In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 34 – Information and Behaviour Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 22, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Other forms of misinformation and information overload cracking the egg of normal human behavior. Rick Rosner: Human behavior is going to—we have been, throughout our history, acting according to biological imperatives in increasingly fancy and technology-filled environments. We live in technologically mediated dwellings. Dwellings are a form of technology. Apes living in trees or sleeping in caves don’t have dwelling technology. Once you start stacking up Palm Fronds and stick and skins, you are starting to have building technology. The food we eat comes from technology. Clothing—language is a form of communication technology. Everything we do is a form of technology. It is mostly in the form of technology. It is mostly in the service of biological imperatives – continuing to live, to not die, to reproduce, to evaluate each other and the environment according to how they may help or hurt our changes to survive and reproduce. We’re still completely biological. Even though, we are surrounded by our technology. The entirely biological era of humanity will be coming to, not an end but—well, the era of non-purely biological humanity has begun. One of the major mediators of this change is information. The way we are now with regard to social media and how we exchange information is radically different from the way people exchanged information just 10 years ago. The amount of information that’s exchanged is radically different than eras ago. We are going to augment our information processing abilities. We have started, but it will begin to be more intimate. We will be more linked into non-biological information processing. So that eventually we will be integrated into large information processing systems. You can argue that we already are via the endless and constant flow of information that we have put ourselves into. But that’s more of an app—it’s not physically connected to us for the most part. I have my fitness bracelet. A lot of people wear Fit Bits, but that’s fancy jewelry. 1% of the population dos have a computer built into him or herself. Pacemaker, cochlear implants, insulin pumps, but even that is not that intimate. Pacemakers aren’t really influencing—you haven’t changed your thinking. You made your heart beat regularly. That in-built intimacy will eventually take the form of information processing augmentation, and what becomes acceptable in terms of—we couldn’t handle Google Glass, but 50 years in the future. There will be acceptable ways to have wearable either built-on or ride-on or built-in computing devices. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
0 Comments
In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 33 – Bad News Habits Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 21, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: Also! CNN learned a bunch of horrible new tricks during the election. They haven’t given them up. The Countdown Clock. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes [Laughing]. RR: During an election, there are a bunch of event start to count down to. Certain number of days and hours to Super Tuesday primaries. Days and hours to debates. Now, CNN has a frickin’ clock up there all of the time. days and houses until Van Jones has a show or a town hall. People like or are drawn to the clock. It is a terrible habit. There are super shitty news and opinion panels like those with the loathsome Jeffrey Lord. Yesterday, he said that Donald Trump is the Martin Luther King of healthcare coverage because Donald Trump will somehow coerce the nation into acting on healthcare in the way Martin Luther King coerced the nation into acting on civil rights. That guy is just a jackass. He gets paid who knows how much to be a professional jackass on CNN. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 32 – News:Business::Business:Usual Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 20, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The original question was about the news being a business to make money. Rick Rosner: That’s what it is. You have Jeff Zucker running CNN. Zucker was the head programmer at NBC for many years, I believe. He was the guy who picked what shows made it to broadcast. Now, he’s running a news network. His lieutenant is Jeff Gaspin who was his head of—no, I’m getting that wrong. Anyway, Zucker and Gaspin are the ones who put “The Apprentice” on the air, which ran for 14 seasons under Trump. It took Trump from being a New York famous loud-mouthed real estate guy into being a national symbol of aggressive business. So to some extent, you can argue Zucker is the one responsible for Trump being president. Now, Zucker runs CNN. The statistics on how much free coverage Trump got from CNN and other news stations is astonishing and disheartening. It is estimated. You can estimate the news value-- You can estimate the PR value and the equivalent cost of appearing on the news. That if there’s a 30 second spot on you on the news that is viewed by x million people that you’re getting for free. That you’re getting so many people’s attention. That if you were buying that air time. It is cost you x millions of dollars. It is estimated that during the 2016 campaign Trump got $5.8 billion worth of free publicity of news coverage. It is almost exactly double or almost exactly double of what Hillary Clinton got, almost $3 billion more than her because he pulled eyeballs. He says a bunch of loose cannon shit that either inspires people or scares people or makes them want to tune in to see what crazy crap he says next. He makes news channels money. So they’re complicit in him becoming president. