Triad Today

Generally speaking, I don’t like to label people, but Florida Governor Rick DeSantis seems hell-bent on wanting to be called a homophobe. His “Don’t Say Gay” law, which was enacted in March, hasn’t just angered the LGBTQ community, it has also struck fear into the hearts and minds of teachers who dare not expose their students to words or images which might suggest that humans can be anything other than heterosexual. Much of Righteous Ron’s bombastic dogma of late derives from his war with the Walt Disney Company which dared to oppose his restrictive and discriminatory policies. Given the two adversaries’ battle for the moral soul of Florida and subsequent fight for who should control Disney World’s tax district, it’s not surprising that the latest controversy involves the showing of a Disney film to fifth-graders in Hernando County.

Though “Don’t Say Gay” only restricts the teaching of sexual orientation or gender identity in grades K-3, Florida collaterally restricts the use of certain books and films in all grades. Enter Jenna Barbee, a teacher at Winding Waters School in Brookville, Florida. Barbee elected to show Disney’s animated Strange World to her class because its environmental message was relevant to her lesson plan. But the film also features a bi-racial gay couple, and, as it happens, one of Barbee’s students is the daughter of school board member Shannon Rodriguez. Not surprisingly, Rodriguez called for a State investigation of Barbee’s Orwellian transgression. Fortunately, public support seems to be with Barbee, but that doesn’t change the laws and lists which continue to hamstring teachers and ban certain educational materials.

The thought occurs to me, however, that DeSantis’s war on Disney hasn’t gone far enough. If the Governor (and would-be President) is so concerned about protecting impressionable young minds against harmful messages, then why stop with Strange World? Why not expand his ban to include all subversive Disney films? Here, then is a list of other “dangerous” movies from Uncle Walt’s studio:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) — Two problems here. First, it’s not appropriate for kids to know that Snow White is a virgin, and second, who she sleeps with is her business, even though in this case, size does matter.

Pinocchio (1940) — This film suggests that all Italian boys are liars.

Bambi (1942) — Because of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, hunters had every right to shoot Bambi’s mother. Normally images of murder would be suitable for a 6-year-old, but the film should be banned because it might spur a debate on 2nd Amendment rights.  

Song of the South (1946) — In Florida, I guess it’s OK to show a film with a Tar Baby but to have a happy-go-lucky slave like Uncle Remus depicted as being smarter than his White owners is too much for Uncle Ron’s followers to take. 

Lady and the Tramp (1955) — This is a horrible film for kids because it suggests that all males are tramps who refer to their lady as the “B” word.

Mary Poppins (1964) — After emerging from dirty chimneys, Bert and the Banks children are covered in soot. It’s OK to appear in Black face in Florida, but only if you’re a patriotic legal citizen. The Mary Poppins cast is from England, so they don’t even speak good American.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971) — This film is all about witches and Satanism which is OK, but children do not need to know that magic can happen in a bed.

Gus (1976) — In this film, a farm animal is exploited by the local college and made to kick field goals without any financial compensation as was available to Florida State University students at the time. 

Beauty and the Beast (1991) — While folks in Florida have no problem with beastiality, this film is banned because the main female character is allowed to read books.

Pocahontas (1995) — The problem with this film is that it depicts a Native American girl falling in love with a White man. Florida legislators probably believe this film is responsible for the bi-racial gay couple who later appears in Strange World.

I hope that Governor DeSantis will ban these and all other Disney films from being shown in public schools because children don’t need to be exposed to left-wing concepts like love, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

 
 

Growing up watching TV variety shows, I often wondered how the jugglers could keep so many balls in the air at one time. Today I wonder the same thing about my friend Dick Wolf who has nine hour-long dramas on the air every week. No other writer/producer in the history of television has ever come close to that feat. In addition to Law and Order, Wolf produces Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,  Law and Order: Organized Crime, Chicago Fire, Chicago PD, Chicago Med, FBI, FBI: Most Wanted, and FBI: International. Perhaps even more impressive is that in this era of the 500-channel universe and a myriad of streaming services, all nine of Wolf’s dramas air on a broadcast network, and all nine are commercially successful.

I first met Dick in the spring of 1999 at an event for the Museum of Television and Radio (now the Paley Center) in New York City. A few months later I interviewed him at length for volume one of my TV Creators book series. Back then we talked about our shared love of old TV westerns and heroes like Hopalong Cassidy. Dick also recounted how he spent his summer breaks from the University of Pennsylvania working at ad agencies, then eventually ended up creating national campaigns for major brands like Crest Toothpaste. “I’ve essentially never earned a dollar that wasn’t somehow writing related,” he told me. And Dick came by his talent honestly. “My grandmother wrote title cards for Paramount in the silent era, and my father was a second-generation screenwriter.”

We reconnected by phone late last month, but our conversation was marked by irony because it took place during a writers’ strike. And so, as I spoke with a legendary wordsmith, not a single word was being written for any of Dick’s nine shows.

