TFP Column: Post "Network" Politics

(Contrary to all logic and reason, I have decided to put new material up on this blog, but only in the form of the columns that I have done for the Toledo Free Press.  This is done for the benefit of those with time to waste, who likewise do not spend their time reading the website of this award winning weekly newspaper, and I will go back and add efforts that were published earlier this year.)

This particular effort was published on 03/20/2014.

In 1976, Peter Finch spoke to a generation as newscaster Howard Beale by telling us: “So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out and yell, I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”

Not many recall “Network” screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s cynical prescience regarding the degradation of television network news (cable news networks didn’t yet exist), or director Sidney Lumet’s portrayal of the general apathy and eager gullibility of the American viewing public. Few indeed remember anything of this film other than its iconic tagline.

The only thing that’s changed in the intervening years is the addition of cable channels dedicated, in theory, entirely to news yet with programs that have become in many ways far worse than Chayefsky anticipated, and perhaps more outrageous than Lumet was willing (or heroic enough) to portray.

We may not yet have astrology segments, but multiple (and mostly inaccurate) weather segments seem to serve well enough as a substitute. Revolutionary groups may not be on the air yet, but the proliferation of journalistic zealotry makes one often feel it is.

Not anticipated in 1976, however, was the proliferation of non-news stories (and reality shows) from Hollywood regarding those leading lives of unthinkable luxury and unthinking ignorance. While flouting moral precedent, society’s rules and the nation’s laws (with the permission of lenient courts), many find time (between rehab sessions) to support international tyranny under romantic notions of revolution.

Talk radio, for all its supposed sins, at least attempts to devote an entire 30-minute segment (including commercials, news and traffic) to a subject as important as whether we should get into or out of a war, or whether the laws and regulations pouring out of the pens of pampered politicians make a difference.

With television, we’ve come to accept a schizophrenic form of news. Most days, it’s force-fed to us in two- to four-minute segments (bipartisan commentary included). Eastern European politics or the science of hydraulic fracturing, we’re apparently only capable of digesting important national or world events in a Reader’s Digest condensed format, with segments only slightly longer (and often less intelligently written) than the commercials that separate them.

Occasionally however, the networks depart from their information shorthand to provide their viewers with nauseatingly repetitious offerings on what they don’t know on a story, supplemented by experts and pundits providing commentary so “inside baseball” that few if any can understand it.

As for their coverage of national politics, networks prefer an inflammatory sound bite to their job of covering the four W’s of the story (who, what, where and when). If they do get around to them, one can be certain of an Obi-Wan Kenobi interpretation of such facts “from a certain point of view.” And as for the fifth W (why), once more a panel of experts returns (fellow journalists and unemployed political minions) who can ignore questions in a bipartisan fashion, regurgitate party talking points ad nauseam and still find time to promote their current book.

Much of that unresolved “Network” anger still exists in this country, but remains largely unfocused. We’re angry with government for not doing the job it’s expected to do while doing far too many things it’s not needed for. We’re angry with politicians and political parties who’ve spent far too much time feathering their own nests instead of the nation’s work and have done so with our feathers. 

We’re angry with each other for the selective inattention we exhibit to the pain and suffering going on around us. Often however, we’re the most angry with a mainstream media that continues to assert special privilege as “The Fourth Estate,” ignoring their responsibilities and failing as badly as the American equivalents of the first three.

The right of a free press was included in the First Amendment for a reason by the founders, who understood that the republic would never survive without it. I wish Howard were still around, and this time “mad as hell” at those he worked with.

The Fall ...

I've been trying to cure myself of a serious case of news addiction without recourse to the use of a West Coast rehab center.  While the weather's nice out there this time of year, based on some of what I used to see on the news regarding the treatments of their celebrity clients leads me to believe that their success rates hardly make it worth the effort of showing up.  

Fortunately however, I'm still able to vaguely recall the days when I quit smoking cigarettes many years ago.  One of the best treatments to prevent potential relapses in those days was to, after not having had one in a couple of weeks, force myself to smoke a cigarette.  Not only was there no satisfaction in the experience, but the the re-introduction often left me shaken and sickened by doing so.  So I decided to try the same method where my inclination to gather information was concerned.  

(Strangely however, picking up the practice of smoking the occasional cigar years later had no similar effect on me.  But that's another story ...)  

Speaking of stories, I was surprised to discover that after days of not giving in to my obsession, the weekend shows appeared to be a 'Land Where Time Stands Still', as they continued covering the Healthcare.gov website in both its primary and secondary roll outs through a combinations of wearying critics and terrifyingly naive apologists.  

The former had little to add to the discussion beyond terrible numbers that few if any understand.  As for the even more terrible consequences that loom in the years ahead, it's my belief that most won't understand them until they come crashing through their door like the battering ram of your local constables on a warrantless search.  

