I leave this morning, Texas-bound, with one of my Carbon Trace Productions documentary crew members. We’re going to have a look at the situation on the border.

Rhetorica is not the proper publishing venue, so you should follow our story on Twitter (@arcline, @carbontraceprod) and on the CTP Facebook page. We’ll also post any resulting recap video on the CTP/eyewitness site, which is the (new) news arm of CTP. You’ll find a link on the CTP homepage.

Nail. Head. Hit.

When it comes to protests, mean words, civil disobedience, boycotts, public shunning, we may disagree when one or other is wise or called for. But these are entirely legitimate tools of political action, civic action. Many calls for civility are simply calls for unilateral disarmament from those protesting injustices and abuses of power.

That’s Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

Calls for civility almost always come from people with social, economic, and political power who don’t want their tender mellows harshed.

No need to waste a lot of finger tapping to explain this. It’s a simple matter of practicing the discipline of verification.

No news organization should have run a single word about Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ alleged incident with The Red Hen restaurant until speaking with the person who allegedly tossed her out on her ear.

The Washington Post has finally done the work that should have been done before anything was published.

You see, Sanders is part of an administration that lies to the American people. Until checked out, the safest bet was to assume she was lying.

I’m a Baby Boomer.

And I’m an admirer of the theory of generational personality developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

Add one more thing: I’m a fan of the Milennial generation of which my daughter is a member.

But I laugh at them. I laugh at them to shame them. I laugh at them as a rhetorical strategy. I want to convince them to vote in numbers that would eclipse my generation. I want them to save us from ourselves.

So I laugh at them and shame them. I shame them on Facebook. I shame them in the classroom. I shame them in face-to-face conversations. I shame them because I’m ashamed of my own generation and the mess we’ve made of things. I shame them because I cannot think of a more effective way to engage them on the topic of voting (and I’m ashamed of that).

I don’t tell them how to vote or what politicians to support because I trust and admire most of their values.

I shame myself because I’m begging them to vote.

The government is telling lies about its abuse of children on the southern border. Like any fallacy, logical or otherwise, this tactic can certainly be employed as a rhetorical strategy. Big news there, right?

There’s been plenty of fact-checking and outrage. But let me suggest another tactic for ending this abuse of children: Shine a light on those responsible.

Big news, again, right?

No. I mean expose the people who are actually doing the dirty work on the ground: Border Patrol agents. These men and women need to take moral responsibility or become monsters. Former Head Customs and Border Protection Gil Kerlikowske lamented the effect this duty might have on the agents.

I suggest each agent is morally responsible for their own soul. If agents choose to put children in cages — and make jokes about their anguish (re: PBS link above) — then we have the right to hold these individuals responsible for the damage they cause.

Agents should refuse this duty. And they should gladly accept any consequence for refusing as morally superior to following heinous orders.

I’ve been tweeting about it:

The #BorderPatrol is directly harming children. https://t.co/vTncO688a4 BP agents separate children from their parents. BP agents herd the children into makeshift facilities. Immoral BP agents are responsible for any harm that comes to these children.

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 18, 2018

Yes. Hold individual #BorderPatrol agents accountable. They are willingly doing the dirty work. Showing no moral backbone. Doing direct harm to children. https://t.co/anhkvpyYHd

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 18, 2018

U.N. Rights Chief Tells U.S. to Stop Taking Migrant Children From Parents https://t.co/CcetvkKUBo The individual attack dogs working for @CBP are responsible. Is there not one agent with the moral backbone to refuse abusing children?

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 18, 2018

Listen to the damage the #BorderPatrol @CBP is doing to children. On purpose. As a matter of policy. Following orders. What orders will they follow next? https://t.co/7I8jyQkEQs

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 18, 2018

Child Abuse at the Border https://t.co/sfaUT6ftrq #Trump is only indirectly ripping children from their parents’ arms. @CBP individual #BorderPatrol agents are doing the dirty work. Who are these people? How did we employ such monsters?

