A Changing of the Guard at the Gates of the Fourth Estate

A tiny storm has swept the world of basic cable. Buffoonish stock picker Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money was called out by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show as being symbolic of the business news community’s failure to report on the machinations of Wall Street in the recent economic unravelling. Stewart, who has criticized hack punditry before (See Jon Stewart’s appearance on the now-defunct CNN show Crossfire) first chastised CNBC after one of their commentators, Rick Santelli, referred to defaulting homeowners as “losers” live, on the air, from the floor of the Chicago mercantile exchange (Santelli was slated to appear that night on the Daily Show, but allegedly backed out under pressure from CNBC executives) Stewart went to town on the business “news” network, a humbling worthy of your time and probably one of those odd cable television awards.

Jim Cramer, who is the subject of a great deal of the Daily Show evisceration, took the bit particularly hard. In response CNBC sent Cramer on a NBC tour, in which he showed up on at least two of the conglomerate’s other networks (NBC and MSNBC). Judging by his defeated demeanor during this media tour it is likely that the plan was devised without his input. Jim may not have known what he was in for, but NBC should have. Other networks picked up the story, and in response to Cramer’s griping across the basic cable band, Stewart did a second segment targeting him specifically. How did Cramer respond? By agreeing to be a guest on Stewart’s show.

I give Cramer credit for taking his lumps straight up, but he didn’t challenge Stewart in any significant way on any point. Perhaps he couldn’t, because there really wasn’t any good excuse for his actions or that of his network. Cramer’s evisceration at the hands of Stewart was so fierce (watch the unedited version here) Jim may lose his audience and his show. I suppose Cramer was hoping to come on, get a few raps on the wrist and be let off with a warning. But brother this ain’t a US federal court with its propensity toward leniency in “white collared” crime cases. And, as Jim was soon to discover, this wasn’t the pathetic hollowed-out shell known as mainstream media who masquerade as professional news organizations. No sir. This was one of the few surviving members of that endangered species once respectfully referred to as the fourth estate.

The Fourth Estate was the name given to newspapers by the statesman Edmund Burke. In years since the title has come to represent the media’s role and sacred duty to protect the public interest, to report the facts and expose the truth. However, through the ever widening scope of capitalism, media has entered the marketplace to be bought and sold, merged and acquired. This was always a slippery slope, entrusting a vital resource of democracy to a group principally concerned with profit and nothing else. Now we have begun to harvest the consequences.

On many occasions Jon Stewart has highlighted the complete absurdity of his show’s position in the world of news. The Daily Show is, after all, a spoof, or at least it was supposed to be. Instead, it has come to fill the void in a world awash in news programs that report nothing beyond what their corporate sponsors will permit. There are a few others who also carry the banner of decency in journalism, though they are few and far between. These include Seymour Hersh and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Nevertheless, this general absence of journalistic standards has left the American public ignorant and susceptible to the most flagrant abuses of power (See the Presidency of George W. Bush and the theft committed by Wall Street). Oh how the news has abandoned us! Where were they in the lead up to the Iraq war? Cheerleading the invasion. Where were they while frauds were repeatedly perpetrated by Wall Street? Gagged by the corporate barons that own them. Corporate stewardship of mass media has run the ship aground destroying its credibility with respect to content and bias. Now its relentless profit seeking threatens the last vestige of traditional mass media’s journalistic integrity – the newspaper.

Sure, American’s read less now than perhaps ever before and those who do read newspapers do so online rather than in print. However, the death of the paper on newsstands will soon lead to its demise online where it continues to struggle to find a role amid the mass of dis/information. And when the papers are no longer the home of respectable journalism, where will most people turn for information? They will turn to TV. In that barren wasteland of commercialized, bite-sized and eroticized data they will have to search, nay, excavate for something they can plausibly refer to as legitimate. Good luck. As the late David Foster Wallace discusses at length in his essay E Unibus Pluram (which I won’t elaborate on in great detail, though I suggest you read it), TV programs recognize their inherent trickery and dishonesty and so does the audience watching them. Can this be the best forum for reporting truth and fact? In between car commercials and ads hawking cures for the very insecurities this medium has helped to create? No, of course not, but here we are.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the nation without a meaningful public broadcasting outlet is also one in which the political system is home to legal, institutionalized bribery. I’m sorry you must be confused; I’m referring to what are known as campaign contributions. The buying of votes has led the United States to become a form of semi-democracy in which citizens elect impotent politicians who are unable to fulfill on their promise of promoting the people’s interest. America has effectively deregulated and privatized itself into a corporatized brand state where a citizen is likely to get more for their money by supporting their favorite company than by voting for their preferred candidate. After all, why deal with the bagman when you could talk to the Don?

