Media Criticism

I love sports and I am a huge football fan (I grew up in Green Bay so I don’t think I could be anything else.) It is tough to admit to everyone that I spend hours on Saturdays and Sundays watching football games while letting projects gather dust on my desk. There are many places where I diverge from fellow football fans including collecting sports memorabilia, calling sports talk radio about my fantasy team and devoting all of my small talk to sports. The NFL Draft represents one of those points of divergence and I think that it represents some of the worst aspects of professional sports.

ESPN has been covering the NFL Draft since the New York Giants won the Super Bowl in February. There is no reason that ESPN needs to show the same stuff 24 hours per day and it would be great if they showed some world sports that may be taking place at odd hours. The worst part about ESPN’s coverage is that it shows the useless nature of speculation by football experts like Chris Mortensen and Mel Kiper Jr.

There is a bigger problem with the NFL Draft that makes me uncomfortable about my level of fandom. One look at the crowd and announcers in New York City shows the salivating, fan-boy nature of the (mostly) male fans of the NFL. There is no compunction by anyone involved in the coverage about the first overall pick, Michigan tackle Jake Long, receiving the largest contract for any tackle in the NFL. There is a mixture of naivety and harsh tones when the experts speak about the legal or personal troubles of some of the young players involved in the draft.

I think we should look at the NFL Draft as another form of the stock market. Rich people manipulate young players, the media and average fans to pad their accounts. The draft shares other characteristics with the stock market including the boring nature of the event and the uncertainty of each “stock�? purchased. If I were an investor looking for a new cable channel, I would create an ESPN-like network for the stock market with celebrities, loud-mouth experts and talking heads shouting about various markets. The fact that the NFL Draft is televised is a testament to the ability of TV’s creative minds to turn crap into gold.

I know that this post does not relate directly to the media though it does point out yet another problem with 24-hour channels. I hope that fans like myself become more mindful of the ridiculous nature of sports coverage in general and the NFL Draft in specific.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz and its publisher Amos Schocken was highlighted recently in Monocle. The article was focused on the stalwart approach of Haaretz to an open perspective on solving crises in the Middle East. Photos of Haaretz’s editorial offices show art pieces by Israelis, Palestinians and others around the world that protest against the status quo. The photos met Monocle’s standard for colorful and glossy images but I found the content of the article much more enlightening.

There are several elements of Haaretz that act as a silver lining in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The pages of Haaretz do not feature the tabloid stories, gaudy advertisements and bright photos of competing newspapers. I have read a few pages of the English-language version of Haaretz and found it analytical in its approach to national and international news.

Monocle points out a number of events that have drawn the ire of die-hard Israeli nationalists. The sale of a portion of Haaretz’s stock to Dumont-Schauberg (a publisher with Nazi ties going back to the 1940s) created a firestorm among critics who felt that Shocken and his colleagues were betraying the six million Jews killed by Adolf Hitler. Schocken has used editorials to plead for reason in dealing with Palestinians, soften the nationalist rhetoric of the country’s anthem and support moderate policies in international affairs. The paper is read by many Israeli leaders but the publisher’s positions are at odds in a nation with past leaders like Ariel Sharon and parties like Likud and Kadima.

The fact that Haaretz is the nation’s longest-running newspaper is an impressive feat. I think the longevity of Haaretz has been possible because the paper fits into the original vision of Israel. The purpose of Israel to give disparate Jews throughout the world a home based on historical claims. The origins of Israel following World War II and the liberation of Middle Eastern countries from the yoke of colonialism meant that surrounding nations did not care for the ham-handed approach of the West toward creating Israel. The vision of Israel survives even as politicians cut it apart for scraps useful in gaining supremacy in the Middle East.

Israel was never meant to be a political tool, puppet or warring state; just a single place for the global Jewish community to live together. Haaretz represents reason, intelligence and patience in a region where all three are often in short supply. This newspaper will live or die by the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians who need to set aside the anger of past generations for the moderation and trust needed for a peaceful Middle East.

I have a distinct memory of former Black Flag lead man Henry Rollins from my teenage years. I was not a punk fan but I remember seeing him on MTV stomping around in black shirts and shorts. The comical image of Rollins I held in my adolescence has been replaced by admiration for the man in my adulthood.

