Media Criticism

Writers throughout the years have hoped that their works manage to make it beyond the next generation. As a freelance writer, I hope to create or promote an idea larger than myself that can be taken up by another writer in the future. This driving force leads me to write pages and pages of material everyday. The major issue with allowing my ideas and half-baked notions to reach the digital universe is that anyone can read it. In past generations, a writer could jot down an idea and allow it to sit in a journal because they had not other recourse for promoting their ideas. Professor Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger at Harvard University wants to return to that “useful void.�?

The “useful void�? idea was highlighted in GOOD Magazine’s year-ending issue. Professor Mayer-Schoenberger speaks for something called “data ecology�? which allows blog entries, articles and other expressions committed to virtual print to die off at a certain point in the future. This application of the natural process of life and death to the Internet is intriguing as someone who has changed his mind on certain topics but has articles floating out there archiving these old ideas. On the other hand, I like the idea that a reader can look back to something I wrote in college or graduate school and see how my writing has developed in the years since.

The temptation to jump on board with the “useful void�? notion is negated by the bad influence it would have on media. We need to have a permanent record of ideas so that the media can research position papers, blogs and other writings by public officials who are claiming to have done one thing while doing another. I hope that if I ever ran for office or reached a position where the public would care about my writing there would be a virtual record of my ideas to keep me honest. While Professor Mayer-Schoenberger’s idea is interesting for people who want to allow the past to fade away, I think that the “useful void�? would be akin to shuttering libraries because ideas in books by Upton Sinclair, Benton MacKaye and William Buckley are outdated.

I remember watching the seminal western The Searchers in a film studies course and hearing about how great the movie was from my instructor. The company line was that the sets were wonderful, the direction was magnificent and John Wayne was prototypically American in his portrayal of a hardened cowboy. I think portrayals about Africa are similar to John Wayne movies in their use of Westernized versions of Africa. The dangerous part about these portrayals is that they seem to confirm our diplomatic history with the continent. The one advantage of Wayne’s movies was that the wars had been completed during filming.

There are two articles in the recent issue of GOOD Magazine that cover the issue of American diplomacy with Africa. An article by Sasha Polakow-Suransky speaks to frustrations with portraying Africa with notable exceptions like Don Cheadle’s turn in Hotel Rwanda. The second article by Andrew Woods discusses the use of poor Africans as contractors in Iraq. These articles point to a frustrating development in dealing with Africa. The power of the pocket book is used to donate to charities headed by celebrities in a shallow effort to help faraway Africans without dealing with fundamental diplomatic issues that keeps aid out of the hands of those who need it. We are suffering from Western guilt in dealing with former colonies pushed down by centuries of racism.

Everyone should be pissed about the way Africa is addressed in our daily life. Voters should demand a conversation with politicians and business leaders beyond the superficial discussion of solving the AIDS crisis. Africans need roads, phones, food and homes instead of surplus grain and a sympathetic smile. Consumers need to boycott movies where actors without any knowledge of Africa try to speak to intensely parochial issues on the continent. In the end, American consumers have an immense amount of power to direct money, time and energy toward changing the system instead of feeding money into our own corrupt government into the mostly corrupt governments in Africa.

The clichéd efforts to fight poverty around the holiday season make people feel better about doing something in the world at large. Salvation Army ringers, Toys for Tots boxes and other charity efforts are noble but only offer a temporary salve against the rigors of poverty. The value of work and the long term benefits of self-sufficiency make a year-round effort to fight poverty a necessity. I dislike immensely all of the commercials for holiday charities that make it sound like an Elmo doll will help lift a family out of poverty.

GOOD Magazine is currently conducting a drive to help organizations interested in sustainable development, job creation and poverty alleviation. The magazine allows a subscriber to select a charity where all of their $20 subscription fee will be donated up to $1 million. I gave a few gift subscriptions for the holidays this season where I donated my money to Kiva, an organization that facilitates loans to small businesses in the developing world.

I understand the skepticism of shoppers who are afraid to send their money into an abyss. GOOD Magazine has done interviews with representatives from each charity on their subscription list including Jacqueline Novogratz from Acumen Fund. This organization provides simple solutions to help farmers in poverty including inexpensive irrigation systems that can mean the difference between life and death. If I sound a bit like a shill for GOOD Magazine, Kiva and Acumen Fund, it is because I think these are organizations with the transparency to help you make an investment in lifting others out of poverty. We need to think globally and long term when thinking about poverty and these solutions are a good start.