Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Blind Pigs

If you suck at your job, you’ll get fired.

If you suck because you’re lazy, you’ll definitely get fired.

Unless you’re a member of the political and economic establishment of a disintegrating superstate. If you’re incompetent and indolent but reliably loyal and unquestioning, your sinecure in the system that props up the powers that be is safe.

The New York Times, an institution so beholden to the establishment that it subjects a major presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, to a virtual media blackout, is this week’s case study in establishmentarian unaccountability.

After effectively donating nearly half a billion dollars of media coverage to the campaign of Donald Trump, corporate media is finally beginning to wonder whether teeing the country up for its first potential bona fide fascist dictatorship was a good idea.

In the Times, reliably mistaken op-ed columnist David Brooks allowed that, just maybe, opinion mongers like him ought to have noticed the building voter outrage over “free trade” deals like NAFTA and TPP — agreements supported by him and his paper’s editorial board — that gutted America’s industrial heartland and are driving the Sanders and Trump campaigns.

“Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else,” Brooks wrote on March 18th.

“Moreover,” continued the man who thought invading Iraq would be a cakewalk, “many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.”

This is a stunning admission.

Let’s set aside the question of how likely it is that Brooks really will make the effort to get out more. (My guess: not very.) Why should the Times — and, more to the point, the readers whose paid subscriptions pay Brooks’ salary — keep a man on staff who admits that he sucks at his job because he’s too lazy to interact with the American people?

Brooks deserves to have plenty of company as he walks the unemployment version of the long Green Mile.

On March 28th, fellow Times writer Nicholas Kristof went even further, in a piece titled “My Shared Shame: The Media Helped Make Trump.” “We were largely oblivious to the pain among working-class Americans and thus didn’t appreciate how much his message resonated,” Kristof wrote.

Most Americans are working class. In other words, Kristof and his colleagues admit they don’t cover the problems that affect most Americans. Again, why does he still have a job?

Believe it or not, there are scores — maybe hundreds — of opinion writers who do know what’s going on in their own country. They write well. They get stories right. They saw the Trump and Sanders populist phenomena coming. But you won’t find any of them in the print pages of major newspapers like the Times, or even in the low-pay ghettos of their web-only content. 

Because you can’t be a good journalist and a shill for a corporate media obsessed with access to the powers-that-be.

As usual, in these moments of MSM navel-gazing, they almost get it right. Kristof continues: “Media elites rightly talk about our insufficient racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, but we also lack economic diversity. We inhabit a middle-class world and don’t adequately cover the part of America that is struggling and seething. We spend too much time talking to senators, not enough to the jobless.”

Class diversity is a real thing. Newsrooms at stodgy institutions like the Times have their token women and people of color, but most are women and POC from well-off families. They attend expensive journalism schools with few graduates from poor families and struggling small towns. As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton prove, coming from a traditionally disadvantaged group is no guarantee that someone understands or cares about the troubles of the economically oppressed.

More to the point, we need a new class of intuitive journalists. Men and women with empathy. People who have a clue about what’s happening in their own country.

Ted Rall’s next book is After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan.

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

What They Said…

Greg Cravens

About Frank Murtaugh’s Sports column and Richard Alley’s Books column …

I really enjoyed the “Heroes Return” story by Frank Murtaugh and “Good Friends” by Richard J. Alley. Great writing that struck a chord with me this holiday season. Thanks for all the great articles, all year long. Happy holidays.

Elizabeth M

About Ted Rall’s Viewpoint column, “Bern Unit” …

Ted Rall’s hilarious screed about socialism and American ignorance was almost as entertaining as it was uninformative. Rall is appalled by “political ignoramuses” and wonders whether we “idiots” are “qualified to vote at all.” He’s upset that even Democrats are too stupid to understand the socialist “tradition of Western European electoral politics,” much less the Republican right, which is plagued by “colossal dumbness.”

It must be sorely difficult to be so doggone educated, intelligent, and right when so many people are uneducated and just plain stupid. Perhaps Bernie Sanders should belittle Americans for their ignorance of “basic political and economic terms.” That’ll win over a bunch of swing voters!

