Written to Max Londberg (jlondberg@kcstar.com) and Mary Kate Metivier (mmetivier@kcstar.com) of the Kansas City Star.

Thank you for managing the KC Star survey on the trustworthiness of the media.  I am writing to you to expand on my response to your survey.

Before I provide specific concerns in this regard, including specific circumstances in which I feel the Kansas City Star has performed poorly, it would be helpful for you to know more about me so that you can judge my comments in context.

I have been a subscriber to the KC Star continuously since I moved to the Kansas City area in 1996 (exception: boycott, explained further later).

I am an Independent voter.  For example, in this century I voted for President Bush and for President Obama the first time each of them were Presidential candidates but against each of them when they ran for re-election.  I voted for Ian McMullen in 2016, having been a very early modified “Never Trump” person.  (Modified because my position was “Never Trump” unless the alternative is Cruz.)

I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  However, as I have aged, my social viewpoints have become less liberal, less so because my opinions have changed as compared to changes in our population at large.  For example, I have always been in favor of gay rights, which was a liberal position in my youth.  But I have not favored redefinition of the word “marriage”, which caused my position during our recent debates to be more middle-of-the-road than liberal.

I perceive myself to be a political moderate.  For example, I respect Hillary Clinton.  I believe she sincerely wants to help people (especially children and women) and is a bright, hard-worker with energy.  However, I don’t agree with her politics and see her as a divider rather than a unifier (albeit not to the unprecedented extent of President Trump).  In my view, she is a sad example of “power corrupts”.  Because she is so convinced that her motives are pure, she does not subject her actions to adequate ethical screens.  (“How could I do anything unethical when I’m just trying to help people?”)  I’m referring to this as a moderate position because so many people seem to either love Hillary or consider her to the devil incarnate.

I am the son of Jewish people who immigrated during World War II.

I have been a professional actuary, which was a suitable career for me because I view issues based on long-term impact.

In my opinion, the greatest contributory factor to the success of the United States has been the separation of powers.  As a youth, I supported strong central government, but less so as I have aged (i.e., I have shifted to what is typically considered to be governmental conservatism).  I often quote Winston Churchill who said something to the effect that “If you are young and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart.  If you are middle-aged and not a conservative, you don’t have a brain.”

Being a holocaust descendant may also influence my concern regarding potential long-term effects and for process.  I cringe when people tell me “that could never happen here” because such sentiments increase our risk, in my opinion.

Our society believes “the ends justifies the means”, endorsing inappropriate action by their political party while excoriating the same actions by the other side.  Such lack of integrity is very damaging to our country.  Furthermore, in general, “the ends justifies the means” is a slippery slope.

As a former inner city school teacher, I have traditionally maintained that our under-performing education system is our country’s biggest problem.  I now consider fake news to be our biggest risk.

In 1994, I saw the movie “Forrest Gump”.  It was a wonderful story, but I am the only person I know who hated the movie.  It sent chills up and down my body as I saw pictures of Forrest Gump with Marilyn Monroe and JFK.  Such technology was new to me.  It terrified me that people could be convinced of false information with doctored pictures and would develop distrust of accurate evidence on the belief that it might be false.

********************

Moving to your survey, the problem is not “typically not trusting media”.  Most information in the media (and the KC Star in particular) is correct.  The problem is the minority of material that is either inaccurate, misleading, biased, or irresponsible.

For example, the KC Star recently commented on Trump’s stance relative to Russia, contrasting it to President Obama’s administration by referring to “after eight years of being tough on Russia”.  I think that is an accurate quote and apologize if it is not.  I had two problems with that statement:

1)     My biggest problem was the characterization that President Obama had been tough on Russia, particularly for 8 years.  He had an extended “reset” philosophy and mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for identifying Russia as a threat.  I give President Obama credit for creating meaningful sanctions on Russia as a result of the Russian annexation of Crimea and actions in Ukraine, but he arguably could have done more.  He was weak in Syria.  President Obama did not appear to get extremely upset with Russia until Russia revealed accurate information about his favored successor.