 

---

Jim:: I remember seeing a survey from years ago that said even in normal times, most actors and writers only make a few thousand dollars a year, because they can’t get work.

Dick:: Right, there’s 90% unemployment, and I’ve been saying this for 35 years, “Why can people who cannot qualify for health insurance vote on throwing people out of work?” This strike is incredibly complex. This is the end of May, and it looks like they’re not even going to start talking to the writers again until they close with the actors and directors. So, you’re looking at a very protracted period of labor upset.

Jim:: Back when you were only producing Law & Order and SVU, you told me that you employed anywhere from 120 to 150 people on each show. Is that still the average today?

Dick:: It’s much more now. I was talking about actors and writers and crew. But when you get into post and scoring, and all the ancillaries that are not direct production costs, it’s closer to 300 people on a show. Right now, I’ve got about 3,000 people out of work.  This is my fourth strike, and in 1987 that strike went on for six months and two weeks. In my opinion, this current strike is going to go on just as long if not longer. And it doesn’t just affect writers and directors and actors. It affects everybody who works on those shows which are all shut down.

Jim:: Years ago, I asked you if you had a sixth sense about which shows will be successful, and you said, “It’s always a crapshoot.” Now that you’re the most successful TV creator in history, is it still a crapshoot when you start a new show?

Dick:: Every time. You never know what the audience is going to react to, but I’ve managed to at least cut down the size of the ranks. You do learn what not to do as much as you learn what to do.

Jim:: Somehow you and your shows have managed to stay relevant for over 40 years and across several generations. How have you managed to do that, and do you ever consciously concern yourself with going after the youth market?

Dick:: I have a strange belief that if you put out good stuff the audience will buy it, and I only do stuff that I want to watch, and there’s not that much on TV that I want to watch that I don’t make. It sounds terrible, but it’s true.

Jim:: Are you concerned about the trend toward artificial intelligence with regards to crafting stories and scripts?

Dick:: I’m not worried about it because I’m in a unique situation, but if I was a 30-year-old writer I’d be absolutely terrified. Five years from now, machines will be writing Shakespeare.  We should not pretend that the genie can be put back in the bottle. It can’t.

Jim:: Is it still fun for you, or is it more like work?

Dick:: Well, it’s both. The work IS fun. I mean, it’s taken 40 years and not many people say “no” to me anymore [laughs]. That’s not a bad position to be in.

Jim:: What’s changed for you over the years?

Dick:: When I got out here, I was always the youngest person in every meeting, and now I’m always the oldest by much more than a decade.

Jim:: You’ve innovated so many things like the split-format drama and streamlined pace.  What will be your final innovation?

Dick:: My last innovation will be coming up with a show that can’t be cancelled. [both laugh]

---

 

 
 

Last month Samantha Hutchinson, a 38-year-old bride from Charlotte, and her new husband Aric were leaving their wedding reception in a golf cart, when 25-year-old Jamie Komoroski drove her car into the newlyweds, killing Samantha. The Charleston, South Carolina coroner determined that Samantha died of blunt force injuries. Meanwhile, the Folly Beach police found that Komoroski had a blood alcohol content of .26%, which is three times the legal limit. The circumstance of this tragic incident was sadly unique, but the result was not.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37 Americans die in drunk-driving crashes every day. That’s one death every 39 minutes. In 2021, a total of 13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths, and that was up 14% from 2020.  

In South Carolina where Samantha was killed, over 290 people die each year in alcohol-related crashes. Here in North Carolina, the stats are even worse, with over 420 drunk driving deaths per year. And if you really want to get steamed, consider that according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 4 million American adults say they drive drunk each year, and according to the CDC, intoxicated drivers get behind the wheel no less than 112 million times per year. That means only by the grace of God are millions of motorists not dying because of drunk driving.  

To their credit, national groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others are making a difference in terms of education and awareness. SafeHome.org, for example, reports that 78% of Americans are aware of and concerned about the dangers of drunk driving. And here in the Triad, Daggett Shuler has prevented countless numbers of teens from driving drunk through their “Safe Sober” campaign, which is significant considering that nearly 30% of drunk-driving-related fatalities involve young drivers in their early 20s. But education and prevention alone must be accompanied by strict, consistent, and clearly-defined DWI laws. 

As I’ve noted in previous columns, penalties for drunk driving are weak and inconsistent and can vary from county to county. In fact, according to M.A.D.D., over one-third of people convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders. Translation? They get caught, they get a slap on the wrist, then, after a period of time, they drive drunk again. And it’s no wonder. According to a 2018 investigation by the Charlotte Observer, judges in some North Carolina localities only convict 10% of drunk drivers.

The problem stems from a system of guidelines that allows a judge to weigh three factors in every DWI case. Those include “Mitigating” factors, “Aggravating” factors, and “Grossly Aggravating” factors.

