What’s on MPR News? 6/21/18


Thursday June 21, 2018
(Subject to change as events dictate)

9 a.m. – MPR News with Kerri Miller
The #MeToo movement is changing the way we think about harassment. But how much have things really changed in the workplace? And what do you do when a company’s work culture is toxic from the top down?

Guests: Robert Sutton, Department of Management Science & Engineering| Stanford University; Danielle Paquette, Washington Post reporter focusing on labor issues.

10 a.m.- 1A with Joshua Johnson
As reports swirled about the more than 2,000 migrant children had been separated from their parents at the southern border, Jonathan Blitzer wrote in The New Yorker that “No protocols have been put in place for keeping track of parents and children concurrently, for keeping parents and children in contact with each other while they are separated, or for eventually reuniting them. Immigration lawyers, public defenders, and advocates along the border have been trying to fill the void.”

Guest: Jonathan Blitzer, staff writer, The New Yorker

11 a.m. – MPR News at 11
The Counter Stories hosts are back to talk about current events. Tom Weber will join the program along with Don Eubanks, Hlee Lee, and Anthony Galloway.

12 p.m. – MPR News Presents
Former longtime CBS journalist Bob Schieffer discusses his new book, “Overload: Finding the Truth in Today’s Deluge of News.” He is interviewed by Harvard history professor Jill Lepore, author of “These Truths: A History of the United States.” Recorded at the JFK Presidential Library in Boston.

1 p.m. – The Takeaway
We wrap up our look at modern masculinity in conversation with Asher Diaz, who has thought about gender through more than one lens.

2 p.m. – BBC NewsHour
Immigration in the U.S. and Europe: We look at President Trump’s U-turn on his policy of separating migrant children from their families; also: central European countries are discussing tougher measures to deter illegal migrants.

3 p.m. – All Things Considered
Harassment at 36,000 feet; Planet Money on alternatives to tariffs; the impact of school closings in Puerto Rico; does the Dow still matter; oil trains vs. an oil pipeline; Climate Cast.

6:00 p.m. – Marketplace
The ‘#MeToo’ movement has revealed sexual harassment in nearly every industry. But how can companies avoid hiring harassers in the first place? A look at how new hiring practices might help change the workforce.

6:30 p.m. – The Daily
President Trump signed an executive order to keep parents and children together at the border. What does it mean for his immigration policy — and for the families who have already been split apart?

Guest: Caitlin Dickerson, a national immigration reporter for The New York Times.

7 p.m. – The World
The son of nomadic goat herders in Somalia starts his life over in Donald Trump’s America.

8 p.m. – Fresh Air
Terry Gross talks with Vanity Fair writer Emily Jane Fox, who spent the past year investigating Ivanka Trump and her siblings. Her book “Born Trump: Inside America’s First Family“, includes intimate portraits of Trump’s older children, who didn’t expect their father to win the 2016 election.

  • jon

    “No protocols have been put in place for keeping track of parents and children concurrently, for keeping parents and children in contact with each other while they are separated, or for eventually reuniting them. Immigration lawyers, public defenders, and advocates along the border have been trying to fill the void.”

    I’m shocked this whole situation that was rolled out a few weeks ago, condemned as human rights violations, and then back pedaled slightly yesterday (with a misspelling in the title of the document rolling it back) wasn’t vetted thoroughness in oversight. Shocked!

  • >>President Trump signed an executive order to keep parents and children together at the border.<<

    Wait, so what you are telling me is that this administration has been lying about this policy the whole time and it actually WAS within the President's power to stop separating children from their parents and sticking them in the #trumpcamps?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/127403108b57b7087d5758b9a322c8a4c02b72d98c76055ef92f7eaf977df415.jpg

    • Sonny T

      The president “lying” about his power has been almost as big as the scandal itself. What did Trump actually say? I’m not contesting it, I just can’t find anything.

      • From June 15th:

        “THE PRESIDENT: No, I hate it. I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law. They will force —

        Q Sir, that’s your own policy. That’s your own policy. Why do you keep lying about it, sir?

        THE PRESIDENT: Quiet. Quiet. That’s the Democrats’ law. We can change it tonight. We can change it right now. I will leave here —

        Q You’re the President. You can change it right now.

        THE PRESIDENT: I will leave here — no, no. You need their votes. You need their votes. The Democrats, all they have to do —

        Q Mr. President, you control both chambers of Congress. The Republicans do.

        THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. By one vote? We don’t need it. You need 60 votes.

        Q (Inaudible.)

        THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. We have the one vote — excuse me. We need a one-vote — we have a one-vote edge. We need 60. So we need 10 votes. We can’t get them from the Democrats.

        Q What about executive action?

        THE PRESIDENT: Now, wait. Wait. You can’t do it through an executive order.

