Posts Tagged ‘ABC News’

“As the lead in to this video said ABC News, was a small player if not joke in the network news business in the 1970s. Th…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

As the lead in to this video said ABC News, was a small player if not joke in the network news business in the 1970s. They basically remained that way until the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979-80 that launched Nightline with Ted Koppel and their nightly newscast World News Tonight started drawing real ratings then, This Week With David Brinkley emerged in 1981, 20/20 became a hit when Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of it. ABC Sports with their NFL coverage with Monday Night Football and their MLB coverage with Monday Night Baseball and their college football coverage and a handful of entertainment shows that they had especially in daytime, were really the only hits that the ABC network had. Back then America had two great broadcast networks in CBS and NBC, as far as entertainment, sports and news. With ABC giving you same type of programming, but without the hits and affiliates that the big two had in the 1970s. And being a distant third to CBS and NBC when it came to news, but entertainment as well.

I sort of look at ABC in the 1970s the way I look at Fox today, but with ABC putting a lot more emphasis on news. Fox still doesn’t have much if any impact on network news other than their Sunday morning talk show. ABC was trying to be CBS and NBC at least as far as influence and in size, but until Roone Arledge took over ABC Sports in the 1970s and then later ABC News in the 1980s, they were a distant third. Rooney Arledge with Monday Night Football and then Monday Night Baseball and ABC Sports college football, 20/20 World News Tonight, Nightline, This Week With David Brinkley, is responsible for making ABC the powerhouse it is today. With the ability to compete with CBS and NBC, when it comes to entertainment, news and sports. And have the affiliates to be able to do that. Whatever you think of this version of 20/20 and I’ll get to that later, this was the start of ABC becoming a force in network news.

It’s a damn good thing that Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of 20/20. Even for 1978 the layout of this first show with two no-name anchors and one of them not even being an American and the other making his living as a writer and not a broadcast journalist and the cheesy music (even for 1978) and covering stories like how greyhounds are treated, just showed you that ABC News wasn’t quite ready for prime-time. CBS’s 60 Minutes even though they had already been around for ten years at this point, looked so much better and more professional. It looked like a network news magazine show. And not some weekend morning show that mixes in soft stories with a few real news stories and interviews, to make the show look serious. But they were trying and got much better again when Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters, took over the show in 1979-80. And were together for twenty years and made 20/20 the hit that it still is today.



Read Full Post »



Source: ABC News- SF 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

In life there are followers and there are leaders. There are trend-setters who would be leaders and there are people who follow whatever the latest trend is who would be faddists. Celebrity culture and pro sports is no different, is a very accurate reflection of this. Celebrities feel the need to be cool to the point they’ll follow things and claim to support things that in many cases they don’t even seem to understand. Ben Affleck, from a couple years ago where he essentially accused Bill Maher of being a racist, because Maher made critical, but accurate statements about Islam, is a perfect example of this. Even though Islam is not a race, but a religion and Muslims can be anyone of any race, since Islam is not a race, but a religion. With today’s social media and broader media culture, things can become hot and go or go viral, in an instant. And when that happens, many celebrities feel the need to be associated with it even if they don’t understand what they’re associating with. Colin Kaepernick, to me at least seems like the latest celebrity faddist and getting on the Black Lives Matter train.

This is not a debate about whether there’s racism and bigotry, as well as oppression in America. Because of course there is and we’ve had as a nation more that two-hundred years of it. This to me is a debate about whether a multi-millionaire San Francisco 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick, is the right spokesperson to address this issue. Who’ll be paid eleven-million-dollars by the 49ers this season to be there starting QB. A man who has taken advantage of every opportunity he’s had in America as an individual to live in freedom and become filthy rich. Oppression in America, again goes back more than two-hundred years starting with American-Indians. And then Africans being kidnapped from Africa and brought over to be the slaves of European-Americans who the land of the American-Indians. To women of all races not having the right to vote in America until a hundred-years ago. To Jewish and other European immigrants, being denied access in America by Anglo-Saxons, simply because their ethnicity and religion was different from English-Americans. To Latinos and Asians as well. With the Japanese, as well as German and Italian-Americans, being kidnapped and forced into concentration camps. Because the U.S. Government saw them as traitors during World War II.

Colin Kaepernick, has been in the NFL since 2012 and has been a millionaire his whole career. America didn’t wake up to oppression when the Black Lives Matter moment started in 2014. We’ve known about it for over two-hundred-years. That is anyone who took and passed American history in high school. Mr. Kaepernick has had all this time to let his thoughts and views be known about racism and oppression in America. And waits till now when the Black Lives Matter becomes popular and not only that, but isn’t putting himself at risk here at all. The 49ers won’t cut him over this, because standing for the national anthem is voluntary. And the City of San Francisco is a capital of fads and trends and pop culture and leftist hippies who applaud anyone who takes on anyone they see as ‘The Man.’ If Mr. Kaepernick loses his job this season, it will have nothing to do with the fact that he supposedly took a stand against oppression. But that he once again failed to perform, and the 49ers have another mediocre or bad season. And head coach Chip Kelly decides to go in a different direction as a result.

