• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Spencer Critchley

  • Home
  • About
  • Media Appearances
    • Broadcast Appearances
    • Print & Web Coverage
    • My Reporting & Commentary
    • Podcast
    • “Saving Democracy” Events
    • News: Real or Fake?
    • Hallmarks of a #BadArgument
  • Music
  • Photos
  • Subscribe
  • Contact

Journalism

Who Says Trump Is Smart?

December 12, 2015 by Spencer Critchley

Donald Trump photo by Anythingyouwant, via Wikimedia CommonsDonald Trump’s ideas are widely recognized as not just hateful, but idiotic.

And yet the conventional wisdom in most of the media is that, all the same, “he’s a smart guy” — after all, look how successful he is. Even his liberal critics, including the very smart Rachel Maddow, give him credit: Trump may have no principles, but he obviously has brains.

A related line of thought holds that as a smart guy, he must know that what he’s saying is wrong in every way, so he can’t actually believe it, and must be saying it for purely political reasons.

But where is the evidence that he actually is intelligent? If he is, he also must be one of our most brilliant actors, because he’s completely convincing as a lout.

I suspect the reason so many journalists assume he’s only pretending to be stupid is that few of them know much about business — including how to judge business success.

Some examples:

1. Many journalists seem to think that making a lot of money is evidence of high intelligence. But anyone who’s worked in the corporate world can tell you different. Some senior executives are really smart, but many are more or less average. As research has shown, drive and social skills often count more than brains do.

You may have heard the old saying about college: It’s a place where former A students teach B students to work for C students.

2. Few journalists seem to understand how Trump makes his money. They accept his self-presentation as a genius builder. But for a long time it’s looked as if what Trump really does is just license his brand (for now).

He does have a talent for being famous, and that’s worth money. If you want to build something, he can make a lot of money by charging you to put his name on it. But that’s the same kind of “genius” that any celebrity shows when they put their name on perfume or sneakers.

3. There’s little reason to assume that Trump actually has nearly as much money as he claims. We have only his word for it — the word of one of the world’s most notorious fabricators. And as he himself has said, his net worth varies depending on how he feels.

Since a lot of his net worth seems to amount to brand equity, that actually, kind of, sort of, makes sense. I can tell you that the Critchley brand is worth not $10 billion — that’s Trump change — but $20 billion. Since I won’t take a penny less for it, I can claim it’s true.

In fact, I think I will. Would you like to loan me a half-billion or so? I have $20 billion in collateral.

4. Speaking of borrowing money, Trump has had to be bailed out repeatedly, with four corporate bankruptcies to his name. If you want to see someone who’s a genius at making money, take a look at the remarkably non-loutish Warren Buffett. As S.V. Dáte has pointed out, Buffett has used his investing acumen to beat the market about 22 times over during the time since Trump inherited a pile of money from his father. Trump, on the other hand, might have done better if he had put his windfall in an index fund and left it alone.

As I’ve watched Trump get cut all kinds of slack for saying the stupidest things imaginable, I’ve wondered if he just comes across as very different in person. Maybe those who have met him know something I don’t.

But Mark Bowden makes me think, “Nah.” For a profile he wrote for Playboy some years back, Bowden spent quite a bit of time with Trump. His impression, as described in the latest Vanity Fair, sure rings true:

Apart from the comical ego, the errors, and the self-serving bluster, what you get from Trump are commonplace ideas pronounced as received wisdom. Begin registering all Muslims in America? Round up the families of suspected terrorists? Ban all Muslims from entering the country? Carpet-bomb ISIS-held territories in Iraq (killing the 98-plus percent of civilians who are, in effect, being held hostage there by the terror group and turning a war against a tiny fraction of the world’s Muslims into a global religious crusade)? Using nuclear weapons? The ideas that pop into his head are the same ones that occur to any teenager angry about terror attacks. They appeal to anyone who can’t be bothered to think them through–can’t be bothered to ask not just the moral questions but the all-important practical one: Will doing this makes things better or worse? [My emphasis.]

Maybe we should take the advice of Maya Angelou: “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics & Society Tagged With: Donald Trump, journalism, media

Our Embarrassing Press Corps: President Obama’s ISIS Q&A at the G20

November 16, 2015 by Spencer Critchley

One trivial question after another, ignoring one substantive answer after another.

Obama & Putin at the G20 in Antalya, Turkey
Photo by Pete Souza, The White House

In the near aftermath of what’s been called France’s 9/11, all the U.S. press corps in Antalya wanted to know about was whether President Obama thought he had looked tough enough, or whether he somehow had not considered a bonehead-obvious idea. You can see the whole embarrassing spectacle here (Q&A begins at 5:43).

And after Obama patiently explained how grownups think about difficult issues, they’d ask the same childish questions again.