It seems pretty obvious that Rall isn’t interested in democracy, socialism, or even communism at all. What he wants is a type of fascist totalitarianism in which he and a few other “well educated elites” get to tell everyone what to do, how to act, and, most importantly, what’s “good for them.”

You can always count on a leftist to reveal his or her true intentions when it comes to governance and public policy. To paraphrase Madge the manicurist: What’s that smell? You’re sitting in it, Mr. Rall!

Greg McIntyre

About Kevin Lipe’s post, “Grizzlies 112, Wizards 96: Five Thoughts” …

I love the Grizzlies, but I really think age has caught up with us. We aren’t the defensive team we once were, and Allen looks disgruntled. I think Z-Bo can be really effective off the bench, playing 25 minutes a night, but the question is how long will he settle for coming off the bench. Gasol has had his moments, but the consistency has not been there, and Conley has not been as good this year.

We have to beat a quality opponent with their full lineup intact, and we don’t look like we can do that.

Ray

About Bruce VanWyngarden’s Letter From the Editor, “Wondering Where the Lions Are” …

The charter school industry is not unlike the for-profit prison system, which requires a steady influx of money, er, prisoners, and so laws are written to keep the prisons full. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the same gangs don’t run both operations.

Jeff

About the GOP debate …

The men and the woman vying for the GOP presidential nomination want us to believe that America under President Obama is the ultimate wimp nation; that when it comes to the Islamic State, we’re busy zoning out on Netflix and letting ISIS run rampant. The way Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and their minions put it, you’d think the Obama administration is doing nothing.

Turns out, the United States is dumping tens of thousands of bombs on Islamic State strongholds, so much so, the U.S. has been running out of bombs. Since the air war kicked off last year, we’ve unloaded more bombs on ISIS than we have in Afghanistan any time during the past five years. In fact, when it comes to ISIS, we’ve averaged more than 2,000 air raids a month since the military mission began. We’re spending some $10 million every day bombing the Islamic State. So far we’ve spent more than $4 billion!

And it’s gotten us nowhere. Just like increased military action and Ted Cruz’s “carpet bombing” will get us nowhere. So, when you hear the Republican warmongers and know-nothings pop off, be happy President Obama is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and taking care of business.

Arthur Lewis

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (January 15, 2015)

Terrorism doesn’t scare political cartoonists nearly as much as editors — and the corporate bean-counters who tell them what to do. The Charlie Hebdo massacre couldn’t have happened here in the United States. But it’s not because American newspapers have better security. Gunmen could never kill five political cartoonists in an American newspaper office because no paper in the U.S. employs two, much less five, staff political cartoonists — the number who died Wednesday in Paris. There is no equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, which puts political cartoons front and center, in the States.

When I began drawing political cartoons professionally in the early 1990s, hundreds of my colleagues worked on staff at newspapers, with full salaries and benefits. That was already down from journalism’s mid-century glory days, when there were thousands. Many papers employed two. Shortly after World War II, The New York Times, which today has none, employed four cartoonists on staff. Today there are fewer than 30.

Most American states have zero full-time staff political cartoonists. Many big states — California, New York, Texas, Illinois — have one. No American political magazine, on the left, center, or right, has one.

During recent days, many journalists and editors have spread the “Je Suis Charlie” meme through social media in order to express solidarity with the victims of Charlie Hebdo, political cartoonists (who routinely receive death threats, whether they live in France or the United States), and freedom of expression.

As far as political cartoonists are concerned, editorials pledging solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are empty gestures — corporate slacktivism. Less than 24 hours after the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel fired its long-time, award-winning political cartoonist, Chan Lowe.

Editors love us when we’re dead. While we’re still breathing, they’re laying us off, slashing our rates, stealing our copyrights, and disappearing us from where we used to appear — killing our art form.

American editors and publishers have never been as willing to publish satire, whether in pictures or in words, as their European counterparts. But things have gone from bad to apocalyptic in the past 30 years.

Humor columnists like the late Art Buchwald earned millions syndicating their jokes about politicians and current events to American newspapers through the 1970s and 1980s. Miami Herald humor writer Dave Barry was a rock star through the 1990s, routinely cranking out best-selling books. Then came 9/11. 