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 19, 2018

What separation from parents does to children: ‘The effect is catastrophic’https://t.co/EscweGdVB9 @CBP #BorderPatrol is directly responsible for this #childabuse

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 19, 2018

The heartbreaking photo that shows Trump may have gone too farhttps://t.co/p9gRE2d8BX @CBP #borderpatrol agents frightened and emotionally hurt this child — on purpose. Each of us is morally responsible for our actions. Refuse, or become monsters.

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 19, 2018

If America were better than this, moral upstanding public servants such as @CBP #BorderPatrol agents would refuse to participate. There is no indication whatsoever yet that these monsters are anything but enthusiastic about committing #childabuse, https://t.co/rM6nxbCei6

— Andrew R. Cline PhD (@arcline) June 19, 2018

There are many problems with the copy Sinclair Broadcast Group “forced” its news anchors to read. I’m just going to hit a few highlights after getting this out of the way:

Reading this speech on air was unethical. Every journalist asked to do so should have refused.

Here’s the speech as published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [with my comments]

“Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces.

(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. [Calling them “news stories” suggests these are the products of news organizations. If that is so, exactly which organizations are we talking about, and how do you know they are “one-sided” and “irresponsible”? What are your criteria for these assertions?] The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. [Is this statement referring to the previous statement? If so, again, name the news organizations involved and say how you know they are producing one-sided and biased “news stories.”]

(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first. [This screams for details and examples (i.e. reporting). Without such details and examples, this statement is itself an example of one-sided, biased information — otherwise known as propaganda.]

(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy. [Ditto]

(B) At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’ Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever. [“Now more than ever” re: the previous unsupported assertions. Again, details. IOW, do a little of the truth-pursuing you’re telling is so valuable. Do some “factual reporting” right now.]

(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. [You “fall short,” but others are unfair, biased, and counter-factual? Please explain — with examples.] If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you.

(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual… We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day. [Show, don’t tell. Show that you seek truth and strive to be fair by naming the offending news organizations and showing us examples of exactly how they are doing all the bad things you allege. Your credibility (what little is left of it) depends upon you showing your work.]

(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback”

This is just utterly embarrassing.

Forget for a moment that reading this propaganda is unethical based on nearly any reasonable understanding of the SPJ Code of Ethics. Do the “journalists” who read this stuff owe us any fidelity to logical consistency? This is like some kind of Orwellian doublespeak: reproducing the very things it criticizes — right out in the open!

How sad that anyone values their paycheck above this unethical and embarrassing boot-licking for an employer.

That’s easy for me to say; I’ve never been put in this position. And these people have families and financial responsibilities.

Neither of those two things absolves them of reading this crap to a public that now should no longer trust a single word they say.

The ancient Greeks put a lot of stock in the ability to speak well in public. They understood effective speakers to have political and cultural power. They made moral judgments about their fellow Greeks based on the ability to speak well in public. In general, it was within the range of unbelievable for them that the unworthy could be good public speakers.

That seems naive to us today. But, simplistically, there are big cultural and technological differences between us and the ancient Greeks. The power of public speaking, and all the assumptions they made about its most effective practitioners, was reality for them.

Oprah Winfrey gave a (rhetorically) good speech at the Golden Globes awards ceremony.

Now some members of the Democratic Party and the political left (including pundits) —  tearing a page from the ancient Greek playbook —  are losing their minds because — OMG! — she could be President.

No. Just no.

I have already had my fill of amateurs who have launched their political careers in offices not meant as political training grounds. The current governor of Missouri — Eric Greitens — is a good example of not using an executive office to learn how to be a politician. Maybe he’ll get it someday. But it’s not looking good.

There’s another example I can think of. And maybe after I finish the sloppy Michael Wolff book I’ll have something to add.

Oprah Winfrey and I share much (not all) politically (if I understand her correctly). That doesn’t mean I want her anywhere near the Oval Office.