2)     The media seems to be anxious to cast Trump as a pawn of Russia.  Initially, he said that Putin was a stronger leader than President Obama.  That was not praise for Putin, it was criticism of President Obama and was entirely related to foreign policy, not domestic action.  Unfortunately, with President Trump’s personality, mischaracterizing his actions can push him in the wrong direction.  Nonetheless, when has Trump ever been a pawn of anybody?  In some respects, Trump has already been tougher on Russia than President Obama ever was.  Trump has selected strongly anti-Russia people for his cabinet (e.g., Mike Pompeo) and threatened Russia with a nuclear build-up if Russia grew its nuclear weapons.

In the above-mentioned situation, the KC Star reporting was clearly inaccurate and misleading.  I wondered how that “after 8 years” comment could get printed.

******************************

My following correspondence from 2016 discusses another occurrence which undermines trust in the KC Star.  As noted above, I cherish process.  Free speech is very important to me.  The KC Star took a strong position against free speech and at the same time took steps to re-write history (a very scary action).  By the way, I did not boycott at the time, but I blame myself for not having gone to the trouble of doing so at that time.

From: Claude Thau
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 9:15 PM
To: Tony Berg (tberg@kcstar.com) <tberg@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (readerrep@kcstar.com) <readerrep@kcstar.com>; oped@kcstar.com
Subject: Article about rape

Dear Mr. Berg,

When I read Saturday’s “Midwest Voices” article about rape, I was uncomfortable with it, as explained below.  However it can be valuable to read things that make you uncomfortable. 

My wife and I did not discuss it until she showed me your commentary today (http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article88705437.html), expressing her disagreement with your stance.

At the time you published Ms. Herrick’s article, you could have published an editorial comment that the KC Star does not agree with it.  Your Sunday opinion would have been acceptable if it had been limited to such a comment or apologizing for not having included such a comment on Saturday.  I think a “Midwest Voices” article, by its nature, reflects the writer’s thoughts, not those of the Star.  So I don’t think such an editorial comment was necessary, but, as noted, I would not object to such a comment.

However, in my strong opinion, you did not give adequate reason for censorship and re-inventing history by purging Ms. Herrick’s article.  Your justification is largely based on “If a person is incapacitated and someone takes advantage of them sexually, the law considers that rape or sexual assault and the victim is blameless”.  Does that mean if I disagree with a law, I have no right to be heard?

My above comments would apply had Ms. Herrick suggested that the man was somewhat less responsible because of the woman being intoxicated.  However, it is worth noting that her second and third paragraphs made it clear that her stance is that the man is not absolved at all! 

In the middle of her fourth paragraph, she appears to segue from rape to situations of consensual sex that are regretted by the female later.  That transition troubled me because it is not well-written.  It would have been good for the Star to encourage her to clarify her writing.  It is conceivable that the Star may have contributed to the confusion by failing to start a new paragraph when she wrote “And if you wake up…”, but I don’t know that she intended a new paragraph. 

I strongly disagreed with what I inferred she was saying when she wrote “If a woman was too drunk to know what she was doing and should be excused for what happened, then why are men not allowed to be too drunk to make good decisions?”  A state of created incapacity cannot absolve someone of a violent crime against another person.

I also disagreed with her suggestion that her son should run the other direction rather than help a drunk, unconscious woman.  But recently a man was victimized in just such an occurrence.  Her advice is improper in my opinion, but the issue is real and is important.

I understand that in McClenahan v. Cooley, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that “"Leaving a key in the ignition of an unattended automobile in an area where the public has access, be it public or private property, could be found by a reasonable jury to be negligent, whether or not a prohibitory statute is involved."  This theory of negligence seems related to the position taken by Ms. Herrick.  I don’t think that any such “negligence” reduces the responsibility of the person committing either crime.  But I don’t think someone who would consider such action to be negligence should be censored.

