Anonymous political columns

The lead story yesterday on practically every news broadcast was the searing column attacking President Trump that appeared in the New York Times editorial section. It was especially controversial because even though it claimed to be written by a senior administration official, the column was submitted anonymously.

The Times is one of the oldest and most trusted newspapers in America and, because of that, likely believed the column and its contents would be read and believed even though it carried no authorship. This was a calculation that didn’t hold up.

The Times reports that only a handful of Times employees at the highest level know who wrote the column and because the person who wrote it supposedly has credibility with them, they printed it. The problem is the author of the column doesn’t have credibility with the rest of us because we don’t know who they are. In our minds, ANYONE could have written it, including a vengeful Democrat or even a Times employee. The newspaper is asking us, by printing an anonymous column to trust and believe in them to print only things they know to be factual and many people aren’t prepared to do that, especially Republicans.

The column didn’t tread on new ground because the allegations contained within the column have been hashed and rehashed ever since Donald Trump became a presidential candidate. So there were no bombshells or smoking guns. In fact, the column hit on issues that will be covered more thoroughly with the publication of Bob Woodward’s book on Sept. 11, which I’ve already ordered. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are the two reporters from the Washington Post that broke the story on Watergate that ended with Richard Nixon’s resignation.

They have since stayed active in reporting and Woodward last year wrote a critical article on President Obama.

So, for all practical purposes, the only people reading and believing the anonymous column are Democrats and members of the media who tilt toward the left who are eager to believe anything negative printed about the President. In my mind, as I try to continually be a fact-finder rather than a rumor monger, it seems to me the column should not have been published. It shook up high ranking staff within the White House so much that over 20 of them wrote formal denials that they had anything at all to do with the column.

They most likely did that because of President Trump’s paranoia which means a witch hunt is most likely underway to determine who DID write the column so they can be publicly denounced by name by the President instead of deed. In a so-far tumultuous 2 years of Mr. Trump’s Presidency, this column hurts the narrative rather than helping it.

Another newsworthy item this past week was Nike’s decision to use Colin Kaepernick as the face of their advertising for 2018. The heartland went absolutely nuts over this news and rumors quickly spread that Nike had lost 50 percent of its stock or more in one day because of it. For those of you unaware as to who Kaepernick is, he’s the out of work pro football quarterback that started the kneeling protest during the National Anthem a few years ago to protest police mistreatment of blacks.

As the smoke cleared a day later, reality became easier to deal with. Nike’s stock did take a hit but only a drop of between 2 and 3 percent rather than the 50 percent or higher rumored a day earlier. Something no one is talking about is that Nike’s main competitors, Adidas and Reebok also saw their stocks fall the same day with Reebok’s falling slightly more than Nike’s.

Nike is in the business of making money, just like every major company and corporation is. No one can seriously believe that market research was not done before the decision was made to use Kaepernick. Nike’s CEO stated the day the announcement was made that buyers of Nike products are primarily upscale and support the decision to use Kaepernick as Nike’s face during 2018. That statement was obviously not an opinion but a fact based on market research conducted before the naming. It means that for better or worse, Nike will concentrate on that group of people for continued profit rather than others. Obviously, it makes more economic sense to Nike to cater to a population likely to buy 10 pairs of Nike shoes a year than to a group that will only buy one. Profit is the key and companies and corporations will do anything to increase profit and nothing to decrease it.

One final thought about this latter controversy. A famous Hollywood actress once said she didn’t care what was printed about her as long as they spelled her name right.

For every moment that people are cussing and discussing Nike’s decision, company executives see that as a win and not a loss.