If a drunk driver has had an otherwise safe driving record, that’s a mitigating factor that often results in a small fine and a suspended sentence. If the driver has had two or more drunk-driving convictions within the past five years, that’s an aggravating factor that can result in jail time of from 2 days to six months. If the intoxicated driver is operating a vehicle with a revoked license and causes serious injury to another person, that’s a grossly aggravating factor that can carry a prison sentence of up to three years. 

And yet, even with these guidelines in place, every judge has latitude in sentencing. Take for instance the case involving Taylor Roberts who, in 2018, was driving drunk at high speeds when he crashed his car, killing a female passenger. Taylor reached a plea deal with a Forsyth County assistant district attorney and was only sentenced to three to five years in prison. And that brings me back to Jamie Komoroski who, because she killed Samantha Hutchinson in South Carolina, could only serve a maximum of ten years in prison for DWI homicide. 

The only way to prevent more repeat offenders from driving drunk and possibly killing someone is to pass and enforce stricter laws for a first offense. Beyond that, we need to make sure those laws and guidelines are consistent from county to county and from state to state. Given the current composition of our General Assembly, however, it’s not likely that such reforms would pass. That’s why I support making alcohol-related vehicular manslaughter or homicide a federal crime. Since every state receives federal funds for the maintenance and construction of roads and highways, and since drunk driving-related fatalities occur on those roads, then Congress should have the authority to pass legislation that would codify penalties and enforcement for drunk-driving-related deaths regardless of the state in which the offense occurs. Failure of any state to abide by such a congressional act would result in loss of federal funds.

As it stands now, drunk drivers are a menace to society, but so are the state lawmakers, prosecutors, and judges who allow them to continue to get behind the wheel of a deadly weapon.

 
 

In defending his network’s recently televised town hall with Donald Trump, CNN CEO Chris Licht said that the event made “a lot of news.” Unfortunately, the big news about CNN’s town hall is that it was an unmitigated disaster. Moderator Kaitlin Collins, a seasoned Washington correspondent, did the best she could to fact-check Trump’s rapid-fire lies in real-time, but her facts didn’t resonate with the live audience for two reasons. First, no matter what she tried to interject, Trump talked over her. Second, CNN stupidly only let Trump supporters sit in the auditorium, and those MAGA-heads didn’t want facts to get in the way of their beliefs. The CNN Town Hall thus devolved into a political rally for Trump which only served to entertain and energize his base. It was also a far cry from the town halls and debates which our nation had come to expect for most of our history.

According to Smithsonian magazine, America’s first town hall took place in 1633 in Dorchester, Massachusetts, and then every Monday morning thereafter. Those town meetings were held to settle and establish, “such orders as may tend to the general good as aforesaid.” The decisions made became law and, “every man to be bound thereby, without gaynesaying or resistance.” As Smithsonian columnist Jackie Mansky noted in her 2016 article, the Dorchester model spread to other New England communities, serving as a regular “majority-rules” forum in which citizens decided on important issues of the day. Those town halls eventually evolved into our modern-day city council and county commissioners’ meetings.

Televised town hall meetings in which political candidates answer questions from an audience are a relatively new concept. They were pioneered by, believe it or not, a once-failed Presidential candidate and a future FOX News CEO. In 1968 former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was the Republican nominee for President that year, teamed with Roger Ailes to produce and broadcast a series of live town hall events titled “Man in the Arena.” Unlike his 1960 debates with John Kennedy in which Nixon came off looking pale and nervous, the 1968 town halls were staged just for the GOP nominee. In later years, other candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton used televised town halls to promote their candidacies and enhance their public image.

Over the past few years, CNN has become known for its town halls, some which focus on issues in the news, and others that feature declared presidential candidates. It was the latter that went awry earlier this month when Donald Trump was given a national forum in which he continued to deny that Joe Biden had won in 2020 and said that the MAGA insurrectionists were fine people. He also used the town hall to berate and defame E. Jean Carroll just one day after having been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming her. The question now is, “How can televised town halls and debates be improved?”

Veteran CNN correspondent Christine Amanpour, knowing Donald Trump’s propensity for being Donald Trump, warned Chris Licht ahead of time not to go through with the town hall, and certainly not to broadcast the event live. Her suggestion to tape the town hall and have the ability to edit out egregious and defamatory statements prior to broadcast is a valid point. After all, why have a live broadcast if you’re not taking live, call-in questions?  

So, let’s talk about the live audience. If the host network wants to broadcast a town hall, then it should be incumbent upon that network to invite an equal number of audience members from each major political party so to ensure that a balanced mix of questions will be asked of the guest. In the case of a general election debate, the same standard should hold true, even though questions would only come from a moderator. When broadcasting a primary debate, the audience should be comprised of an equal number of supporters for each candidate. Beyond that, live audiences must be instructed in advance not to applaud except when the moderator cues a commercial break. Other forms of demonstration or protest would not be allowed at any time. Controlling the composition and deportment of the live audience will preclude the event from becoming a political rally for any candidate.