        Emphasis: Mine

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-gaggle/

        • Sonny T

          I will address your highlighted portions, because I think this is what you, and the press are saying when you accuse Trump of lying:

          1. “The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.” Is this true? Might be. If THE LAW allowing arrest and detention was introduced or substantially supported by Democrats, it would be accurate to call it their law.

          2. “You can’t do it through executive order.” Indeed, you can’t change THE LAW through an executive order. It’s pretty clear that’s what he’s referring to.

          3. If he is speaking in this context, and he certainly appears to be, it would be faulty reporting to say he lied.

          Now you might say he’s ducking the question. Or obfuscating. This is something all politicians do. But it’s irresponsible to call this exchange lying. ESPECIALLY if you’re a reporter.

          Just report the news.

          I am only interested in the accuracy of our journalism. I am not defending Trump.

          • I haven’t seen any reference in respectable media to Trump lying. There might be some out there but it’s not predominant.

            I HAVE seen references to him being inaccurate, but the two are not the same.

          • Sonny T

            I don’t think we should parse. Stating something inaccurately is lying.

          • Sonny T
          • That’s not a news story. That’s a media critic piece.

            It’s also inaccurate since it refers to the NYT being reluctant to call Trump’s inaccuracies “lies.” On the contrary, and as has been documented here, the debate between the NYT and other media, including NPR, on NOT calling inaccuracies lies is pretty well established.

            One exception is coverage of Donald Trump Jr. He lied.

            https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2017/07/13/537031034/here-lies-a-use-of-lied

          • Sonny T

            “To be clear, while NPR has avoided using the word “lie” until now, it has reported when statements from the president, his aides and family members differ from the facts.”

            Reporters should not pass off their opinions as fact. It takes five minutes to find a credible rebuttal, if they feel it will contribute to the story.

          • Sonny T

            You’ll miss him when he’s gone 🙂

            As usual Bob thanks for your attention to my questions. I appreciate it.

          • That’s not journalism. That’s stenography. If there is a statement that is untrue, then it would irresponsible to let that be broadcast without correcting it because in this environment, statements become fact by being repeated and amplified That holds true, also, for statements that COULD be misinterpreted by the public. It’s a matter of telling people what you know to be true and stopping at the point of telling people what you think to be true.

            If there is a debatable point, then, sure, do that whole “dueling voices” thing — that’s what Morning Edition at NPR now does — which turns you into CNN . I don’t call that journalism either. It’s not my cup of tea and if I wanted to hear talking heads, I’d turn on a talk show.

            But if the point is not debatable, then you have a responsibility to point out what is inaccurate if an assertion is made, particular since the office of president still carries a legitimacy in public statements that usually aren’t granted to anyone else, except maybe the pope or Charles Barkley.

            But, yes, you’re correct opinions should not be passed as fact in the absence of evidence .

          • Jerry

            Just because there are two sides, doesn’t mean both sides are equally true and valid.

          • It also doesn’t mean that when there are sides, there are only two.

          • Interesting memo to staff yesterday from Mark Memmott at NPR:

            Debunking falsehoods has long been among our standard practices. As we’ve said:
            When There’s No Evidence To Support A Claim, We Should Say That

            In the last few days it’s been suggested on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” and in Margaret Sullivan’s Washington Post column that news outlets should put the falsehood or spin between two slices of reality – “one tasty, democracy-nourishing meal,” Sullivan wrote. Or, as CNN’s Brian Stelter put it, a “truth sandwich.”

            The idea is to start with the truth, then state the claim, and follow that with more reality.

            Skipping the first step and just putting the falsehood first and then debunking it, linguist George Lakoff told CNN and the Post, may reinforce it in the minds of audience members. Starting with the truth, then reporting the claim and then adding more fact-checking, helps avoid that problem.

            What might a truth sandwich look like?
            Coleman Always Gets It Right, Despite What Memmott Claims
            Even though recordings prove that news anchor Korva Coleman has not mispronounced his name on the air, NPR Standards & Practices Editor Mark Memmott charged Tuesday that she has repeatedly and deliberately referred to him as memm-NOTT, not MEMM-it. He falsely insisted that Coleman “never gets it right” even after being presented with audio recordings of the 17 times she has referred to him correctly. …

            https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/06/20/621753252/lets-put-truth-sandwiches-on-our-menu

          • Sonny T

            In Tuesday’s Strib, which devoted large portions of straight Section A news to Trump, reporters used the term “falsely claimed” three times, without elaborating.

            I looked up the references. In each case the statement by Trump was not false, by any rational standard. The statements were standard political fare.

            Just as I have shown in the example provided by Onan (again, thank you), a careful examination cannot support the media’s conclusion that “Trump lied” or “falsely claimed” –same thing.