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 31 – Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 19, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: In the 60s, they were probably at least in the top 3 sources of people’s news. Most people were still reading newspapers, but most people were also watching the half-our nightly news broadcasts. Those things didn’t have to make money. They were a public service. Everything else was designed to make money. Anyway, then things changed, people noticed that if you put on morning news and you made it a 3-hour happy news kind of sunny people in the morning Today Show with the late 50s and David Garroway, he had a co-anchor who was a chimpanzee named J. Fred Muggs. [Laughing] Any time you’ve got a co-anchor who is a monkey then you’re doing news wrong. People noticed these 2 and 3 hour news broadcasts were making a butt load of money. Then the whole Iranian hostage crisis, which begins under Carter in 1978 or 1979, and ABC starts running Nightline. It began as a half-hour update on the hostage situation 5 nights a week. It ran after the local news. Then you had CNN come online in the 80s. As the—so in the beginning in the late 70s and 80s, people begin realizing that you can make news jazzy, and you can expand it. You can make a lot of money off of local news. You can make money off certain national news shows. Eventually, CNN started making money, then around 1986 you have Fox News come one. Roger Ailes noticed that – the evil blowfish Roger Ailes – you can use a news channel as propaganda. So for 20 years and more, T.V. news was not profit driven. Now, it is crazily profit driven. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 30 – ‘Why is News an Industry?’ Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 18, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: You had another question. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I did, a few. Th news, you mentioned a little while ago, has become industry. So much of news… RR: …hold on, hold on, hold on, we should discuss why it wasn’t an industry for a long time. We should discuss why it wasn’t an industry for a long time because the news business was a business. You are in the news to make a ton of money, which make sense. Even a town as small as Albuquerque when it was 80,000, 100,000, or 150,000 people, had a morning and evening newspaper, Denver when I was growing up had a couple newspapers. Plus, there was a Boulder newspaper. New York probably had 30 newspapers simultaneously at various points in its history. They made money through the crappy forms of “yellow” journalism. That was the term for shitty sensationalistic journalism. It was called yellow journalism based on a comic strip called “The Yellow Kid” because used to buy newspaper based on what comic strips they had. SDJ: [Laughing]. RR: “The Yellow Kid” was the kid in a night shirt with a buck tooth. He was yellow. SDJ: [Laughing]. RR: It showed the newspaper was full colour. So people wanted to buy it, “Look! Our newspaper is in full color.” And if the newspaper got distributed, then great. In the late 40s, the first national T.V. networks went on around 1948 in America. At the time, the U.S. government has always owned the air waves. The frequency bands on which T.V. used to be broadcast. Now, most T.V. is not broadcast T.V. There are broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS. But even those networks, most people get stuff through cable. In 1948, everything travelled via radio wavs to people’s T.V. antennas down from the roof into the T.V.s. The government owned the frequencies. They owned the radio and T.V. bands. The government said, “We will lease you these bands at super cheap rates because you are going to provide a public service.” One thing they did was daily news casts in order to get these deals on broadcast bands. So the T.V. shows would do 15 minute nightly news shows, which became 30 minute news shows. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 29 – Religions’ Accuracy and Utility Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 17, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: With regard to religion, you have accuracy on the one hand and utility on the other. The window for accuracy is really, really tiny, especially as we learn more about the universe. The window for utility is bigger. The same for philosophy as long as the philosophy does not claim to explain all of creation. Religions tries explain all of creation. Philosophies don’t have to do that. To the extent that they do do that, it is a small window. There can be smaller philosophies. So there can be a number of—we were talking in an earlier discussion about where the appropriate level of explanation. That you don’t need to go to quantum mechanics to explain everything in the world. Some of the best explanations exist in the context of what you’re trying to explain. So when you’re talking about people falling in love, you don’t have to go all the way back to quantum physics. Particles lock into atom and molecules and amino acids and evolve into – ba-ba-ba – without going back to basic physics to explain how people fall in love. You can have different philosophies that have utility and accuracy within their limited domain. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One thing to add to that. It is not boundless in terms of domains as well. There are—so you don’t need to reinvent the wheel each time you examine an issue, whatever scope you’re going for. So you can work within the well-defined parameters. So like, in international relations and geopolitics, people talk about state actors. You talk as if countries have personalities. “China would state that…”, “The United States behaved as if…”, rather than describing, as you noted, how electrons get into locked orbits around nuclei for atoms. RR: Yea! And every explanation is subject to accuracy on the one hand and scope on the other. They’re kind of mixed. When you talk about America having a personality, you can—that’s subject to being inaccurate because you’re talking about a nation in all its multiplicity as if it’s an individual actor. That is, in itself, an abridgement of a huge amount of information into a singular idea. So that in itself – that abridgement – brings inaccuracy. You can also be wrong in what you’re saying America does. America tends to define its place in the world based on our national pride in polkas. You know like the beer barrel polka. That’s completely not right [Laughing]! SDJ: Or to your example of people falling in love, you don’t describe the neurochemistry. You use the narrative framework of people and their perspectives about one another and how that works out. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 28 – Sarin Gas and Bombs Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 16, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: Less than a week ago, Trump attacked a Syrian airbase from which Syria had dropped sarin gas or launched a mission to drop sarin gas on its own people. Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles and did some, but not a great deal of, damage. He received some praise for being kind of presidential or decisive from various pundits on the TV news. Trump is now known for not reading much of anything, especially books. He watches hours of TV news every day. Just a couple of hours ago, I guess, Trump dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal called the Mother of All Bombs weighing 22,000 pounds and costing $314 million. He dropped that on what is being a called an ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This thing is supposed to have a blast radius of a mile. Anyway, you’d expect that radius from a small nuke. And we’ve yet to hear how the decision was made. He was the guy who said, “Do it.” He’s have to be the guy. How justified was it? But it leads to the fear that Trump is all over Twitter right now. There are tweets that claim that this is a distraction from his campaign people and possibly Trump himself colluded with Russia to influence the election. His campaign chairman Paul Manafort just registered as a foreign agent. That is, an American who represents our interests. I think there are one or two other people who having to do this. It becomes more and more apparent that Trump’s people were working closely with Russia as Russia employed all sorts of propaganda and leaks and pacts to make people vote against Hillary. And so—but everybody knows all of this now. And the people who don’t know this are actively trying to not know this by consuming and looking at alternate news sources and disbelieving mainstream news sources. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 27 – Recent American Politics Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 15, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: At least in recent American politics, Republicans have been more willing to biased and unfair and come up with clever ways to circumvent democracy. They developed an apparatus long before the democrats developed one in response to the Republican apparatus to get hyper-conservative justices onto the Supreme Court. And Republicans were the ones who in 2010 came up with effective ways to gerrymander a huge percentage of the states. Republicans are less hesitant to engage in non-democratic tactics. And that extends to what facts they choose to pull out of the confusing ball of all facts pertaining to a particular issue. They cherry pick. They build conspiracies. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One thing in response to all of that. That you have facts. You have political positions in theory along a spectrum – in reality dotted along that spectrum on various topics for individual citizens. But an important thing is, the discussions people have with, for instance, a democrat vs. republican or a liberal vs. conservative. These discussions they rely on a premise, which I don’t think necessarily holds up too much validity. In that, you have people debating, essentially, political talking points, and that’s not a real discussion. I do not mean to say that you and Lance did that because I saw a little bit of one video, not in full. But my sense is a lot of the time people have discussions on political talking points rather than on issues and trying to come to the most factual basis of it because people cherry pick as has happened – more on the Republican side at this point in time. RR: I like what you’re saying that political talking points not being discussions. They aren’t really discussions. They are entertainment. CNN is super guilty of this. SDJ: You can tell! The ‘discussions’ are dull. RR: It is a bit like a sports match. You cheer for your side. CNN puts knuckleheads on like Jeffrey Lord. SDJ: [Laughing]. RR: People do not get better informed from this type of discourse. It is more who can out argue the other or who can get in there and say the most—I don’t know. It is not news. SDJ: That has its own comedy. The solution to that is hard because you have to make a genuine position of ignorance, which is in itself an experience of not knowing which is uncomfortable. It is like coming to a new kind of math when you’re younger as most people have experienced. You don’t know it. There’s a moment of fear and anxiety about not knowing what’s there and feeling like you want to give up. But listening to someone genuinely makes conversation and, therefore, life less dull because you do not know what’s coming, but you come to a negotiated and more complicated view of the world. Which is better because, because as we talked about on ideologies (Left, Center, and Right), those are simplified views of the world, which lead you to some modicums of truth, but, in general, wrongness about the world. But the complicated views you come to from negotiation can help suss out what is really the