Next, I’d like to suggest some reforms for the candidates themselves. For town halls, the candidate must observe common courtesies toward the moderator or, in the case of a debate, toward the other candidates. This means no one is allowed to interrupt or talk over anyone else. It also means that no candidate can resort to name-calling or making a false statement. Moreover, debate participants would not be allowed to run past their allotted time to speak, and, in the case of a town hall, the candidate would not be allowed to keep repeating himself or veering off into a topic not related to the question. If any candidate violates any of these rules, a buzzer would sound, and the offending candidate will be warned. If he is buzzed for a second time, he will be removed from the debate stage and the broadcast will continue with the remaining candidates. If, during a town hall, a candidate is buzzed for the third time, the broadcast will end. 

The goal of televised town halls and debates should be to inform and educate the audience, and to let them learn about public policy initiatives, and about the candidates who are discussing their views on important issues of the day. If it takes a tape delay, new rules, or a buzzer to accomplish that goal, then so be it.

 
 

During his 17-year NFL career, Ricky Proehl was one of the most respected wide receivers in the game. He was also one of the most successful, with two Super Bowl rings to show for it. Today he is one of the Triad’s most respected entrepreneurs and philanthropists, first for creating Proehlific Park, and second for establishing the P.O.W.E.R. of Play Foundation. The former is a family fitness center and sports complex which includes the area’s first inclusive playground for special needs kids. The latter is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that supports after-school athletic activities and educational programs for latch-key kids and at-risk youth.

“We’ve learned that by showing a child love, acceptance and respect, that we can, in turn, help change their lives. The Foundation teaches the children in our programs through our core values of Play, Opportunity, Work, Excellence, and Respect. We tell them, ‘You can do whatever you want to do if you surround yourself with good people and make good choices.’”

On June 8, the community will have an opportunity to support Proehl’s Foundation and help sustain its mission by attending a “Blue Jeans and Bourbon” fundraiser. The event will take place at Proehlific Park from 6pm until 9pm.

BBQ will be provided by Sweet Old Bill’s of High Point, and Old Nick Williams Distillery will offer up its historic bourbon. Tito’s Vodka and Pepsi will also be served. Live music will be performed by Bandemic and local favorite Brody Bett will belt out a few tunes. Attendees can also visit the photo booth and try their hand at axe-throwing. As a special treat, several members of the Carolina Panthers’ first Super Bowl team will be on hand to greet everyone. And of course, there will be both silent and live auctions featuring some real collector’s items.

“We will be auctioning off some autographed items from current and past NFL players. Folks can also bid on tickets for Winston-Salem DASH and Greensboro Grasshopper home games. And there’s a chance to win facial services from Dermatology Specialists,” said Natasha Hilburn, executive director for the P.O.W.E.R. of Play Foundation.

Individual tickets are $100 and a full table can be purchased for $1,500.

“Proceeds will go directly to providing scholarships for less fortunate children to attend our after school and summer camps. The funds will also be used for Ricky’s ‘Santa’s Helpers’ campaign in which the Foundation will provide Christmas gifts for over 300 foster children during the holidays,” said Hilburn.

Tickets are tax-deductible and can be purchased online at ProehlificPark.com. You can register for the event by clicking on the “P.O.W.E.R. of Play” tab. You can also mail or deliver a check to: Proehlific Park, 4517 Jessup Grove Road, Greensboro, NC 27410. For more information call (336) 665-5233.

 
 

This fall will mark the 20^th anniversary of Triad Today, a weekly public affairs program which airs on ABC 45 and My48. There are a lot of folks to thank for the longevity of Triad Today but were it not for the efforts of one man, those TV stations wouldn’t have even been able to broadcast my program. That man was Newton Minow, an attorney and one-time FCC chairman who was an advocate for quality television. Minow passed away on May 6 at the age of 97.

Newton Minow is best known for referring to television as a “vast wasteland”, but that one phrase unfairly made him seem more like a critic than an advocate. Moreover, it diminishes his many accomplishments while at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission, a post he was appointed to by President John Kennedy in 1961. And though he only held the job for two years, very few commissioners ever did more to advance the mission of broadcasting than Minow.

It was Minow who shepherded the “All-Channel Receiver Act” which required manufacturers of TV sets to include UHF channels (those above channel 13) on their receivers. He made sure there was federal funding for educational programming, was an advocate for young viewers, and he pushed for the development of communications satellites. Minow also lobbied for political candidates to be given free airtime.     

Minow reigned at a time when mostly individuals and families owned local TV stations, and in an era when the FCC advocated for viewers rather than large corporations. That’s why his words carried a lot of weight with station owners in speeches like the one he gave to the National Association of Broadcasters on May 9, 1961.

Associated Press correspondent Tammy Webber recently recounted that speech in which Minow challenged those in attendance to sit down and watch their station for a full day, “without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss-sheet, or rating book to distract you. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, Western bad men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials, many of them screaming, cajoling, and offending.”