Colin Kaepernick, showed no more courage in not standing for a national anthem for a country that has given him no much opportunity as someone who is African-American, to be very successful, than millions of teenagers who bought and wore Malcolm X hats in the early 1990s when the Malcolm X movie came out. Claiming to support a man they probably never even heard of before that movie came out. And perhaps don’t have much knowledge about who Minister Malcolm is today. Someone who I have a lot of respect for an learned a lot about. What Mr. Kaepernick has done here instead is make a fashion statement. And use the national anthem of a country that’s given him so much opportunity to be as successful as he had, has his target and launching point. Which makes him not different from people who eat whatever the latest hit dish is, or where whatever outfit, or claim to be behind whatever the latest movement or celebrity is. So of course he has the Freedom of Speech (even in the NFL) to do what he did. But he’s nothing more than an opportunist when it comes to oppression and fashion statements.

ABC News: World News Tonight- Colin Kaepernick Refuses To Stand During National Anthem


Read Full Post »

ABC News

ABC News

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I think the biggest tragedy that the JFK assassination had on the Democratic Party is that Jack Kennedy was that last bridge between the Center-Left Liberal and Progressive Democrats and the New-Left that came of age in the Democratic Party in the mid 1960s up to the early 1970s or so. People who were much further left than the Liberals and Progressives in the party and had more social democratic and even communist leanings. Who were anti-American establishment, anti-military, anti-war, anti-law enforcement, anti-government use of force in general, who wanted to bring down the American federal form of government and replace it with a social democratic and even communist government in some cases.

Jack Kennedy was a Liberal Democrat who wanted to use government to carry out many liberal, progressive and even social democratic goals as it has to do with the economy. And creating an economy where more Americans could benefit. But didn’t have a big centralized government solution for every problem. He didn’t want to make Americans dependent on government, but use government to empower struggling Americans of all races to become dependent on themselves and be able to live in freedom. JFK is killed in 1963 and less than a year later the so-called Great Society is created by President Lyndon Johnson, with all sorts of new progressive, or social democratic federal programs to take care of millions of Americans. JFK would be what we would call a New Democrat today. A Center-Left Liberal who believed government could help people help themselves instead. And not leave them dependent on government.

JFK was a Cold Warrior, anti-communist, pro-freedom and freedom for all Americans, not just European-Americans and he did come out for what would be called the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the summer of 1963. Who wanted to create an American economy where all Americans could benefit and live in freedom. With strong investments in education and job training, aid to struggling communities so they could educate their kids as well, job training for struggling Americans who were working, but not able to make enough money to live well, because they lacked skills. In many ways he was the last great Center-Left Liberal Democrat of his generation that came to power and became President of the United States. We didn’t have another Democrat with similar politics become President who had a successful presidency until Bill Clinton in 1993. And I would argue Barack Obama as well and not just because I’m a big fan of both President’s Clinton and Obama.

You could write all sorts of pieces about the JFK presidency and his impact on the Democratic Party and country as a whole. But to cover everything you would have to write at least one great book. With this piece I’m more interested in his impact on the Democratic Party and American politics. And post JFK the Democratic Party moved very Left if not Far-Left, especially when it came to foreign policy and national security, but criminal justice and law enforcement, where by 1980 or so the Democratic Party was no longer trusted on these issues. And it wasn’t until mid 1990s or so when under President Clinton that the Democratic Party was once again trusted to govern and defend the country. The JFK assassination was horrible for the country, but it really hurt the Democratic Party as well. Because again he was that bridge between the Center-Left and Far-Left of the party.
David Von Pein: JFK With Peter Jennings- 1983

Read Full Post »


Source: Active News: ABC World News Tonight, July 10, 1978: The Soviet Union Making Trouble

The thing that people need to know about Marxist states which is exactly what the Soviet Union of Russia was for over seventy-years before the Soviet Union broke with all the non-ethnic-Russian states breaking away and creating their own independent countries, is that they can consider anything that goes against the state as treason. And anyone that says anything in opposition to the central state, is a treasonous. Which is what the fake trial of Natan Sharansky back in 1978 was which was fake. Here’s a man who was simply calling for human rights in a Marxist state where human rights don’t exist. The only rights that exist in a Marxist state all belong to the central government. Which is supposed to use that power to take care of the people.

In the late 1970s you saw Russia get more aggressive with their foreign policy and make moves in North Africa and Central Asia to protect their interests. Like in Ethiopia to protect a Marxist government there and of course in Afghanistan to install a Marxist government there. While at the same time you saw Russian activists and non-ethnic-Russian activists in Russia like Natan Sharansky speak out in favor of human rights in a country where they simply don’t exist. As well as Russian citizens and non-ethnic-Russian citizens including Russian-Jews fleeing their country in hopes of finding freedom and coming to America so to speak because of that. And part of that had to do with President Jimmy Carter making human rights as part of his foreign policy.