And, IMO, sober members of the political left in this country should be aghast that this terrible idea has been planted in the brain of another entertainer with a massive ego (just check out her magazine covers).

Look, a big problem (i.e. not the only one) with Trump isn’t his policies– to the extent that you agree or disagree with any given policy and to the extent that he can be said to have policies and understands them. An important problem is he’s an entertainer — an amateur politician — with a massive ego who is learning (or not, as the case may be) how to be a politician having achieved an office that should be the final chapter in a long story of public service in governance.

This was, BTW, a legitimate criticism of Obama — not enough experience going in. But he was a professional and avoided doing things such was Tweeting about his big button.

Please, Ms. Winfrey. Check that ego. You give a good speech. You are not ready to be President.

Please, Democratic Party, do not make me beg you to avoid making such a massively stupid choice.

My Carbon Trace documentary team is working on a film called Syrian Doctor (working title) about the mental health crisis in Syrian refugee children that has been called “human devastation syndrome.” (You can follow our progress on Facebook.)

Along the way we have done some humanitarian work (i.e. provided video) for the Syrian American Medical Society. For example, we created this mission recap video from the April medical mission to Jordan. Below is the climax of that video illustrating a bit of video rhetoric (ethos and pathos): something I call the John Wayne shot.

Imagine John Wayne. The actor? A specific character? My guess is the image that popped into your head was Marion Morrison in a cowboy costume walking confidently toward danger — to save the day.

The John Wayne Shot from acline on Vimeo.

That’s exactly the heroic image the John Wayne shot is supposed to invoke. Here’s what it looks like (at :18) at the climax of the video with doctors as the heroes.

I just renewed my digital subscription to The New York Times this week.

Last night I added, for the first time, a digital subscription to the Washington Post.

I’m a sucker for that “democracy dies in darkness” tag line. Here’s what I actually think about such things. But this an emotional response, not an intellectual one.

And this is, IMO, dead on:

But such incredulity misses the deeper significance of this stuff. The brazenness of it is the whole point — his utter shamelessness itself is meant to achieve his goal. In any given case, Trump is not trying to persuade anyone of anything as much as he is trying to render reality irrelevant, and reduce the pursuit of agreement on it to just another part of the circus. He’s asserting a species of power — the power to evade constraints normally imposed by empirically verifiable facts, by expectations of consistency, and even by what reasoned inquiry deems merely credible. The more brazen or shameless, the more potent is the assertion of power.

(Obvious quibble from my theoretical perspective: rendering reality irrelevant IS a persuasive intention. But never mind.)

In a nutshell, this is one reason the press finds it difficult to cover President Trump. And it hints at the way forward.

My long-standing cure (one of many) remains unchanged: the rhetoric beat.

My Carbon Trace Productions team and I will face many tough issues later this week when we begin filming in Jordan for our Syrian Doctor (working title) documentary. I’m betting the toughest part will be pointing cameras at people (because, from my experience as a news photographer, that’s usually the tough part). But not just people. Children. And not just children. Children suffering “human devastation syndrome.”

That’s a term coined by Dr. M. K. Hamza, a neuropsychologist who volunteers with the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS).

That syndrome is the very thing we’re proposing to document, and we’ll be focusing on Hamza and Dr. Tarif Bakdash, a pediatric neurologist who also volunteers with SAMS.

Well, no. We’ll be focusing on children. The doctors play an important role, obviously. This story cannot be told, however, through a series of talking-head interviews. We have to be there, cameras in hand and pointing them at children and their parents (if alive) and their doctors.

“Pointing them” is pejorative. That’s what it feels like sometimes — on both sides of the camera.

The rhetorical situation demands visual intimacy. There’s only one first step to getting that. Get close.

You can follow our progress on Facebook and on Carbon Trace. I may also post a few things here, but not typical update stuff. I’ll try to illustrate for you the pain on both sides of the camera.