When I began working as an executive talent scout for the United Media syndicate in 2006, my sales staff informed me that, if Barry had started out then, they wouldn’t have been able to sell him to a single newspaper, magazine, or website — not even if they gave his work to them for free. Barry was still funny, but there was no market for satire anywhere in American media.

That’s even truer today. The youngest working political cartoonist in the United States, Matt Bors, is 31. When people ask me who the next up-and-comer is, I tell them there isn’t one — and there won’t be one any time soon.

Why not? Like any other disaster, media censorship of satire — especially graphic satire — in the U.S. is caused by several contributing factors. Most media outlets are owned by corporations. Publicly traded companies are risk-averse. Executives prefer to publish boring/safe content that won’t generate complaints from advertisers or shareholders, much less force them to hire extra security guards.

Half a century ago, many editors had working-class backgrounds and rose through the ranks from the bottom. Now they’re graduates of pricey university journalism programs that don’t offer scholarships and don’t teach a single class about comics, cartoons, humor, or graphic art. It takes an unusually curious editor to make the effort to educate himself or herself about political cartoons.

Corporate journalism executives view cartoons as frivolous, less serious than “real” commentary like columns or editorials. Unfortunately, some editorial cartoonists make this problem worse by drawing silly gags about current events (as opposed to trenchant attacks on the powers that be) because they’ve seen their blandest work win Pulitzers and coveted spots in the major weekend cartoon “round-ups.” When asked to cut their budget, editors often look at their cartoonist first.

There is still powerful political cartooning online. Ironically, the internet contributes to the death of satire in America by sating the demand for hard-hitting political art. Before the web, if a paper canceled my cartoons they would receive angry letters from my fans. Now my readers find me online — but the internet pays pennies on the print dollar. I’m stubbornly hanging on, but many talented cartoonists, especially the young, won’t work for free.

It’s not that media organizations are broke. Far from it. Many are profitable. American newspapers and magazines employ tens of thousands of writers, they just don’t want anyone writing or drawing anything that questions the status quo, especially not in a form as powerful as political cartooning.

The next time you hear editors pretending to stand up for freedom of expression, ask them if they employ a cartoonist.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

I’m Not Changing My Passwords

The 2003 film, House of Sand and Fog, depicts a tragic string of events that follows a woman who loses her house after ignoring eviction notices mistakenly sent to her for nonpayment of county taxes. She’s overwhelmed by the deluge of bureaucratic housekeeping demanded by contemporary American society.

I think of that beleaguered woman’s character whenever I receive yet another notice from my credit card company that they are changing their terms and conditions; when an airline urges me to join their frequent flyer program; when a client informs me that they never received the email I’m sure I sent.

Never is this deluge more front and center than during the immediate aftermath of the latest mass hacking, typically, allegedly, by online gangs in the former Soviet Union. During the Cold War, they said they would bury us. Now they are — in security-focused inanity.

In the latest fiasco, which has to make one question if we are really better off now than we were in the old days of passbook savings, they’re saying that as many as 76 million households may have had their account information compromised by an incursion into computers at the banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase. “The intrusion compromised the names, addresses, phone numbers and emails of those households, and can basically affect anyone — customers past and present — who logged onto any of Chase and JPMorgan’s websites or apps,” reports The New York Times. “That might include those who get access to their checking and other bank accounts online or someone who checks their credit card points over the web. Seven million small businesses also were affected.”

We are supposed to be very, very scared. They want us to act. The banks and corporations want us to spend an awful lot of time and energy protecting their money.

Bear in mind, when someone steals your credit card data and makes unauthorized purchases or withdrawals, you’re not responsible. In short, it’s not your problem. But the media is colluding with the megabanks in order to make us care about something that we really shouldn’t.

Consider, for example, this advice to us banking customers in the Times article: “Those who want to add a layer of security to their financial life should consider a ‘security freeze.’ … When you freeze your reports, the big three credit bureaus will not release your credit reports to any company that does not already have a relationship with you.” 

The paper continues: “Consumers need to approach each of the three credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — and may need to pay a small fee, depending on where they live. The process can be a hassle because the freeze has to be ‘thawed,’ or lifted, to apply for a new credit card, for instance, or for a mortgage. (And consumers may need to keep PINs and other information handy to do that).”