1978 was a big year for tax cuts and a bad year for high taxes. As you saw several states with movements calling for cutting taxes across the board. Even in the so-called Republic of California that has always had high taxes and has been one of the most progressive states in the union when it comes to taxation. And yet they had a movement led by anti-tax advocate Howard Jarvis, who you could call a 1970s Tea Party leader who managed to get on the state ballot there a measure that would cut property taxes across the board. And it passed even though California is one of the biggest Democratic states in the union as far as party registration. With a 2-1 Democrat to Republican party ratio. With Democrats controlling both houses of the State Legislature going back to the 1950s.

Read Full Post »

ABC News

ABC News

Source: ABC News: America Held Hostage: The Iran Crisis

I never make excuses for terrorists and terrorism and don’t respect anyone who does. But the U.S. Government including the Carter Administration and every single American administration going back to Harry Truman, have some responsibility for this crisis. The Iran Hostage Crisis is the perfect example of the weakness and consequences of backing unpopular authoritarian dictatorships. Whatever you think of the Shah of Iran Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and he did have come progressive qualities liked developing the Iranian economy, he was a brutal dictator to his opposition. Both Islamic Theocrats and more liberal democratic factions in that country.

The Iranian people and the Islamic revolutionaries in that country were simply fed up with the Pahlavi Regime there and wanted a different form of government and a different future there. Which is what and whatever you think of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, a different future as an Islamic theocratic dictator of Iran is exactly what he represented for Iran. A different future for that country. The Iranian people essentially replaced one authoritarian dictatorship for another one. Which sort of goes to the judgement of that country and doesn’t make them look very good. But perhaps that’s for a different discussion. The United States, backed the Shah of Iran, because they were worried about what type of government would come to Iran instead and because of Iranian oil and gas.

The United States and the United Kingdom, interfered with the governmental operations of Iran for almost forty-years, because they were worried about the Shah falling and being replaced by an anti-Western authoritarian regime. But that is exactly what they got anyway which was an extreme Far-Right Islamic theocratic government to replace a more moderate and reasonable monarchy that they wanted all along. As America also found out with their backing of authoritarian dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, there serious and deadly consequences that come from backing unpopular dictators. And the way you prevent even worst regimes from coming to power is to work with the people on the ground. Not backing unpopular dictators.

Read Full Post »

ABC News

Source: Bob Parker: ABC World News January 6, 1987: The 100th Congress and The Iran Contra Investigation

Early 1987 and really the whole 1987 year was a bad one for President Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration. Republicans, lost the Senate in 1986 which gave Congressional Democrats complete control of Congress going into 1987. Just when the Iran Contra investigation was in the news and when both the Senate and House was looking into that. The House and Senate put together a joint Congressional committee to investigate the Iran Contra situation in the summer of 1987. Where people like Marine Colonel Oliver North became a famous name and person and became a main focus of the Congressional Iran Contra Committee.

I was eleven years old and in fifth grade for most of 1987, so I don’t remember a whole lot about the politics that year. I remember seeing some of the Iran Contra Committee with my parents on TV. I remember hearing about Gary Hart running for president and then dropping out because he was caught having an affair with a women who wasn’t his wife. I remember hearing the name Michael Dukakis and a little about Robert Bork who President Reagan nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. But most of these things except for Gary Hart and Mike Dukakis weren’t good for President Reagan. And all issues that Vice President George Bush would have to inherit as he ran for president in 1988.

For really the first six years of the Reagan Administration, except for perhaps 1986 when Iran Contra became a big issue, President Reagan and his team were always on the offensive. And able to push their issues and get the country behind them in some key areas. They got their military buildup, tax cuts, Social Security reform, immigration reform, negotiations and better relations with Russia, to use as examples. But 1987 was the 1998 for the Reagan Administration. Where they played defense for most if not the whole year. Either answering questions they didn’t want to answer, or trying to avoid questions that they didn’t want to give the full truth on.

Read Full Post »

Edward R. Murrow

Source: Bob Parker 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Without the creation of NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is responsible for the security of North America and Europe and Europe primarily, Germany would’ve been occupied by either the United States or Soviet Union. And perhaps still occupied by America or Russia tod
ay unless some other agreement or arrangement was put in place to protect Germany from some new authoritarian regime coming him to replace the Nazis.

But NATO was created, but instead of having a United Federal Germany, Germany was split up with a Federal Republic in the West and a Communist Republic in the East. Until they reunified in 1989 and now there’s one Federal Republic of Germany. That is the economic and perhaps now even the diplomatic power of Europe. With the fourth largest economy in the world and the only large European state with a strong vibrant economy today. All of the other big Euro states are dealing with high debts, deficits, recessions, high unemployment and growing poverty.

What NATO did along with the European Union and the Marshall Plan was give Europe a chance to breathe and catch its breath and rebuild themselves. Without having to worry about some new civil war breaking out or some new authoritarian regime emerging in Western Europe and give the Europe the ability to develop. And not just rebuild themselves from World War II, but develop themselves and develop their economies and diplomatic relations, people and rebuild their militaries. And what happened as a result was a free social democratic Europe in the West that was thriving. And a totalitarian authoritarian suffocating Russia in the East. Where people would literally escape from their own countries.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- The Cold War

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: