The other day, there was a fascinating news story that got little attention, though I think it deserved a lot more. A group of historians have been doing a series of books on recent presidents. They were preparing the one on Trump, when he found out about it and offered to talk to them all (by Zoom). And the story that The Atlantic wrote about (with a summary on Raw Story) included the nugget that Trump acknowledged losing the election! Yes, really. No disclaimer, no instance that he really won, just – “…but when I didn’t win the election…”. Later in the hour-long interview he does mention the election being rigged and losing, but earlier, about 10 minutes in, there is nothing about it being rigged. Just flat out, “but when I didn’t win the election,” seemingly forgetting to throw in his lie and letting the truth slip out by mistake. And it’s on video. As some legal experts have noted, this admission could come back to hurt Trump badly in court, acknowledging that he knows he lost. What’s important, too, is the timing of it all. As a news story, the implication is that this is breaking news that just happened – so the past year of saying otherwise, that he really supposedly won might offset his admission in court, and not have any impact on those around him repeating the story. And the Raw Story article supports this by not saying anything about the date of the interview. But when reading the original, detailed article in The Atlantic, they say that the interview was done…last summer! So, perhaps nine months ago Trump was admitting that “I didn’t win the election.” Committing fraud, lying to his followers. But it’s actually worse than even that. The article in The Atlantic refers to an article that the New York Times wrote about the interview when it took place. And I clicked on the link to check out when that story was published. And…it was in March, 2021 -- a year ago! Which means for the past full year Trump has known and said – on tape – that he lost. And has been lying about what he knows ever since, trying rile up his crowds and minions and lawyers and Republican state houses with what he knew was a lie. (It also means that this interview with the historians was not a secret, hidden away until now. It didn’t cover all that was said in the interview, including this quote, but the interview was very public.) You can read The Atlantic article by clicking here -- but better still…they’ve posted the entire video of the interview. Which includes, of course, Trump admitting on camera that “I didn’t win the election.” I didn’t watch much of the hour, it’s very painful, but clicked to various parts – and almost every time, Trump is just continually trying to “correct” the record and rewrite history about how everything he did was great and everyone was working against him. It’s a psychiatrist’s dream. The article itself largely addresses this – it’s written by the editor of the book, John Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton, who points out (among many other things) that Trump clearly had no idea of historians work. I can’t embed the interview video, but will provide a link below and highly recommend checking it out. Not just for Trump’s admission or for seeing how much a victim he paints himself, but for how great the technology is embedding it, making it so easy to access almost whatever you want. (You won’t see these benefits if you just click on the video embedded within the article. You have to open it full-screen, which is why I’m providing the link to that.) The full-screen version has a wonderful sidebar with links to topics being discussed – but “topics” doesn’t do it justice. It’s incredibly detailed, with markers listed literally for every few seconds, so you can either scroll through the list or do a search for whatever subjects you’re interested in, rather than listening to the whole thing. That’s how I found Trump talking about losing the election – I just did a search for “election” and it found every reference. (The passage in question comes at the 41:40 mark.) Just be sure to click on “Captions” and then “Show” (as opposed to “Hide”) in the sidebar. The captions are really great – not only are they every few seconds, as I said, (in fact, sometimes only one second apart!), but as you watch the video, the captions automatically scroll through and keep up with where you are. It’s very impressive. Here’s the video. Y'know, the one where Trump admits, “I lost the election.”
0 Comments
I like The Rachel Maddow Show. A lot. But I always record it and wait about 20 minutes or so before I start watching – mainly so that I can fast-forward through her 10-15 minute opening history lesson which only has a tangential connection to the news story it’s leading to, usually one that (while interesting) shouldn’t necessarily be the lead story.