Why?

  1. Because those are the questions that uninformed people ask
  2. A lot of uninformed people are watching
  3. So we should ask the questions they want asked.

And that’s how far too many reporters, who I’m sure are convinced they’re only serving the public, have made it their job to keep the public uninformed.

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics & Society

Bill O’Reilly and I Killed Bin Laden — But the Liberal Media Doesn’t Want You to Know

March 7, 2015 by Spencer Critchley

Originally published at the Huffington Post: We were right there with Seal Team Six, Bill and me.

Please, don’t call us heroes. We were just two patriotic Americans, doing our jobs.

And our job was to crash land the chopper, hustle up the stairs, and — BAM! Send America’s greatest foe on his way to a date with the Devil.

Now, if you looked around that compound in Abbottabad — if you turned it inside out— you think you’d find any zealots from the left wing media there?

You think they’d have the stones?

Please.

They’d be back the hotel, ordering room service.

But now, these same cowards are saying I wasn’t there either, and neither was Bill.

Surprised? Don’t be. These people aren’t going to tell you the truth — they hate the truth. Because truth gets in the way of tearing America down — and of tearing down our troops.

Folks, here’s the truth — and you’ll only get it here. I saw the photos of the Seal Team Six raid. And so did Bill, with his own eyes. Hell, we both saw the movie.

And we didn’t turn away.

Could have stepped out for another Coke, or a Snickers.

Didn’t.

But they don’t want you to know that. They want you to think we’re the liars.

They’re running an orchestrated campaign, a hit job. They want you to think we said we were actually there with Seal Team Six.

As if that’s what the words, “Right there with Seal Team Six,” mean.

Unbelievable.

What part of, “We saw pictures,” don’t these pinheads understand?

What we meant is perfectly clear — no matter how much the liberal media wants to twist it, or how much they want to apologize to our enemies for the brave actions of our troops.

I’m done talking about this. And so is Bill. And so is the management of Fox News — the highest rated channel in cable, bar none.

But do you think that’ll stop the also-rans and bottom-rungers? Of course not.

Just wait. They’re going to come after us again. You heard it here first.

The next thing you know, they’re going to claim that Bill and I didn’t win World War Two.

World War Two! The war that saved civilization from the Nazis!

You think they won’t? Mark my words.

Because these people?

They have no shame.

– The O’Reilly tapes: Phone recordings raise new questions about JFK story

– Bill O’Reilly forced to clarify remarks about murdered nuns

– Bill O’Reilly’s LA riots ‘bombardment’ stories disputed by former colleagues

– Former Colleagues Dispute O’Reilly’s Account of Falklands War Coverage

– Bill O’Reilly Ratings Rise During Controversy

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics & Society

Koran-Burning Coverage: The Hollowness of “Storytelling” as a Journalistic Value

September 16, 2010 by Spencer Critchley

Written for the Huffington Post: It’s Journalism 101: You have to have a story. Who’s the protagonist? Who or what are they up against? And most importantly, what does it mean?

It’s been a foundation of reporting for so long that it’s come to seem self-evident. But is it?

Story-telling, let’s remember, is the essence of fiction. But reality, as most of us live it on most of our days, is precisely not fiction. There is no narrative arc. Nothing ends up meaning anything. Stuff — even if it’s big stuff — just happens.

If you want to get a story out of that, you have to pluck out characters and events and fit them into some kind of order. You have to act, in other words, not as a reporter, but an author.

And so we get the invention of Terry Jones. In reality, Jones appears to be an obscure bigot with about 50 deluded followers. But in the media, Jones has become the world-famous protagonist of a parable of religious intolerance. (Not to mention the proximate cause of some number of deaths, already suffered or yet to come.)

The only reason for this is that, in a slow month for news, and with the nation gripped by the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy (itself rife with fictional elements), Jones’ threatened Quran-burning made for a good story. Jones, you see, supposedly expresses an emotional truth about “America and Islam” — an emotional truth that somehow trumps the fact more than 300 million other Americans apparently had no plans to burn Qurans on 9/11. [Read more…] about Koran-Burning Coverage: The Hollowness of “Storytelling” as a Journalistic Value

Filed Under: Communication, Journalism, Politics & Society

Have Democrats Lost The Narrative?

August 20, 2010 by Spencer Critchley

By Zach Friend & Spencer Critchley, at Huffington Post: Time after predictable time, Republicans roll out a new set of bogus talking points. And time after time, Democrats argue the facts — and lose. That’s got to change.

Here’s how the script goes:

Republican: I’d like to begin by making an outrageous assertion. It’s obviously false, but boy, is it ever intense.

Democrat: Why, that is clearly untrue! And here’s a list of reasons why…

Republican: Thanks for playing; this is going to be fun!