I experienced two ironies related to your opinion today:

1.     Just prior to my wife showing me your commentary, I had sent off an email related to a university which had published papers with dramatically inaccurate conclusions based on atrocious methodology.  Nonetheless, while criticizing them, I gave them credit for good points they made.  I suggest that in disagreeing with Ms. Herrick, you should have made more effort to recognize the good points she made.

2.     This morning I considered canceling my subscription because I did not get paper delivery twice this past week and did not get a Home Section/Classified today.  I quickly decided that the poor service did not justify cancellation.  However, I am considering cancelling in protest of your censorship.  (Note: I have been subscribing to the Star since I moved to KC in 1996.)

Why should I not cancel my subscription as a protest for your commentary today?

Respectfully,

Claude Thau
Phone direct: 913-403-5824

**********************

The KC Star is clearly left-leaning.  Its left-leaning attitude comes across regularly, without generally being acknowledged by the Star.  A striking example occurred in 2015 as documented by my correspondence below. Steve Kraske chose not to respond to my email of August 8^th, 2015 nor to a second email from me 3 days later, after I received a response from Derek Donovan.  (Kudos to Derek, by the way.)

From: Claude Thau
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:20 PM
To: Steve Kraske (skraske@kcstar.com) <skraske@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (ddonovan@kcstar.com) <ddonovan@kcstar.com>
Subject: A Striking Contrast between two recent articles of yours

Thanks for the articles you write in the KC Star and your KCUR and UMKC contributions, etc.

Today, you discussed a study by Patrick Miller and wrote that “Miller’s research… showed that 38 percent of partisans from both parties agreed that their parties should use any tactics necessary to win elections.  Brace yourself: That includes voter suppression, stealing and even lying.  It includes cheating and physical violence.”  You wrote other appropriate (in my opinion) critical comments about such behavior.

In contrast, a couple of days ago you explained Democrat Claire McCaskill’s substantial investment of money and effort to help Todd Akin win the Republican nomination to run against her, because she felt that he was the only potential Republican candidate that she could defeat.  I did not notice any criticism of her behavior.   Generally, I think Claire McCaskill is a good person.  But I think it is extremely unethical to interfere with the political process in the way she did.  Good people can do bad things, especially if others lack the courage to challenge their behavior.   The press, in particular, has such responsibility.

Why did you not express a value judgment regarding her behavior?  People reading the two columns consecutively might well conclude that you are one of the dangerous partisans of whom you wrote today.

I hope you will explain what I’m missing here.  If you criticized Claire McCaskill and I missed it, I apologize and will be very happy to be so informed.

Thank you.

Claude Thau

Phone direct: 913-403-5824

*********************

I boycotted the KC Star after it printed front-page (color, if I remember correctly) photos of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold after the Columbine shootings.  I don’t think their pictures belong in the paper at all and I don’t think their names belong on page 1.  I could compromise to accept front-page names with small pictures on distant back pages.  Newspapers justify such actions by saying their customers demand such sensationalism but I think that is partly because newspapers train readers to expect such material and I think newspapers should use better judgment.  In my opinion, the publicity which the KC Star accorded these perpetrators was irresponsible and encourages copy-cats.

*********************
Nationwide, there has been a lot of poor reporting related to Trump.  One example is the big hullabaloo about him accepting a call from Taiwan.  Trump was assailed for violating protocol by accepting that call.  Much more importantly, when President Obama then broke protocol by taking significant unnecessary foreign policy steps on the eve of Trump taking over apparently without discussion with Trump, I saw no media reports questioning President Obama for having failed to consult Trump.  It is possible that there were some private backroom discussions, but I think you’d also believe that is very unlikely.

Regardless of whether you support abstaining from the UN vote on Israel and the sanctions on Russia, it is hard to imagine anyone really believing that a President should take such actions in the last few weeks of his tenure without discussion with the incoming President.