Minow concluded his remarks with a message of hope, and a reminder of something that many of today’s corporate broadcasters have forgotten.

“My faith is in the belief that this country needs and can support many voices of television — and the more voices we hear, the better, the richer, the freer we shall be…A broadcasting license is an enormous gift from the government that brings with it a responsibility to the public…After all, the airways belong to the people.”

Thirty years after delivering those impassioned words, Newton Minow continued to be concerned about the quality of television programming, saying, “In 1961 I worried that my children would not benefit much from television. But in 1991 I worry that my grandchildren will actually be harmed by it.”

That warning was issued a decade before network and cable channels started to be overrun by the likes of Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashians, Big Brother, Real Housewives, Duck Dynasty, and “drag” races. And if that’s not bad enough, poor Newton Minow lived just long enough to witness the rise of Tik Tok. Talk about harming your grandchildren.

For the record, I never agreed with Minow’s belief that television in 1961 was a vast wasteland. True enough, the airwaves back then were replete with Western dramas in which bad guys got shot every week, but there was never any blood or gore, and there was always a lesson to be learned about good versus evil. And true enough there were lots of sitcoms on the air, but the good-natured comedy of those shows was generally born out of affection for the parties involved. Truth be told, Mr. Minow might have been somewhat of an alarmist then, but his prophetic warnings about the future were, I’m sorry to say, spot on.

 
 

Philo Farnsworth is widely considered to be the principal inventor of television. He was not only a genius, he was also a visionary, and he shared that vision with his wife Pam one afternoon in 1926, while the couple was driving up the California coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco. In his book, “The Last Lone Inventor”, Evan Schwartz recounted that conversation, in which Philo told Pam that “Television would become the world’s greatest teaching tool. Illiteracy would be wiped out, and viewers would be able to watch news as it happened.” Philo also told Pam that television would bring about world peace. 

Pride of authorship aside, Farnsworth believed that his invention had value and he was right. Fortunately, he didn’t live long enough to see how that visionary value would be abused. Farnsworth died in 1971, the same year that 27-year-old Jerry Springer resigned from Cincinnati’s city council after it was discovered that he had paid prostitutes for sex. It was a harbinger of sleaze to come. Twenty years later, Farnsworth started spinning in his grave when Springer launched a talk show that was anything but a great “teaching tool”. Unlike Philo’s invention, Springer himself once admitted that his show had “no real value”. And yet, The Jerry Springer Show lasted for 27 years, and by 1998 he had bounced Oprah Winfrey (whose show had value) from atop the ratings. Jerry Springer died of pancreatic cancer on April 27. He was 79 years old.

Springer was not the first television personality to broadcast valueless content. Joe Pyne did it from 1964 to 1969, followed by Sally Jesse Raphael, Geraldo Rivera, and Morton Downey Jr. in the 1980s. And when he started his show in 1991, Jerry had competition from the likes of Maury Povich and Jenny Jones. But it was Springer who elevated trash talk TV to an art form, by presenting such themes as, “Stop Pimping My Twin Sister”, “I Married a Horse”, “I’m Happy I Cut off My Legs”, and “I Cut off My Own Genitals”.

Early on Springer defended giving a forum to every kind of dysfunctional weirdo imaginable, and he refused to accept responsibility for the brawls that ensued or the cumulative effect his shows would have on viewers. Commenting for his best-selling video, Too Hot for TV, Springer said, “Television does not create values. It’s merely a picture of all that’s out there — the good, the bad, and the ugly.” Strictly speaking, Jerry’s assessment was correct, but by giving a voice to those who comprise that “picture”, he propagated and popularized their dysfunction, thus lowering the bar for what is acceptable in a broadcast setting. And that brings me back to value.

In 1957 the Supreme Court determined in Roth v United States that for something to be considered obscene, the material must be utterly without redeeming social value. Clearly, there is absolutely no redeeming social value to interviewing someone who married a horse or pimped someone’s twin sister. So, how then could a bona fide obscenity like The Jerry Springer Show have remained on air for so long?

One reason is money. Springer and the TV stations that aired his show made lots of money. The other reason is viewership. Not only did Jerry’s show appeal to less-educated people, it was also a guilty pleasure for highbrow folks as well. As professors Charles McCoy of SUNY-Plattsburgh and Roscoe Scarborough of University of Virginia noted in a 2015 article for TheConversation.com, “Many cultured viewers feel quite badly about watching trashy television, but they can’t seem to stop themselves. It’s like being unable to look away from a car crash.”

Nevertheless, I believe that Springer’s chair-throwing, cursing, brawling TV show had a long-term negative impact on the nature of public discourse in our country. Today it has become commonplace for folks to air their dirty linen on TV, or to berate a store clerk, or to yell, “Liar!” at the President of the United States. True, Jerry Springer isn’t responsible for our values, but he made it fashionable for us to act like assholes whenever we felt the need to do so.  