Uh-huh.

So let me get this straight. Credit agencies that earn billions of dollars selling our information, much of it erroneous, want to charge us for our own data, so we can protect the big banks that we bailed out in 2009 at taxpayer expense and even now refuse to refinance mortgages or lend to small businesses, a major reason that the economy is still terrible, and waste God knows how many hours online or on the phone dealing with this boring crap.

Well, hear this, Russian hackers and American banksters: I’m a busy person. I have a lot to do. I work three jobs. If I ever find myself with any spare time, it’s going to be on the beach and involve margaritas and good books.

I am not going to change my passwords every time I read one of these security-scare stories. I refuse to pick new unique passwords for each of my dozens of accounts. I will not freak out on behalf of people who don’t give a damn about me or anyone I care about. And it will be a cold day in hell before I put a credit freeze on my own account and pay for the privilege.

Ted Rall’s next book is After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

“Nowology”

Everyone has a strong opinion about education. But the controversies are always about the same topics: testing, teachers unions, funding, merit pay, vouchers/school choice, charter schools. Is college a smart investment? Is affirmative action fair? Has political correctness supplanted the basics?

I keep waiting for someone to bring up Now. As in the study of now — what’s currently going on in the fields of politics, history, literature, mathematics, science — everything.

Can we call it Nowology?

From kindergarten through college, American education focuses obsessively on the past. No matter what you study, the topics either relate to the past or the knowledge is dated.

Since I was a history major in college, I’ll focus on that.

I’ve never understood why history is taught chronologically. A book’s opening is crucial; either you get hooked straightaway or you get bored and put it down. So how is it that textbook publishers think it makes sense to start a fourth-grade history textbook with prehistoric humans who lived 10,000 years ago? It’s tough enough for me, at age 50, to relate to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. How can a typical American 9-year-old connect intellectually to people who foraged for food (not in the fridge)?

Another problem with teaching history chronologically is that teachers rarely make it to the relevant, interesting history students might actually care about — what’s going on now. From junior through senior high, my teachers got bogged down in the battlefields of the Civil War. We never made it as far as Reconstruction, much less to the controversies of my childhood (Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis).

TV, radio, and newspapers — that’s where what mattered was discussed. My classmates and I had fathers who served in Vietnam. We had neighbors who’d dodged the draft. We argued over Nixon and Ford and Carter, but all that — the controversy, the drama, the Now — took place outside school.

The not-so-subliminal message sunk in: School is where you learn about old stuff. Now stuff is everywhere else.

This is, of course, exactly the opposite of how we choose to teach ourselves.

Example: pop culture. No one’s musical education begins with recordings of recreations of primitive music — simple claps or banging objects together. Most children start out listening to contemporary music — whatever they hear on Pandora, Spotify, the radio, TV, etc. Those who decide to dig further usually work backward. They listen to older works by their favorite artists. They hear a musician talk about the bands that influenced them, and they check them out. They might wind up getting into ragtime or Bach. Last. Not first.

Ditto for movies. No one starts out watching silent films.

We’re constantly worrying about whether our schools are preparing children to compete in the global marketplace. To support their calls for reform, activists point to surveys that show that Americans are woefully ignorant about basic facts such as evolution, essential geographic knowledge, such as the location of the country where U.S. troops have been fighting, killing, and dying for a decade and a half.

Sure, it would be nice if more Americans read a newspaper (or its online edition) now and then. On the other hand, a lot of this material ought to be taught in schools, and it isn’t. Day one of American history class should begin with Obama, congressional paralysis, the early jockeying for the 2016 presidential campaign, America’s clash with Russia over Ukraine, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of these subjects naturally require digging deeper, back in time, to explain why and how what’s going on now is happening.

And it’s not just history. Studying physics at Columbia in the 1980s, no one taught us about the latest advances in cosmology and quantum mechanics — some of which, ironically, were being discovered in labs in the same buildings by the same professors who were filling our heads with obsolete material.

Nowology — better late than never.

Ted Rall’s most recent book is The Book of Obama: How We Went From Hope and Change to the Age of Revolt.