As for the latter, they seemed little more than suicidal shock troops purporting to be spin masters.  These strident minions vociferously denounced attacks on the simple math of what was a pretty obvious failure, and sought a ringing endorsement for its vague future of unicorns and rainbows by comparing this program to rollouts of soon-to-be bankrupt big government efforts at wealth redistribution in our past, whose waste and corruption are a constant reminder of why government should be trusted with nothing more complex than the DMV.

Forget that wage and price controls during WWII created employer-supplied medical coverage in the first place, the historical result being what we now need to be saved from.  Forget that this program was designed to provide access to care and is as yet causing a sizable short term net loss in those covered.  Forget that a major premise of the system will be that by forcing more coverage on everyone (whether they need, want it, or not) we will somehow work magic and make more cost less.  Forget that by restricting the marketplace that we not only raise costs, but have gained Insurance company subsidies as an insult to this marketplace injury.  Forget as well that giving the government control of healthcare gives them collateral control of damn near everything else from the kinds of foods we eat to the amount of exercise we get.  (As for smoking, you can forget that ... unless of course, it's marijuana.)

So what is the mainstream media informing us of:  the website, the website, and the website ...

It's not the problems of successfully signing up for the ACA that should cause unease, but the danger that lies beyond such short-term concerns.  So while both saddened and amused by the myopic fare on these Sunday 'puppet shows', I was able to find far deeper truth imbedded in their cinematic counterparts.  In this case, such information came in the form of an equally pointless argument held between Paul Newman and Robert Redford in the classic film "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

I couldn't have said it better Paul; but as I watch with almost fatal complacency at the rocks below where the ACA is concerned, it's Redford's retort on the subject that keeps coming back to me:

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Shhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttt..........

It Could Happen

During one of the coldest springs that I can remember (certainly in the last few decades), I have been reading a story about how the decline in snow cover "could push some creatures to extinction".  I hate stories like that!

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm a news junkie and I like reading news stories about as many different things as I can get my grubby little hands on.  Stories like these however, annoy me beyond my capacity to absorb new information.  My particular distaste for them is not that the stories are wrong (or right for that matter); and it has nothing to do with whether I believe that the premise is correct or incorrect (well, maybe a little bit).  My problem with any story like this is that it is in fact not the reporting of fact as news, nor is it taking a position in editorializing about facts in evidence.  It is instead pure speculation posing as something news-like that never says enough about a subject to even face the potential of being wrong.  They are so riddled with the terms 'could' and 'might' that they become almost meaningless and all but useless.

Do not be deceived by these cowardly scribbles.  While such stories often do a fair enough job of picking out particular observations of phenomena or data (often local or temporary), their use of such information leads them to do little more than attempt to weakly speculate about conclusions.  In a complete abandonment of scientific principles and simple symbolic logic, they don't bother to fix a relationship between the observations they make and any kind of conclusion.  These attempts to gain notoriety, panic the general public, or simply simply bloviate on the printed page do little more than hide behind their lack of conviction in either their observations or conclusions, and in the end make them worth less that the space that they take up. 

So for example, the cold spring that the Midwest has experienced this year 'could' lead to a cooler than expected summer, in spite of the dire predictions of Global Warming.  On the other hand, the same data on the lateness and coolness of spring 'might' lead to even warmer summers than those that the Midwest has experienced in recent years.  The waffling nature of both claims make both conjectures equally possible, and predictively useless.  You may as well claim during the Bible's 'Great Flood' story that rain falling for 40 days and nights 'might' mean that it will rain forever.  On the other hand, such unprecedented and consecutive rainfall 'could' mean that such rain will end as soon as tomorrow.  

There is no courage in either alternative, nor is there any danger in making them.  Regardless of the outcome, the person making either of these potentially dire predictions is allowed the weasel defense of the using could or might to excuse their cowardly inaccuracy, while still allowing them to claim success if their 'coin flip' of speculation proves in any way to be the case.

Far too much of what we see these days as news pass as 'could' and 'might' stories; and their collective uselessness has become a testament to how the mighty have fallen where gathering news is concerned.  And let's face it, it's not that our mainstream media outlets are afraid of being wrong.  Hell, they're wrong all the time.  Of course many of them have the luxury of burying admission of their errors (and their retractions) in sections of the newspaper or segments of their broadcast in such a way that they can go all but unnoticed.  Even with this media backstroking available however, it seldom prevents these bastions of fact and truth from running off in meaningless and idle speculation about facts not in evidence.

Looking at the far too many mealy-mouthed stories like this posing as news, one cannot help believe that this 'might' have something to do with the reduced stature of the current mainstream media outlets.  Of course it 'could' also have something to with the rather biased methods that this same media uses in its often-failed attempts to bring their version of the facts and the truth to light.  Perhaps if these news outlets returned to reporting news instead of attempting to influence events, such efforts 'might' even have a positive effect on their current lack of profitability and 'could' even lead them to a far brighter and more long-lasting future.  Then again, it 'might' be too late for a public far too sick of idle and pointless speculation to dig themselves out of the hole that they've dug themselves into.

On the other hand, many of them 'might' be reading this blog right now and manage to slow if not stop their fall before it's too late.  It 'could' happen....