Springer often referred to his show as “stupid”, “camp”, and “an hour of escapism”. But in later years he also came to grips with his legacy, seeming to be apologetic, if only in a joking manner. Appearing on David Yontef’s podcast, “Behind the Velvet Rope”, Jerry said, “I just apologize. I’m so sorry. What have I done? I’ve ruined the culture. I just hope Hell isn’t that hot because I burn real easy. I’m very light-complected and that worries me.”

What Philo Farnsworth invented had real value. What Jerry Springer did with that invention had, in his own words, “no real value”. May both men rest in peace no matter where they are now.

 
 

As both a print journalist and a broadcaster, I am compelled to comment on the recently resolved defamation suit involving Dominion Voting Systems and FOX. To recap, Dominion filed suit against FOX for broadcasting numerous lies about the integrity and accuracy of DVS tabulations during the 2020 Presidential election. Though Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes, FOX hosts like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter told their viewers that the election had been stolen in part due to rigged vote counts by Dominion.

That FOX News and its on-air personalities defamed Dominion was never in question, but during pre-trial discovery, attorneys for Dominion learned that the talking heads at FOX had admitted privately that the election had not been stolen. It was also revealed that the reason for their duplicity was purely monetary. Murdoch did not want to lose viewers and revenue, and both would have happened had his News folks told the truth on air. At any rate, the damning and mounting evidence put FOX attorneys in a precarious position. Dominion was seeking $1.6 billion dollars in damages, and likely would have been awarded that amount by a jury, so FOX cut a deal to pay DVS $787 million dollars and avoid a lengthy trial. It was believed to be the largest such settlement in a defamation action, and it seemed to send a warning to purveyors of fake news everywhere. Unfortunately, the victory was hollow for several reasons. First, because FOX News is not likely to alter its behavior. As Angelo Carusone, chairman of Media Matters for America, told CNN, “My warning to everybody is FOX News is about to burn brighter and hotter as a result of this.”

Second, is the problem with transparency, or lack of it. We’ve all seen TV courtroom dramas in which a guilty party is offered a plea deal, but only if he agrees to publicly allocute to his crimes. Yet when the Dominion deal was negotiated, there was no requirement that FOX News personalities go on air and admit to having lied about DVS and the so-called rigged election. That means there’s no real closure in the FOX defamation case. In other words, gullible FOX viewers will never be told by their idols that the 2020 election was not stolen, thus the votes they cast in the future will continue to be based on lies. 

hird, and most importantly, I’m concerned about the damage that FOX has already done, not so much to Dominion, but to our democracy. Donald Trump was a frequent call-in guest on FOX News programs, including leading up to the January 6 insurrection. Together, the former President and his lap dog anchorpersons spewed and reinforced “the Big Lie” to such an extent that they inspired and encouraged viewers to rise up and revolt in protest over the stolen election. Trump himself may eventually be indicted over his role in inciting thousands of violent insurrectionists to storm the Capitol in hopes of preventing the 2020 votes from being certified. But what of FOX News? Now that they have admitted privately to defaming Dominion, why shouldn’t they be charged with aiding and abetting Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the election by obstructing the work of Congress? And what of the hundreds of injured police officers and of those who died as a result of the insurrection? Shouldn’t FOX News be charged as an accessory to those assaults?

Paying out $787 million dollars is chicken feed to Rupert Murdoch plus his insurance will cover part of it anyway. Nevertheless, it’s hardly a fitting punishment for the multiple and far-reaching offenses that FOX News has committed against the electorate. Perhaps then prosecutors will go out on a limb and charge Hannity, Carlson, and Coulter with personally perpetrating hate crimes. Or maybe the FCC will revoke the network’s license to broadcast. But don’t hold your breath that any substantive penalties will be meted out. Unfortunately, as it stands now, these despicable, lying personalities are going to get away with heinous behavior, which almost resulted in the overthrow of our government. They tried to steal something precious to us and we stopped them just in the nick of time. The question is, will we be able to stop them again if there’s a next time?

 
 

Kathy Manning is currently serving her second term in Congress representing the 6th district of North Carolina, and Ted Budd has switched chambers and is now our state’s freshman senator.

Manning is from Greensboro and Budd was born in Winston-Salem, but their political views couldn’t be further apart. During the Easter break, they both taped a special edition of Triad Today, which airs this weekend. Here are some highlights from our conversation.

 

---

JL: We had a couple of bank failures earlier in the year. Are the banks OK? And is our money safe?

KM: Your money is safe. The banks are OK. The Treasury Department did the right thing. It has insured that all depositors will get their money, and also, the heads of those two banks that failed were fired, which I think sends the right signal.

TB: I think we did the right thing to stop the bleeding and stabilize the system. Bottom line? Yes, they’re safe. What we really saw, though, was those in charge of regulating and managing not doing a very good job of either.

JL: There have been over 130 mass shootings this year so far, and that includes school shootings where over two dozen little children have been injured or killed.