case and then actually provide grounds for real discussion for solutions. RR: People naturally – at least people for the last 100 years – have a progressive-rationalist view of life in America at least. That is, that things will keep getting better in the fullness of time and that people will keep getting more enlightened and rational, but since the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the coming of angry conservative white radio guys like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Alex Jones and Fox News. A lot of discourse in America includes people who are belligerently wrong about—have been fed bullshit and have been made confident in it. So even when there’s a clear set of facts based on evidence and often on the most sensible interpretation of what’s going on, you have like a quarter of the country backing points of view that are deceptively manipulated, cynically manipulated. And don’t represent well-informed or very rational points of view. Tens of millions of people have been cultivated, have had their brains softened by a steady stream of propaganda. Decades of propaganda now, and so, rational discourse is often tainted by people who believe or endorse bullshit. Of course, there have been many periods in history in which that has been the case, but it is not the way that Americans thought that their country would—It is not a direction Americans thought that their country would go, but we are in the thick of it right now. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 26 – Pee Tapes Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 14, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Those missile launches were signification. Yea? Rick Rosner: Yea. People who are close to him are contaminated by their ongoing investigation into their ties to Russia. Whether they knew it or not, a lot of those people were talking to Russian intelligence agents. Trump himself may be compromised by the level of contact that he had with Russia. The pee tapes that everybody talks about may—there’s not less evidence that they exist. The Pee Tapes being that he engaged with some sex play with prostitutes and urination a few years ago in a Russian hotel. There’s no evidence for it except for the reliability of the special agent guy that says it exists, but a lot of the other MI6 guys say that this fairly impressive dossier on Trump are either true or likely to be true. So there’s likely a sex tape of Trump. His White House, he is spending a lot of energy to distract. He is doing a lot to distract from the ongoing Russian investigation. So it continues to remain unclear whether he can serve out his entire 4-year administration or term. If there were a Democratic Party majority in either house of Congress, there might be more calls for impeachment just based on what has been disclosed so far. You have Republican majority. Many Republicans are trying to provide some cover for him. Absent that he has any cohesive foreign policy philosophy. He will tend to continue to do what will earn him praise and will react emotionally to what happens with any kind of governance. Any kind of restraint being provided by—he’s got a few experienced generals in his Cabinet. They may be the ones to stop him from really escalating or being dangerous. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. In-Sight Publishing
People, Personas, and Politics 25 – Polling Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner April 13, 2017 [Beginning of recorded material] Rick Rosner: We know from reporting on him in the White house that he watches hours of news every day. His popularity didn’t pop very much. He didn’t get much of a pop in approval for this. Depending on the polls that you look at, if you look a Gallup, he hung steady at 40% approval. This is day 83 in office. There are 83 days of polls available. On zero of those days did he rise to majority approval, which is unprecedented since they started polling during FDR’s administration But he is probably being reinforced for his – what he considers his – manly stands and belligerence with North Korea. Obama took a more measured approach. Probably the deal with North Korea is that they’re going to – given their history over decades – continue to do what they want, they will continue to defiantly developed their nuclear and missile programs until offered incentives to back off for a while. But that way of doing things, it assumes the leaders over there aren’t self-destructive assholes. That what they do over there. Their own unconcern and belligerence is some way of gaining advantage to be paid off to stop the programs over there. But if Kim Jong-un is crazy/stupid, and is the one who is calling all of the shots, he may not be entirely pay-offable. So it’s terrible over there because you’ve got a potentially crazy guy with Nukes and at least a belligerent asshole. You could argue that you have belligerent assholes with nukes on both sides, but Trump will continue to do what he gets positive reinforcement for – and I think he feels as if he got positive reactions to launching 59 missiles into Syria. Even though, they did very little, at least strategic, damage. [End of recorded material] Authors[1] Rick Rosner American Television Writer [email protected] Rick Rosner Scott Douglas Jacobsen Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing [email protected] In-Sight Publishing Endnotes [1] Four format points for the session article:
License In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org. Copyright © Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. |
AuthorAccording to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry. He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man.He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine. He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter. You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn. ArchivesCategories |