Just some of the many, many examples we could cite: Obama’s an African-born Muslim! Obamacare means death panels! The administration is full of Marxists! The New Black Panthers are coming! We could go on and on. Because these people are operating on a daily schedule, with hourly updates, 365 days a year. As Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director told Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum recently, “we live in a world where there are so many news cycles that there isn’t a news cycle anymore.”

And with every crazy new claim, if you’re a Democrat, your reaction is probably some version of, “What kind of idiot could believe this crap?” Then you start arguing with it.

And as soon as you do, you lose.

You see, the right wants you to debate stuff they know is untrue. If you win on the merits, and you probably will, they don’t care at all.

They only want two things: one, they want you — and the media — to repeat their talking points, because as we know, a lie repeated often enough starts to feel true. Two, they want you to debate those points. Because it means you’re debating on their terms — and because the sheer act of debating makes you look weak.

Let’s take these one at a time. First, how the right designs talking points that get lots and lots of repetition.

The key is to start with an image that excites intense emotion. You want an image that, once imagined, is very hard to get out of your head — it’s kind of like writing the hook to a pop song. You might choose death panels, Marxists, New Black Panthers, whatever. To make your talking point, simply associate that image with your target. NOTE: If this makes no sense at all, that’s actually better — outrageousness gives your talking point a big extra kick. Start it out on blogs and talk radio. Then put a fig leaf on it by getting it on Fox News. Now the legitimate media have an excuse to run it (and they most certainly will). The final payoff comes when Democrats debate it, thereby repeating it yet more.

Congratulations. You’ve gone viral.

Is this effective? We report, you decide: A recent NY Times/CBS poll shows that 20 percent of Americans think President Obama was born in another country. A Harris Poll finds that 57 percent of Republicans think he’s a Muslim. And 24 percent — one in four! — think he is the anti-Christ.

Now point number two: debate, in and of itself, looks weak. Think about high school for a minute: Who debates? That would be the glasses-wearing nerds of the Debate Club. Republicans, making their bold, false assertions, are the football players shoving those debaters into the lockers. Is this right? Wrong? Who cares? One side of this transaction is shoving, and the other is being shoved. Who looks like they’re in charge? All too often, Democrats are making excellent points, from inside a locker.

As Pfeiffer states, “cable news… doesn’t reward getting things done or working with someone across the aisle. It rewards the single most outrageous thing you possibly can [say].”

What to do? Should Democrats respond in kind? No, and yes. No, we should not start with our own outrageous lies. It would be yet another instance of allowing Republicans to set the terms and, need we say it, it would be wrong. But a big yes to getting better at using emotion.

In his campaign stump speeches, one of the most persuasive “points” Barack Obama made came when he would look off into the future and raise an arm towards it, while speaking in the rhythmic cadences of our greatest orators. He had solid ideas about how we would actually get to that future. But it was the gesture and the rhythm that made your heart rise.

Obama’s lack of interest in cable news sensationalism is a big part of why we supported him in the first place. He is not a talking point. But in order to raise the dialogue — to transcend the chatter — we need to use emotion to show truth. Throughout human history, we haven’t simply stated the results of heroic battles. We’ve sung them as epics. The Democrats have won some heroic battles on issues that matter to millions: health care, financial reform, the environment and more. We need to sing our epics.

Filed Under: Communication, Journalism, Politics & Society

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search This Site

Broadcast Appearances

Spencer Critchley on Spectrum News 1 LA

Book

Patriots of Two Nations by Spencer Critchley
Kindle & paperback at Amazon. Audio book at Audible. EPUB format here.

New Music: Jailbreak

Cover image for the song "Jailbreak:" a ruined motel by the side of a lonely desert road.

Podcast

Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good

Social Media

Substack

YouTube

Music: The Critchleys

The Critchleys: Owen and Spencer Critchley

About Me

Spencer Critchley

Jump to Recent Posts

New Music: The Desert Mothers

The True Crisis

Outside in the Rain

The Liberal Backbone

Slowly and then all at once

On the Podcast: A Letter to a Friend Voting for Trump

“The War of the Worldviews” at TedX Pugwash

Recent Comments

  • terry rankin on “The War of the Worldviews” at TedX Pugwash
  • Spencer Critchley on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Spencer Critchley on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Scott Sexton on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Anonymous on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address

Photos

Spencer Critchley on Fox News' Cavuto
Barack Obama photo by Spencer Critchley
Bruce Springsteen photo by Spencer Critchley
Jay-Z photo by Spencer Critchley
Tiny American flag in crowd at political rally
Director Elizabeth Thompson & Composer/Audio Producer Spencer Critchley with the Emmy for the PBS documentary "Blink."

Find more photos here.

Privacy Policy

Learn how this site collects information and how you can control that.

© 2005–2026 Spencer Critchley