ENTERTAINED OR INFORMED?

TEXTURE

An Uncertain Road

    The road to November 8 will exhaust us but this juncture of the journey hints that something is coming true. The test of the hypothesis is Trump and Sanders.

     In lectures and addresses audiences have been told of what I call a divide between the informed and the entertained. As Americans became more media dependent,  consumption of entertainment eclipsed serious information gathering, either by book, magazine, newspaper, documentaries or broadcast news, which has morphed into something less serious, more personality and ratings driven. 

     To the point, more people "follow" Kim Kardashian than President Obama. More know her than the Speaker of the House or the Defense Secretary or Scott Pelley, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer or Megan Kelly, even combined. 

      Teachers and professors thanked me for speaking of the eventual divide between those who are entertained and those who are informed.  Those who use media like fast food and those who seek intellectual nutrition. Consequently those who would be led and those who would lead.

       About Donald and Bernie-both are in their own way populists. This is not to demean followers of either candidate, but to draw a generalized comparison. People in both camps  fall outside these definitions, but they are exceptions to my rule. Both men seem to channel an anger, a resentment with the status quo. 

       Trump channels those who don't like government, worry about immigrants, fear federal over reach, are upset with gridlock and inaction. Trump, who offers no specifics but plenty of bombast is "the man." They are unlikely to look deeply into an issue, including Mitch McConnell's pledge to make government stop working and John Boehner's failure to make the House function, the nexus of gridlock and the failure to fund enforcement efforts to keep the money hustlers in check and out politics. Trump even brags about how he bought politicians.

        Sander's followers know the nature and genesis of "the problem" and agree with Bernie's articulation of the disparity and role of big money. Their anger is at the 1% precisely, investment banks and the way Congress has specifically rolled over for big money, in their individual PACs and wallets and to the influence that has been purchased by lobbyists and special interests who also write the legislation that becomes law.

THE CHAYEFSKY PRINCIPLE

"Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"

        Both groups are angry. One is just mad and fed up in general. Their candidate offers no tangible solution. The other is studied, specific and understand what kind of legislative remedy is needed. In a very real sense these two populist movements underscore the point-entertained or informed? 

         We have become an increasingly frivolous nation, less well educated than historically, though we are certainly entertained. The nation is materialistic and consumption oriented, with little sense of history, exhibits poor critical reasoning skills, is more fragmented and with a dangerous lack of a sense of commonweal. We can be selfish and too often our religion is mean spirited, judgmental and exclusionary. Madison Avenue appears to have had more impact than Academia. Entertaining diversion trumps educational vigor.

       Traditional Republicans are sick that someone like a Donald Trump or a Ben Carson can be taken seriously when others with relevant experience, regardless of what people  think of them, can hardly move the needle.  Who are the wind in Trump's sail? The entertained.

       Hillary Clinton, a traditional, professional politician is being nudged, feeling a bit of the Bern. Like her or not she is the old fashioned pol in this fight. Who are the people empowering Sanders? The informed.

       Sure, there are informed followers in the Clinton camp as there are in the supporters of Bush, Christy, Paul, Fiornia, Kasich.  The sad joke however is Republicans are now reaping McConnell and Boehner's influence and that of the Tea Party. Recent Republican strategy has so empowered evangelicals, freedom caucus wackos, conspiracy theorists, birthers and the one issue mouth breathers they now have an orange haired, impolite, hate mongering, ego freak of a  clown running strong. Scary stuff when low information voters can also do more than pose for all of those weird Walmart shopper photos.

      There's a lot to be said for being informed, even if it requires using the brain and bumping up against hard questions, complex issues, challenges and difficulties that elude simple solutions or rehearsed sound bites. Gaining knowledge and being informed is not a simple as sitting and staring.
      Being upset with the way things are is a good thing. It's a start. Ideas need to follow.
     History is a relentless scribe, though it could be such a nurturing companion if we were but to embrace it.

    See you down the trail.
      

        

WHO DETERMINES YOUR INFORMATION NEEDS? and ALONG THE CLIFF-THE WEEKENDER

SNOOPING IN THE NEWSROOM

     Have you followed the firestorm of comment about a proposed FCC study into newsroom decision making?  It's off! The FCC has junked the idea, as it should be.

       The concept, introduced late last year, was stupid for many reasons, not the least of which is that it was wrong. No one, no government agency, no consumer advocacy group, no corporate sponsor, no dunderheaded general manager or broadcast division ceo, no one should be involved in editorial, coverage, or content decision making except journalists and news personnel.  That is not because we are sainted with divine knowledge or know more about social good. No, in fact we can and have made poor decisions, but the right to make those decisions, in a nation where freedom of the press is constitutional, is the role of the press.  Over the long haul of American history, journalistic decisions have been more often right than wrong and more often in the public interest than against it.

       To work properly, the press needs to be free from interference of any sort.  Now we can argue about how well the press functions today, but that is an entirely different discussion. Still, the judgements made about what you read, see or hear from the news media need to emanate from a process that honors and hews to standards and judgements that are based on canons and codes of journalism and not from outside forces.  Historically we have been well served by the system, if not perfectly.

        Aside from the constitutional issue, there was the Orwellian level absurdity of the idea that a study could determine your, mine, or any one's "information needs"? Yes, we may have desires, curiosities and even a need for information, but in the beauty of this democratic republic the specifics of such are based on individual choices and lives. Community needs? Who determines "community?" 

        For a survey to try to ascertain "needs" and then measure or analyze how those "needs" were being met by newsroom decision making just opens so many trap doors on what is supposed to be a constitutionally protected process as to be fitting of a Paddy Chayefsky and/or George Orwell world. Or  even more fittingly a Stalinist or Hitlerian world of gulags and camps where offending journalists and readers are taught what happens to people who think for themselves or who dare to have "information needs" other than those proscribed by Big Brother or who may be in a "community" that is not sanctioned or deemed worthy or out of favor. See the hellish rat hole that ensues?

      This weekend I suspect liberals, conservatives, libertarians and anarchists can bang beer mugs, wine or cocktail glasses with real journalists in toasting the end of a bad idea. Here is an issue on which all of our tribes can agree. One less idiot idea, trotted out by a mindless Federal agency without serious forethought or consideration of implication. Free is free-even if you don't like what you see, hear or read. To the First-Cheers!

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        You can read the latest post from Tim Cavenaugh here.  He first broke the story on the CIN. 

   

ALONG THE CLIFF

      On the way back I noted the additional message on the back of the Danger-Warning sign.

    Differing "community needs" maybe?

      See you down the trail.