*********************

I am opposed to President Trump’s travel ban.  At least parts of it were unnecessary.  It was not properly vetted (as I tell people, executive orders, as well as immigrants, need to be vetted).  Key members of the administration were not informed and it was poorly written.

It has run into legal difficulties, probably due to the ambiguity as to its applicability to green card holders, etc.

Many people opined that it was unconstitutional and/or illegal to favor minority religions over the major religions of the 7 primarily-Muslim countries cited.  However, NONE of the news reports I heard or read acknowledged that that wording in the executive order was immediately preceded by “to the extent permitted by law”.  NPR posted a highlighted and annotated copy of the law on their web-site.  Their highlighting in this area started with the first word after “to the extent permitted by law”.  I don’t understand how a provision can be unconstitutional or illegal if it contains such wording.  The implementation of the law may be illegal, but the provision can’t be illegal.

 

You can understand now why I wanted you to know that I was a “never Trump” person.   I still am very disappointed that he is president and am scared of the impact he might have on the world.  But the press has sometimes egged President Trump to be more extreme and has sadly made his anti-media statements into exaggerations rather than falsehoods.

Rebuke of Senator Warren & the Travel Ban

I added my name to the petition below my signature block.  In doing so, I was able to add this comment: “I am not a PFAW member.  I generally don't agree with them nor with Elizabeth Warren.  But I strongly agree with them regarding this incident.  Ms. Warren was discussing a potential Cabinet appointment.  Had she disparaged another senator who favored Sessions, silencing would have been appropriate, but not when critiquing a proposed Cabinet appointment.”

The petition automatically identifies you as a PFAW member but I was able to uncheck that box.

You can call your senator at 202-224-3121 if you want to protest the rebuke of Ms. Warren or if you want to support it.

I haven’t emailed you for a long time.  From my past writings, you can surmise that I am not happy with President Trump.  You probably also won’t be surprised that I am unhappy with the response of the Democrats, the press and many of the public.  I support protests but I don’t support a lot of the protest messaging.  Specifically relative to the travel ban:

1.    I think it was not necessary to ban refugees while creating stricter vetting, because existing vetting is, at worst, pretty good and, because, as it is a two-year process, there was no way refugees could rush in before the tougher vetting was implemented.

2.    It was poorly written and discussed.  (Executive orders, like refugees, need an appropriate vetting process.)  President Trump’s cabinet includes people who seem likely to express their opinion if they disagree with him.  If he proceeds without informing them, we all suffer and they may quit their posts.

3.    It is inconsistent with our values and heritage.  Of course there is risk in admitting refugees.  But as a nation and as individuals, we can’t lead our lives in accordance with our principles, without accepting some risk.

4.    By being unnecessarily (at least in some ways) divisive and offensive, it damages our country by making us more divided internally and more disliked externally.

5.    However, I think restrictions on immigration of foreign citizens don’t violate our constitution.  (I think the constitution doesn’t apply to them.  I haven’t checked this out, so I’m admittedly unprepared, but I’m commenting as I’m writing about this petition.)

6.    I also don’t think it is illegal discrimination.  (If it is illegal discrimination, then President Obama’s action against these same 7 countries would seem to be illegal discrimination.)

7.    So why did I agree with President Obama’s action but not this one?  I think it comes down to my support of what I consider to be appropriate profiling. as long as it is done respectfully.  President Obama essentially profiled people from these countries but treated them with respect.  President Trump has profiled them but is treating them disrespectfully.  As noted above, I disagree with President Trump but don’t think this action is unconstitutional or illegal.