TB: Ultimately no matter where you stand on the 2nd Amendment, we want people to come home safely each and every day. We don’t want to have these incidents. Now, we go about this very differently. We want to protect the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time, we want to make sure we keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Bottom line? We don’t have a device problem, and it’s very frustrating when people run to limit a device when ultimately, we have a people problem. We have to deal with the criminal element. We have to deal with mental illness, and so let’s focus on those things, which will really make a difference.

KM: Congress took a big step last term. We passed the bi-partisan Safer Communities Act. It’s the first piece of major gun legislation that has been signed into law in 30 years. That Act has done a number of things to keep our communities safer. You mentioned school shootings, so this Act has allowed for enhanced background checks for people under the age of 21, and we know that a number of school shootings actually happen because of shooters who are under the age of 21. This Act also allows us to look into juvenile and mental health records for people under 21 who are trying to buy a gun, and that is a step in the right direction. It also provides funding for gun violence reduction programs, and there is funding in that Act for mental health treatment for school children, and mental health training for first responders. All this won’t solve the gun violence problem, but it is moving in the right direction.

JL: Are you for cuts to Social Security? How do we keep the system solvent?

TB: You’ve got to protect it. Especially for those who are either currently in retirement or who are approaching retirement. You also have to protect the fiscal soundness of our nation. But you can’t allow fear-mongering that people often do about Social Security and the benefits these people have worked their whole life for. Again you have to make sure our nation is economically strong, and that goes back to inflation. Some people feel like they’re getting a cut in social security benefits because the cost of groceries, medical, and gas is increasing.

KM: I am NOT for cutting Social Security. We’ve all paid into Social Security all our lives, and those are benefits that we’ve earned.

JL: So then how do we make sure it remains solvent?

KM: I have signed onto a bill called the Social Security Trusted Promise Act. It is a bill that addresses some things which helps to shore up the Social Security trust fund, and we will continue to work on issues that make sure Social Security is there now and for the future.

---

 
The entire interview with Budd and Manning can be seen on a special edition of Triad Today this Saturday at 7:30 a.m. on abc45, and Sunday at 11 a.m. on MY48. Triad Today also streams on WFMY News 2+.

 
 

So far this year there have been over 130 mass shootings and dozens of children injured or killed while at school, yet federal and state legislators are frozen in their tracks, incapable of enacting reforms that would prevent such carnage. Republicans refuse to ban assault weapons; Democrats think we can solve the problem if we stop selling guns altogether. Both positions are untenable. Meanwhile, neither political party is willing to re-route pork funding or foreign aid dollars to local schools for installing electronically locking doors and metal detectors, and for hiring armed officers. Sadly, classroom massacres are becoming commonplace and I hold out little hope that our elected officials will ever change their stripes. Clearly, we cannot keep our kids safe at school, but at least there is a move afoot to keep them safe when surfing the Internet. 

We’re all familiar with the serious consequences that befall children who spend a lot of time online. Some are the victims of stalkers and predators. Others are bullied by their peers, often to such extremes that the victim elects to commit suicide. There’s even a recent incident in which a pre-teen was blackmailed after having been coerced into sharing a nude photo of himself. And of course, there are the problems that result just from spending too much time online. In those cases, kids don’t develop social skills, don’t exercise, participate in team sports, don’t date, and don’t focus on their studies. That’s why a growing number of state legislatures are passing laws to reform and curtail the amount of time spent online by minors.   

Last month, for example, Utah Governor Spence Cox signed a bill that will require children to get permission from their parents in order to access social media. Yahoo! News’ Mike Bebernes reports that the legislation also established a late-night curfew on social media for minors and requires companies to provide parents with complete access to their child’s account. 

Meanwhile Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders last week signed a new law that will require parental permission before a child can open a social media account. And, according to a report by Roll Call’s Gopal Ratham, starting next year, California will require tech companies to design apps that default to privacy and safety settings to protect children’s mental and physical health. 

Other states are also jumping on the reform bandwagon including Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, where legislators are drafting bills that would require age verification of minors and seek parental consent for children to go online.

Naturally, these reforms are being met with opposition from those who say such policies violate a child’s First Amendment rights. According to Bebernes, those critics are concerned about privacy rights, especially for LGBTQ children, “whose online communities may be their only source of support.” 

With all due respect to critics of these new legislative initiatives, such reforms and constraints are a necessary step toward pushing for the FCC to eventually regulate the Internet in general, and social media platforms specifically. After all, broadcasters have been regulated for over 80 years, so it’s high time that other communication mediums receive the same oversight, especially when it comes to protecting our children.

 
 

Some people just never learn. In a recent column I warned Democrats that if they persisted in condoning, promoting, or flaunting far-left-wing agendas, they would push moderates and independents to vote for far-right-wing candidates in next year’s elections. But no sooner had the ink dried on my column, than Forsyth Tech hosted a Gay Pride event in which a simulated sex act was performed for all to see. Even worse (if that is possible), some who witnessed the pornographic display were 14 and 15-year-old children who attended Early and Middle College classes on the Forsyth Tech campus.

