After President-elect Donald Trump tweeted about the cost of Air Force One, Boeing's stock went down as much as 1 percent - we take a look at his social media platform and how journalists and news outlets should report on the future president's tweets; the Pentagon killed an internal report that found $125 billion in administrative waste; and bursting through Facebook bubbles in a heated and contentious election cycle.
How should the media cover Trump’s tweets?
Donald Trump's tweets have once again made headlines. As reported by CNBC, the president-elect criticized the cost of Boeing's 747 Air Force One, the plane being built for his term.
According to Trump, costs for the aircraft would total to more than $4 billion. About 10 seconds after the tweet was published, Boeing's stock went down as much as 1 percent, recovering later in the day.
But Boeing is just one of a long string of news items originating on Twitter. From cabinet picks to feuds with the cast of Hamilton, Trump is gearing up to use Twitter in a way that no other president has. And that means the media has to find new ways to cover his dealings on social media.
So how should news outlets and journalists report on Trump's Tweets? And what do citizens want to see from the president-elect on social media?
NPR correspondent David Folkenflik speaks with Larry today on the public's demand for Trump's Twitter coverage, and how news organizations are adapting.
Guest:
David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent, NPR (National Public Radio); he tweets from
Explaining the potential short and long term impacts of Trump’s Carrier deal
President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he and Carrier Corporation, a company that makes heating and air conditioning units and parts, had struck a deal to keep about 1,000 manufacturing jobs at the company’s Indianapolis plant was received with mixed reactions.
Some lauded him for sticking to his campaign promise of keeping manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and for being willing to take on big business directly. Others warn that the deal could set a dangerous precedent that may encourage other companies who are considering shipping jobs overseas to ask the Trump Administration for tax breaks or easing of regulations in exchange for keeping jobs in the country.
And still others say that the deal isn’t representative of the free market principles on which the American economy is run and that the U.S. government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers.
Do you think the Carrier deal will do more good or harm to American job growth in the long term? Do you think this is an accurate depiction of how President-elect Trump will deal with other companies that want to leave the U.S.?
Guests:
Liz Peek, financial columnist for The Fiscal Times and columnist for FoxNews.com; her op-ed is ‘Carrier deal is proof that Trump is already making America great again’; she tweets
Ben Casselman, senior editor and chief economics writer for the data journalism site FiveThirtyEight; his latest article for his economics column ‘In Real Terms’ is ‘Why Trump’s Carrier Deal Isn’t the Way To Save U.S. Jobs’; he tweets
Israel votes to retroactively legalize settlements in Palestinian West Bank
The Israeli parliament gave initial approval to a bill that would legalize settler homes in the occupied West Bank.
Four thousand settlements, formerly deemed illegitimate, would be retroactively legalized under the proposed law. The controversial move, described by critics as a “land grab," drew condemnation from United Nations and the US Secretary of State John Kerry. Criticism also echoed within Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own coalition. Historically, the region has been fraught with tensions that rise and fall. Israel captured the West Bank during the 1967 Middle East war. Since then, it has built about 120 settlements, which the international community has deemed illegal and a challenge to a peace agreement with the Palestinians. This current bill, if passed, would inevitably become a point of contention between Israel and Palestine going forward.
Host Larry Mantle sits down with David Makovsky, Director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute, and Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, on the past, present, and future of West Bank and its impact on Israel-Palestine relations.
Guests:
Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights and policy analyst at the Arab Center Washington D.C.; he tweets from
Noah Pollak, contributor at the Weekly Standard, a conservative opinion magazine; He has been a director and spokesperson for the Emergency Committee for Israel
Wasteful Pentagon spending and what Trump’s national defense plans mean for CA’s economy
According to an investigation by The Washington Post, the Pentagon has buried evidence of $125 billion in administrative waste.
These numbers were revealed with an internal 2015 study by the Defense Business Board, an internal group of federal advisors for the secretary and deputy secretary of defense.
The study showed that nearly a quarter of the Pentagon’s $580 billion dollar budget had been spent on back-office bureaucracy, employing over a million military personnel, civilians and contractors, which adds up to almost the same amount of people as active duty troops.
The Post’s investigation showed that spending was suppressed due to fears that Congress would curtail the defense budget. Cuts would have included early retirement, improved use of information technology and less expenses for contractors.
Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post weighs in on these findings, and goes in-depth on the investigation, while Jerry Nickelsburg of the UCLA Anderson forecast discusses the implications of Trump’s national defense spending on California’s economy.
Guests:
Craig Whitlock, investigative reporter, The Washington Post
Jerry Nickelsburg, adjunct full professor at the UCLA Anderson Forecast, which released its projections for the economy under Trump’s administration
Experiment bursts Facebook bubble of voters on left and right
In grappling with understanding the divided electorate, an experiment conducted by The Guardian newspaper took five left-leaning Facebook users and five right-leaning ones who agreed to take a scroll on the other side during the final month of the election campaign.
From The Guardian:
We created two Facebook accounts from scratch. “Rusty Smith”, our right-wing avatar, liked a variety of conservative news sources, organizations, and personalities, from the Wall Street Journal and The Hoover Institution to Breitbart News and Bill O’Reilly. “Natasha Smith”, our left-wing persona, preferred The New York Times, Mother Jones, Democracy Now and Think Progress. Rusty liked Tim Tebow and the NRA. Natasha liked Colin Kaepernick and 350.org.
Participants were so disturbed by their experience not all of them could stick with it through November 8. After being exposed to the right-wing feed, Alphonso Pines said, "You might as well have been waterboarding a brother."
For conservative voter Trent Loos of central Nebraska, he was shocked see good news related to Hillary Clinton for once. "[Previously] twelve people have shared a story with me about the Hillary Clinton bus dumping human waste into the sewer system,” adding, “I never see positive stuff about Hillary Clinton. I didn’t know that existed.”
Many of the participants said details of what each group said about the other wasn't just surprising, but hurtful.
Andra Constantin of New York said, “I’m seeing a lot more hate from the liberal side… It’s all about how much of a horrible, fascist, racist, misogynist Trump is.”
Larry will talk with one of the reporters who conducted the experiment about how people were changed by their experiences. How do you try to expand your awareness beyond your bubble? How does it impact all the Americans who get a majority, if not all, of their news from social media?
Guest:
Sam Levin, Reporter, The Guardian
Competing food ideologies of modern Americans at the family dinner table
The old adage "You are what you eat" was coined long before consumers knew whether their chicken was organic and woodland-raised versus caged and factory-farmed, and before simple white sugar competed with Sweet'N Low, Stevia, raw sugar, agave syrup and high fructose corn syrup.
A new survey by Pew Research Center illustrates that with changing trends in product choices, eating habits, plus more science linking diet to disease comes divided personal food philosophies.
The researchers explain:
The new survey finds that 55% of Americans believe organically grown produce is healthier than conventionally grown varieties, while 41% say there is no difference between organic and conventionally grown produce and 3% say that conventionally grown produce is better. Four-in-ten Americans (40%) say that most (6%) or some (34%) of the foods they eat are organic. Fully three-quarters of these Americans (75%) are convinced that organic foods are healthier than conventionally grown foods.
On AirTalk, we'll talk about what happens when these competing food philosophies come to your family's grocery cart and dinner table. How do you handle food politics with your loved ones?