But hope is not dead and in that vast universe we call the Internet there are opportunities to continue the tradition begun by newspapers and even to expand its reach. The Internet has transformed our ability to track and compile information making it increasingly difficult for CEOs and politicians to change the story and rewrite history. Furthermore, the web has provided an outlet for whistle blowers and citizen activists to contribute directly to the shared body of knowledge and to report on the actions of governments and corporations alike. These individuals are motivated not by compensation, but by a belief in justice and accountability (See Wikileaks.org). Though access is not yet universal, the Internet is a truly democratic tool and an opportunity to preserve and protect the fourth estate. We can no longer rely on so-called professional journalists to protect our interests, the responsibility is ours and the time is now.

~Old Major

The Future Looks...Childish

This past weekend the American Conservative Union held the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), its annual jamboree. After watching the young man in the above video, Jonathan Krohn, deliver a two minute speech on the "principles of conservatism" I found myself asking a very simple question, "is this the future of the Conservative movement in America?" I couldn't believe what I was seeing, a room full of middle-aged conservatives cheering a 13 year-old as he expounded on the merits of the conservative ideology. Granted, he wrote a book on the subject and would be very articulate were he a 30 year old, let alone a boy of 13.

Jon took special care to create the distinction that conservatism is not about politics or the Republican Party, but rather, about principles. In fact, he sees conservatism as set on 4 major pillars of principle:

1) Respect for the constitution
2) Respect for Life
3) Less government
4) Personal responsibility

First off, perhaps Jonathan can clue us in to what "respect for the constitution" means. I mean he does know that he is sharing the dais with former Bush administration officials, right?!? These are the guys who didn't even bother to introduce amendments (though Bush did threaten one to outlaw gay marriage) to change the constitution, electing instead to use it as toilet paper or possibly to roll J's with. They must have been smoking something, because they seemed to forget all about being the party of less government when they jammed through the Patriot act and endorsed spying on American citizens at within the US. What about Bush's never ending "war on terror" fought without congressional oversight, including the imprisonment of just about anyone without being charged, without the right to view the evidence against him/her, and without the right to receive counsel or contact family members? Perhaps the "war on terror" makes all of that irrelevant. OK, what about the recently released Bush administration memos demonstrating Bush's attempt to completely toss aside the first amendment?

Secondly, what exactly is "respect for life"? Oh, that's right, you're talking about abortion, of course. Funny how people who view a cluster of cells (that may or may not have a nervous system depending on the stage of its growth) as life worth respecting, are simultaneously the most fervent supporters of the death penalty and other forms of killing. The conservative leader for the past 8 years has been George W. Bush, the man who has executed more people than any other governor in the history of Texas (he averaged 1 death every 9 days). Not to mention the fervor with which the modern conservative movement has campaigned for US military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and prayed (probably in the literal sense) for a war with Iran and North Korea. Almost got 'em too! I suppose I lack the intelligence or religious spirit to comprehend the distinction that the deaths those conflicts created are exceptions to the "thou shalt not kill" principle on which so many conservatives pride themselves. It must be that the deaths of untold thousands of Iraqis and Afghans (overwhelmingly innocent civilians) were acceptable under the "respect for life" principle. They were probably just the wrong kind of life.

Third, less government. Right, George W. Bush champion of the conservative movement and its leader up until a few months ago is the largest spender of government money since Lyndon Johnson and outspent LBJ based on the percentage increase in spending per annum. And no, it wasn't all on the "war on terror". W spent big time on No Child Left Behind, which promptly left all children behind, a Medicare prescription drug plan that was roundly rejected as a failure even before it was implemented, and finally by not vetoing a single Republican-controlled congressional budget despite the countless "earmarks" which bloated and busted its seams. Let's not also forget to reiterate the Patriot act, the creation of Homeland Security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which Bush ingeniously engineered to be financial solo acts. Schmuck.

Finally, we have personal responsibility, which, as far as I can tell, is a euphemism for, "you’re poor...tough shit." And this is where Johnny boy’s use of the word "principle" really pisses me off. Tell me Jon, ye who hath never held a job or paid bills, how principled are those individuals on Wall Street? In the banks and investment houses? Those, like your host ACU, who lobbied Congress to deregulate markets so banks and brokerages could offer crap home loans and repackage them into crappy derivatives, who have made it harder for ordinary Americans to declare bankruptcy while simultaneously making it easier for corporations to do so? How about your major conservative supporters at Enron and WorldCom? Oh, I forgot, you were only 4 when they helped get Bush get elected with money they ripped off from average Americans who wanted to use their toaster or call their grandma.

You were probably still wetting the bed Jon and that's fine, you were 4 - and that's what 4 year-olds do (I think). Which is precisely my point, Jon is indicative of the state of conservative politics in America. When a group of adults can identify within the rantings of a 13 year-old the essence of their political ideology, a time out is in order. Having parroted back at you the same trite, smug and archaic nonsense that has been so thoroughly rejected by the rest of America is perfectly fine if, as Jon suggests, Conservatism isn't about politics or party, but about principles. It’s fine so long as Conservatives don't mind resting on their political laurels for a while. I wonder if principles make for a comfortable seat.

~ Old Major

In response to a pretty sober view of the future of the US and, by extension, the world

Based on this article by James Kunstler (http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/debt-drought-kills-consumerism/) a response:

I happen to agree with this Mr. Kunstler. I don’t believe we can “go home again” (hence the title of this blog). If history has taught us anything, and regardless of whether or not we are willing to learn from it, it is that society – like everything else – is constantly changing and evolving. Just like the natural resources on this planet, which are finite and are drying up, so will our ability to live on borrowed money, borrowed space or borrowed time. The belief, especially in Washington, that the US can return to it’s “good ole’” self is evident in the percentage of tax breaks that comprise the recently approved stimulus package. The future is forward. If we are to avoid a deep and lasting depression with the potential to set off a war (or wars) for control of natural resources, we must accept that reality and crack on.

I believe that our best hope is in increased collectivity among states. The financial crisis revealed just how disastrous the effects independently operated systems of rules governing financial markets/institutions can be. More than efficiency and profitability, it has been crisis that has driven countries closer together and made them more cooperative in their dealings. And it is obvious that we are faced with global challenges (or rather threats) to our collective existence. The state of our ecological system, our atmosphere, the planet itself is at risk and we are all responsible, to varying degrees. Whether or not we believe it to be fair, we must work together if we are to stem the tide of this natural decline. This is the primary challenge for one very simple reason, economic conditions, in-and-of-themselves, are meaningless. Underlying those conditions, however, are the basic needs of the human (as well as animal and plant) populations of this planet. Whether people are out of work is not a material (no pun intended) concern, it is whether they are able to feed, clothe and house themselves that are of principal importance. One need only review Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to understand that an individual’s physiological requirements must first be satiated before any other needs are addressed.

Though it may not happen overnight, I believe that our global society is on a path toward a rediscovery of essential needs and that our societies will adapt to that reality or die out. Unfortunately the past sixty years, – the era of relative peace and significant prosperity for some, economic liberalization (for better or worse) for the others – with its focus on material gain, has not aided society in developing theories of the future stages of our social evolution. Instead, with the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism, quite a few “intellectuals” began to declare that we were at the “end of history”. A naïve concept, even if only used as a prism through which to view global economic systems. Especially given the ideological struggle that framed the Cold War and the post-World War II international order, such a declaration of victory is understandable. Yet, it is wholly inadequate as an explanation of social existence for the simple fact that it ignores the most consistent pattern of history – change. It is not, however, an exceptionally odd occurrence. Thoughts of socio-political transformation are forged in the fire of crisis, struggle, or great cataclysmic events.

This generation (X or Y or whatever) of bourgeois/middle class (the historical agent for change) has frequently been accused of being apathetic as a result of their relatively “easy” way of life. That, in the absence of a great challenge, they have failed (are failing) to have made a great contribution to the development of their society. And so here it is, a crisis point in which our global society will make critical choices that will impact the future of our existence and that of our co-inhabitants. Perhaps our generation will be part of the solution.

- O.M.