8.    In NPR's annotated version of the travel ban executive order (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated), please scroll down to the fourth section of underlined wording.  It is preceded by the words “to the extent permitted by law” which apply to prioritizing “refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is  a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality”.  Although I don’t like that wording, I do not understand how it can be illegal or unconstitutional to instruct people to do something to the extent permitted by law.  If it is implemented in an illegal fashion, the implementation can be challenged but how can that wording in the law be illegal?  I am concerned that none of the many news reports I’ve seen or heard about the travel ban have mentioned this wording in the executive order.  In discussing this with a friend, I understood him to tell me that the wording is unconstitutional, despite “to the extent permitted by law”, because we all know what was meant.  If we permit laws and actions to be interpreted in that fashion, I believe we have destroyed our country.  That interpretation is very scary to me.

Claude

 From: Ben Betz, PFAW [mailto:alerts@pfaw.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:47 PM
To: Claude Thau <ClaudeT@targetins.com>
Subject: Shame on GOP Senators! Stand with Elizabeth Warren >>

Claude, Last night, Senate Republicans misused a rarely enforced senate rule (Rule XIX) to SHUT DOWN criticism of Trump attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It was a shocking power play by Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans to SILENCE DISSENT within the chamber in their effort to steamroll opposition to Sessions and ram through his confirmation. Sen. Warren read a quote from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1986, when Sessions was rejected by the majority Republican Senate for a federal judgeship, in which Kennedy called Sessions a “throwback to a shameful era.” Then, Warren began to read a letter from Coretta Scott King that was submitted to the Senate in opposition to Sessions’ 1986 nomination, which stated that Sessions had "used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens" and "to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters." At that point, Sen. Warren was interrupted and reprimanded. Republicans then upheld the rule violation with a 49-43 party-line vote, sidelining Sen. Warren from the rest of the debate and barring her from speaking on the Senate floor until the final vote on Sessions takes place. This is outrageous. Please add your name to our petition now rebuking Senate Republicans and saying you stand with Sen. Warren>> This inappropriate enforcement of this Senate rule is both extreme and hypocritical. All Sen. Warren was doing was quoting a former senator and reading from a letter by the widow of Martin Luther King that had already been in the Senate’s own records. By McConnell’s purported interpretation of this Senate rule, any time a sitting senator is nominated to an executive branch position or court seat, no other senator in the constitutional advise-and-consent process could ever criticize or make a case against that nominee using damaging evidence from the nominee’s own record.  And, in a statement calling out McConnell’s move, Minority Leader Schumer cited these examples of when Republican senators had recently “impugned” their colleagues far worse than Sen. Warren’s accurate reading of others’ quotes about Jeff Sessions: In floor remarks on July 24, 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused McConnell himself of telling “a flat out lie,” accusing his party’s own Majority Leader of repeatedly lying to every Republican senators as well as the press. In floor remarks on February 1, 2017 -- just one week ago -- Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) “impugned” Sen. Schumer, saying his “tear-jerking performance over the past weekend belongs at the Screen Actors Guild awards, not in a serious discussion of what it takes to keep America safe,” and accused Schumer of “stirring up global hysteria to score political points.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) viciously went after then-Minority Leader Harry Reid in  his floor remarks on May 25, 2016, lamenting how he is “forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader,” and went on: “Normally, like every other American, I ignore [Sen. Reid’s remarks]. I can't ignore them today, however ... We are delaying it for one reason and one reason only: to protect his own sad, sorry legacy. He now complains in the mornings that the Senate is not in session enough, that our calendar is too short. Whatever you think about that, the happy byproduct of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership." Stand up to Senate Republicans’ hypocrisy now -- tell them “shame on you” and that you stand with Sen. Warren>> Sen. Schumer noted, "If the average American heard someone read a letter from Coretta Scott King ... they would not be offended." Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted, “It is demeaning to the memory of Coretta Scott King and harmful to the process for the Republicans to silence @SenWarren. #LetLizSpeak" Republicans need to hear loud and clear that Americans are watching and we do not accept their shameful abuse of power. Please sign the petition now>> Thanks for speaking out! -- Ben Betz, Online Engagement Director