To be clear, I like that she gives history for perspective to the news. It’s not only often valuable, but can be important, as well. The problem is that I occasionally know the history, and also it can usually be told in a lot less time than she uses – which is important because an hour-long TV show only has about 44 minutes of content. (I also will fast-forward through her endless repetitions of a point. Mind you, as readers of these pages know, I like to use repetitions. They’re a very good thing. But generally not four or five of them. And when I do use that many, it’s for dramatic structure, building to a point, not to Make Sure You Got What I Just Said.) But mainly, it’s the history lessons at the start of the show, that for some reason she seems to think that if there’s a history tale behind it then that adds enough gravitas to make it the day’s lead story. Occasionally it should be the lead story – but not because of the history. Because of its meaning for the day, impacting people’s lives the most. And usually, it shouldn’t be the lead story. Just one for later in the show. And so, in today's world with democracy at risk – indeed the day after The Rachel Maddow Show spent two-thirds of its broadcast on that very subject, based on an in-depth article in The Atlantic -- I could only shake my head when The Rachel Maddow Show spent, no, not the first 10 or even 15 minutes to History, but -- the first 20 minutes of their 44 minutes doing a history story about…about removing a statue. It was a valuable story. The statue was of the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan. And it was interesting. (At least what I saw of it when I’d pause the fast-forwarding.) But it could have been done in six minutes. It should have been done in six minutes. And it should not have been done as the Lead Story of the Day. After all, yesterday was the day President Biden had a video meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, brought about by a build-up of Russian troops on the Ukraine border. Rachel Maddow did get to that, happily. Eventually. Well into the show. And by the way, yesterday was the 80th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would think that if you’re going to do a history lesson, that would be a really good one to delve into. Not necessarily as The Lead, though it could be since its historical impact on American and world society was profound. Alas, she didn’t even mention it. That's right, Rachel Maddow -- history maven -- did not mention the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Because – after using up 20 minutes on removing a statue – there wasn’t time. (Fun Fact: Even ESPN found time to mention the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on their one-hour SportsCenter show of game highlights. And did a very good filmed piece on it, and the event's overlap with athletes involved.) Oh, and there also was zero mention on the Maddow show of the egregious far-right "election fraud investigation" in Wisconsin that finally issued its findings – and said that they found absolutely no widespread voter fraud. A major story for its impact on America today – a story, in fact, that the show has been covering. A lot. Just not the results. Because there wasn't time to talk about it. They were too busy dealing with the…y’know, the history over the removal of a statue. I like The Rachel Maddow Show. A lot. But I do record it so that I can fast-forward. The problem is that even though I’ve figured out a way to deal with the interminable history lessons, that’s not good enough. Rachel Maddow has a very important platform on MSNBC – indeed, in the world of news. And to waste so much of it on overly-detailed history lessons as The Lead Story when you have such limited time is, to me, irresponsible. And I love history. It was my minor in college, and it’s one of my favorite things to read. I’ve read the entire 11-volume set of Will and Ariel Durant’s Story of Civilization. And I like very much that Rachel Maddow gives history lessons. But not how she does it. That’s a waste of precious time, most especially in an era when there is not as much time to waste as one would wish. For those who like to look at the calendar for such things, today is the 77th anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944. I thought it would therefore be especially appropriate to post this video. It's the wonderful theme to the movie, The Longest Day, sung and performed most appropriately by the Cadet Glee Club of West Point, along with military band. I first posted this video five years ago in 2017. It’s my favorite one on the subject – not just for the performance, but for how movingly the video is edited. It's particularly well-done, beginning with a minute of General Dwight Eisenhower's message to the troops before the invasion began, and interspersed with some excellent photos and archival film from the day, amid the soaring music. By the way, the timpani you hear before the song begins is not only recognizable as the beginning of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, but more to the point, it's the Morse Code for “V” for Victory. Also, in case you weren't aware, the main theme for The Longest Day, used throughout the film not just in the end titles, was written by pop-star heartthrob at the time, Paul Anka.
This is a very interesting, enjoyable report from Michelle Miller on CBS This Morning. It covers both entertainment and politics, and looks at the history of the controversial song about lynching, "Strange Fruit," that became a signature song for Billie Holiday. Though at the heart of the new Hulu movie, The United States vs. Billie Holiday, the politics of the time -- and its overlap with today -- weaves through the story.
