hard. He considers himself “a revolutionist” and hopes to do something different without good strategies, which leads to brutal action and policy in controversy, in the view of Chinese journalists.

While criticizing Trump for trying too hard, some Chinese media also try too hard to attract readers. In many news headlines of the White House keeping some media outside from a news briefing, “briefing” was substituted with “press conference,” which is apparently more dramatic and easy to attract attention, but is misleading for those readers who only look at headlines without reading the whole story.

Asia media examine Trump: The view from South Korea

by Jin Lee

South Korean journalism is paying less attention to international affairs due to seriousness of the political scandal in South Korea.

Still, however, journalists here are covering the United States under Donald Trump’s presidency. This is not just because of the bonds between the U.S and South Korea, but because of the status of the US as the world-leading country in the economy and international politics.

As President Trump continues to sell the “American First” idea since his presidential campaign, however, many countries have expressed discomfort about Trump being president. South Korea is no exception. As much as many South Korean citizens are unhappy about Trump because of his enforced immigration policy and hostile attitude to non-white foreigners, the way South Korean journalism covers Trump administration is unfavorable.

Such concerns were initiated after Trump signed an executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen). Trump’s immigration policy has sparked a fierce debate in South Korean media over racism and global citizenship, which made not only those listed countries but also the rest of world puzzled, worried, and even threatened. South Korean media have seriously criticized the order, seeing several subsequent cases as being unfair to South Korea.

One case occurred Feb. 11 in Koreatown, Los Angeles, when a Caucasian woman attacked an 83-year-old Korean yelling “white power” before fleeing. This news has spread by social media. Los Angeles police have so far not apprehended the woman.

And on that same day a South Korean solo traveler was detained in Honolulu where his connecting flight to NYC was scheduled. The traveler said, not only was he barred from entering the country with no reason at the immigration checkpoint, but also that he was forced to say he had been illegally employed in the U.S., although he never had worked in America. His request to contact South Korea Embassy was reportedly denied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Honolulu, and he subsequently was deported. South Korean news media covered both cases, saying “With the enactment of Trump’s executive order, possible unfavorable treatment to South Koreans may be happening.”

In addition to increasing concerns about South Korean citizens’ safety in the U.S., South Korean news media also are anxious about security on the Korean Peninsula. The Feb. 10 meeting between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe provoked such anxiety. North Korea staged a ballistic missile test that day while Trump and Abe were playing golf in Florida. They quickly voiced their concerns about North Korea.

“I just want everybody to understand and fully know that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent,” Trump said. South Korean media reported, “given his statement, U.S. under Trump seems to consider neither South Korea nor peace on the Korean Peninsula at all.”

South Korean media appear concerned that diplomatic relations between the US and South Korea have been changing after the inauguration of Donald Trump. The media coverage of international politics – mainly about the U.S. – is enough to trigger concerns and fears about security in South Korea among South Koreans.

Media here report that as Trump argues for a more protectionist American economic plan, many South Korean companies, such as Samsung and LG, will likely to encounter difficulties in their business with the U.S. In addition to the unfavorable immigration policy or attitude in the U.S., the security and economy of South Korea might be in trouble under Trump administration, many news media say.

While South Korean legacy media continue to produce news in a “South Korea in crisis” format under the Trump administration, new media, including Twitter, are full of cat images. One tweet in Korean reads, “After the 2016 presidential election, now the world, all we’ve got to do is upload pictures of cats and dogs.” Another twit in Korean says similarly, speaking to U.S. Twitter users, “Hey America, now you will understand why we only upload cat pictures. Soon your tweets will be full of pictures of cats.”

Some tweets directly mention a “world gone crazy.” By doing so, new media full of cat images seem to ridicule current politics. Those images of cats on Twitter do not just say “cats are so adorable.” Rather, by posting memes of cats that tease their owners or modifying cat images to make fun of human beings, Twitter users seem to enjoy the humor of the current political crisis.

It is no coincidence that funny memes of world leaders, including those of South Korean President Geun-Hye Park, North Korean President, Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, are posted together with those cat memes on Twitter. Uploading funny pictures is a way new-media users here can temporarily escape current political and international crises. Through cat memes, Twitter users deride people in general. Through humorous images of presidents Park and Trump, they also blame the “stupidity” of politicians who were supposed to do their best for the better world, but instead cause bitter conflicts in the world.