          • My copy is at home. Can you provide links. Would like to take a look .

          • Sonny T

            I’m not at home either. You can find it when you are able, if you want.

            In these articles and elsewhere it is typical for the reporter to say Trump “falsely claimed” something, but not provide the quote itself!

            This can’t be right. It forces the reader to go fishing. I like fishing. FOR FISH. So it’s off to Google, and half the time you can’t locate what the reporter is talking about.

            Thanks for listening.

          • /? In these articles and elsewhere it is typical for the reporter to say Trump “falsely claimed” something, but not provide the quote itself!

            I think that’s probably untrue which is why I want to see links to what you’re reading to see what it is you’re seeing that I’m not. During the day, I see a lot of the AP wirecopy — the stuff that’s going to be in the paper tomorrow in many cases — and it is decidedly not the case that the Trump quotes are not included in these case.

            Based on what I see and read, the instances you’re citing are *a*typical.

          • Sonny T

            I won’t deliberately state an untruth or try to score points. I’m not trying to one-up you, or anyone. Well, maybe sometimes 🙂

            If we agree that using “falsely stated” or the equivalent, without the quote itself, is wrong, then let’s simply keep our eyes peeled for this transgression. In the articles I cited from last Tuesday I looked for it, and didn’t see it.

            This “falsely stated” thing is appearing everywhere. It is big issue, in my opinion, or I wouldn’t have addressed it at such length. It is a new development, and an ominous one. It smacks of bias, and erodes credibility.

            In being critical of this trend, in finding fault with reporters I am not being critical of you, or being personal, as I’m sure you know. The reason I address this is the opposite. I hold the profession in the highest regard.

          • I understand, but what is lacking in the citations is specific attribution to the offending stories (and the non offending ones) so it’s impossible for any real factual analysis to occur here. Without that, there’s nothing meaningful to do in this space.

          • Laura Frykman

            a President should spend some time, moral energy and patience on the effort to be ACCURATE. If he or she does not, and there is a pattern of this, then just like any other citizen, the President gets called a liar. That’s the reality not reflected in the media, because they need to ingratiate themselves with their sponsors.

          • Laura Frykman

            that’s because if they called him out so clearly, he’d harass them and sue them. For the citizen’s purposes, it IS the same. It’s a euphemism for lying, and everyone knows it. Don’t you? The media makes a LOT of $$–even PBS–off of all the controversy he fosters with his lies, and the media gave him BILLIONS of dollars of free public airtime that crowned him king in his own eyes. So I don’t think the idea of “respectable media” has quite the integrity it used to. I watch the PBS Newshour mainly so I get the toned down version of the ugly reality that is our truth. I’m not alone in knowing his behavior is always worse than the way the media portrays him.

          • // So I don’t think the idea of “respectable media” has quite the integrity it used to. I watch the PBS Newshour mainly so I get the toned down version of the ugly reality that is our truth. I’m not alone in knowing his behavior is always worse than the way the media portrays him.

            This implies that you were getting “the ugly reality that is our truth” from your respectable media, and chose, instead, to get a softer version of it.

            Subsequently, you said the media is guilty of not reflecting the reality.

            Those seem contradictory observations to me.

          • kevins

            But he lies profusely, repeatedly and without concern. There…that’s all you need to know.

          • Sonny T

            You are engaging in a circular argument.

        • Sonny T

          Although I have taken exception to some details, what you provided has been valuable to me. I appreciate it.

    • Jerry

      There are two things you have to keep in mind when parsing what Trump says.

      1: He is a pathological liar. He lies about everything, it doesn’t matter if it is important or easily disproven. And if caught on it, he will just double down.

      2: If he accuses somebody of a wrongdoing, you can be absolutely certain that it is something he is guilty of.

      And a bonus: he has an amazing amount of misplaced vanity.

      What boggles my mind, is that for about 45% of the population, it seems to work.

      • kevins

        Amen…an amazed Amen.

  • Allie

    As an evangelical Christian I really enjoyed the Takeaway with Asher Diaz. I gained insight into a topic I’m admittedly pretty unfamiliar with as well as gaining helpful context from a transgender person himself. Since I only caught the last half of the discussion I would really enjoy a link to listen to the interview in its entirety. My desire is to forward the interview to other evangelical Christians in my circle in hopes of understanding one another and ultimately love and acceptance despite moral differences.

  • Allie

    As an evangelical Christian I really enjoyed the Takeaway with Asher Diaz. I gained insight into a topic I’m admittedly pretty unfamiliar with as well as gaining helpful context from a transgender person himself. Since I only caught the last half of the discussion I would really enjoy a link to listen to the interview in its entirety. My desire is to forward the interview to other evangelical Christians in my circle in hopes of understanding one another and ultimately love and acceptance despite moral differences.