But there are also a lot of surprises that pop in throughout, as the two sons of the songwriter give their insight into the song and its history. And the biggest twist comes about five minutes in. Not to overemphasize the idea of "surprises" and "twists," these aren't oh-my-God! things that take the story in completely different directions, but rather parts of the story that are unexpected and fun to learn, notably about people who are part of the tale. There's also an interesting, small surprise at the end. However, the reporter makes a mistake about it. But being a surprise (of sorts), I don't want to give it away here. But I'll explain below the video that I've embedded below.
Click to set custom HTML
Since you've gotten this far, I can now explain the minor mistake that Ms. Miller makes at the end of an otherwise very good, interesting report. Actually, it's more a case of one minor mistake, and one small lapse of full information. The other song referenced at the end that Abel Meerapol also wrote was titled, "The House I Live In." What Ms. Miller says is he title -- "What is America to Me" -- is only just a line from the song. And also, although Frank Sinatra did record the song and sang it throughout his career, the impression given here is that he introduced the song, but in fact it was written for a musical Let Freedom Sing in 1942. Sinatra did popularize it, however. And the great Paul Robeson had a famous recording, as well. But more on all that tomorrow.
I was going to make this a "Tweet of the Day," since it comes from a tweet -- but it's to substantial for just that. As the note describes, it concerns Sir Nicholas Winton who saved many hundreds of children from Germany. The shame is that this is only a few minutes, because I'm sure the full TV program at the heart of this would have been especially moving and wonderful. Happily, this is plenty good.
It also puts in deeper perspective the previous administration taking children away from their parents and putting them in cages. Elsewhere on Mr. Simanowitz's timeline, he had a quote from Nicholas Winton, who passed away in 2015 at the well-earned age of 106. "Don't be content in your life to just do no wrong. Be prepared every day to try to do some good."
A few months back, I wrote about an upcoming book co-written by my friend Steve Fifer back in Chicago, It's In the Action: Memories of a Nonviolent Warrior, an autobiography of Civil Rights legend C.T. Vivian, who collaborated with Steve. Vivian sadly died this past July at age 96, although happily his memorial service got a great deal of national attention, including having Barack Obama as one of the speakers I'm above three-quarters through the book and am enjoying it -- especially because so much of it concerns voter suppression and the fight through the 1950s and early '60s for the Voting Rights Act. Talk about timely. (Vivian, who helped lead many of the non-violent protests during that time, also briefly addresses when the Supreme Court reprehensibly rolled back the Voting Rights Act, basically saying it wasn't needed in full anymore since basically All is Well. The reason I bring it up today is because of a passage I read yesterday. In that section, Rev. Vivian talks about a confrontation he had in 1965 with the infamous racist Sheriff Jim Clark in Selma on the courthouse steps. The event was noteworthy enough that the book quotes Andrew Young, former mayor of Atlanta and U.N. Ambassador as saying that without that moment, which was caught on film and played extensively on television, that "We would not have had the Voting Rights Act." Reporter Ernie Suggs of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is quoted that because it was on television, historians have called the exchange on the steps "one of the defining moments of the civil rights movement." The book even explains how to find the important moment online -- which I suspect was a Fiffer inclusion. I won't say why the confrontation was so important, since it will stand out all the more if you see it as if new, and I tracked down the video to post here. Vivan says about Sheriff Clark that he "was a bully, but he was hardly unique. His society, his cultute allowed bullies. Look at the values that the churches they went to taught. You can't be good under those circumstances. Understanding this, you won't be surprised to learn that Clark not only denied our contingent of would-be registrants entry to the courthouse, but his manner was, shall we say, less than friendly polite." And not only is that him saying this half-a-century later, but watching the video, and from want C.T. Vivian says in the book, it seems pretty clear that he knew this at the time about Sheriff Clark, and went out of his way to push things to their fullest on the courthouse steps. Clark, of course, could have stepped back and handled the situation as a sheriff should. Rev. Vivian appears pretty certain he wouldn't. In fact, as Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights historian Taylor Branch said about the exchange that Vivian "knew it was gonna advance the movement the moment it happened." Here's that famous confrontation on the Selma courthouse steps. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|