According to a report by the Winston-Salem Journal’s Lisa O’Donnell, “a drag performer straddled a student who is sitting in a chair.” The “performance,” which took place at a campus restaurant, was recorded and posted on a social media channel called Libs of TikTok. 

Later, the Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools issued a statement apologizing for allowing students to be exposed to an “inappropriate dance,” and saying, “That performer’s dance was not something students of that age should have been able to access or witness.”

But the nature of the dance itself is only part of the problem. According to the aforementioned statement, “Middle College and Early College administrators knew of the event and a drag performance, but were not aware that there would be an entertainer performing in a manner that was not appropriate for underage students.”

According to O’Donnell, had the school district known about the dance, it would have limited access to the event. Am I missing something here? I mean, why is a taxpayer-supported educational institution hosting Gay Pride drag queens to begin with? And why didn’t the Middle College administrators keep their kids away from Forsyth Tech that day? Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought community colleges were supposed to be focused on preparing students to enter the workforce, not preparing them to enter each other.

But here’s the best part. Rather than issuing a public apology and firing a bunch of people, Forsyth Tech released a statement in which it threw public school officials under the bus.

“Our shared campus and educational experience provides Winston-Salem/Forsyth County high school students access to all Forsyth Tech facilities and events unless high school administrators decide access should be limited. They were aware of this event and knew it featured a drag performance, and, to our knowledge, they didn’t limit access.”

So much for the spirit of brotherhood between two local educational entities. And all this comes on the heels of a recent shooting at Forsyth Tech while local high schoolers were on campus. In that incident, a student shot himself in the hand. In the pornographic drag queen incident, Forsyth Tech shot itself in the foot and helped to push otherwise moderate parents into voting for a host of right-wing wackos in next year’s election. Thanks a lot Forsyth Tech.

 
 

Once upon a time, about 60 years ago, there was a 6th-grade teacher at Brunson Elementary school who kept order in the classroom by tossing chalk-dust-filled erasers at students who weren’t paying attention. Kids who were downright disruptive faced a different punishment: they were made to get down on all fours and push a piece of chalk around the perimeter of the room with their nose. As a class clown, I experienced both punishments. When I told my parents about the teacher’s unconventional methods they laughed and said that I probably deserved it. The infamous disciplinarian’s name was Bob Montague, and he was the best teacher I ever had.

During that year over six decades ago, Mr. Montague broadened our intellectual, academic, and creative horizons in ways that we could only fully appreciate years later. In order to teach us the importance of civics, he made us compete in a weekly college bowl-type contest in which the only way you could score points (and a good grade) was to read the local newspapers cover to cover, and have a working knowledge of current events. He took us on a field trip to Washington D.C. to learn about government. He helped us produce our own version of The Sound of Music which we performed in front of the entire school and various community boosters. He taught us arts and crafts, and made us read about the cultures of other lands. He encouraged questions and discussion, and made sure we had plenty of time to exercise at recess. Mr. Montague also had a great sense of humor and loved to laugh. And yes, he found creative ways to mete out discipline.

Yet for all of Bob Montague’s inspiring instructional methods which helped to shape and improve our minds, if he were teaching today, he would have already been fired and perhaps sued for throwing erasers at class clowns and making bad boys push chalk around the floor with their nose. I was put in mind of this last week when reading about a teacher at Smithfield Middle School who was forced to resign because she put painters tape over the mouths of students who were disruptive in class.

The teacher in question was Dawn Felix who had just started working at the school in August. Her offenses were discovered when 11-year-old Brady Webster sent a selfie of his taped-over mouth to his mom Catherine who, in turn, posted it on Facebook. Mrs. Webster and other parents complained to the school principal and the Johnston County Sheriff’s Department investigated the matter. Despite the fact that the Sheriff determined an assault charge was not warranted, Ms. Felix subsequently turned in her resignation.

Could Dawn Felix have used less dramatic methods to discipline rowdy students rather than duct-taping their mouths shut? Absolutely. But in this era of cancel culture, I fear that any unconventional action she might have taken to maintain order in the classroom would have still resulted in her dismissal. Having said that, let me be clear about something. If Ms. Felix was abusive, intolerant, or incompetent, then I say good riddance to her. But if her worst offense was using tape to maintain classroom discipline, then I’m sorry she threw in the towel. There’s a shortage of teachers in this state as it is, and we can’t afford to lose good ones just because they expect students to pay attention and show respect for others. 

When I was Brady’s age I got hit with erasers and had to push chalk around the floor with my nose, and the man who thought up those weird punishments helped to shape my life and career in ways that I could never repay. There’s no room in our schools for teachers who are mean and abusive, but there’s also no reason to chase away teachers who show tough love to their students now, so that those children will be successful and respectful later on.