Rollins proves that musicians can be well-read, engaging and thoughtful about the world around them. His visits to the troops throughout the Iraq War (detailed in a July 2007 Mother Jones interview) show the difficult balance between hating an institution and loving the humans within that institution. His commitment to equal rights may be astonishing to mainstream music fans who assume that punk rockers are anarchists, hate mongers and freaks who care little about other people.

The reason why Rollins is an exception to the rule in the music world is his origins. He rose through the punk rock ranks through hard work and a commitment to educating himself. There was no entitlement to wealth and fame within his work as a roadie, delivery driver and indie musician. He did not attend the finest schools in an effort to grease the wheels for a better lot in life. Rollins may have taken a path similar to millions of others in the past that had aspirations for something greater but he also possessed an unrelenting spirit.

Why is Henry Rollins an important figure in the world of independent music and politics? He has bucked multiple trends with his spoken-word albums and tour diaries. Rollins observed and analyzed the human condition and the need for equal rights through experience. His self-made image is matched by substance that is impossible to find in other artists. I may sound like a liberal arts major pining for a simpler life because I have a good life myself.

The fact is that I recognize that the journey made Henry Rollins believe strongly in his personal politics. I agree with Rollins in terms of core beliefs even though we took two different paths. We need to realize that the only divisions in our society are artificial. Record companies, media outlets and political leaders divide our country into separate pens. These pens are opened occasionally to allow groups to struggle for power that cannot be attained. Henry Rollins is trying to break down these pens through music , books and the spoken word.

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.

Barack Obama and John Edwards have engaged in a debate through proxies, press releases and speeches in front of dozens at events in Iowa over 527 advertising. Edwards’ former campaign manager works for a 527 organization that supports union interests and plans on spending hundreds of thousands on advertising for Edwards in Iowa. Obama is claiming that Edwards’ weak attempt at stopping the advertising on his behalf seems to be a weakness in leadership. Edwards has countered that he does not officially support the messages of the 527 ads on his behalf.

I doubt that Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate is above reproach when it comes to 527 advertising. I also think that Edwards could have preempted these criticisms with a phone call to his former campaign manager as soon as the news got out. Neither side has a right to complain, however, as every candidate (save people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) seems to support the system that allows 527 ads to exist. No candidate who supports maintaining the status quo and keeping competitive ideas down through complex legislation should complain that 527 ads are fair to one candidate.

The frustrating part of the debate over 527 ads is that they work. I know voters will say that they are sick of politicians bickering but they are influenced by these ads in the same way that they are influenced by consumer advertising. 527 organizations are led by people connected to presidential and Congressional candidates in some substantial way which means that they are familiar with the lexicon of negativity needed to run a successful advertisement. While the Internet allows everyone to see an ad designed for Iowa and New Hampshire, there is an impermanence to these 527 ads that is perfect for candidates in the 21st century. The volume of advertisements on the Web means that a 527 ad criticizing Hillary Clinton will be supplanted within a day by a counterattack with an equal measure of vitriol.

I hate speaking about 527 ads because they are symbolic of fundamental problems with corporate influence, media and American politics in one fell swoop. A campaign advertising law that closed 527 rules permanently and forced candidates to apply their name to all TV, print, radio and Internet ads would ensure transparency in our political process. The 527 issue gets down to the fundamental question of money as free speech but candidates should preempt every 527 ad to meet the free speech standard and save their behinds.

I have always wondered what my city’s CW affiliate would look like if it had a news component. I am sure it would be filled with earnest discussions of politics, social issues and foreign affairs that would only be found in the cloisters of academics and intellectuals. In all honesty, I know that CW 18 in Milwaukee would have an hour long news cast between re-runs of Scrubs and Frasier that would make the morning zoo crew look like a Congressional committee. I may be able to find out what CW News at 10 will look like due to the Federal Communication Commission’s recent move toward increased cross-ownership.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has spearheaded a move to make the filters against media conglomeration nothing more than a failing symbol of American media integrity. Martin released new rules dictating exceptions to media mergers with a press release on November 13th. These rules would make presumptions to planned mergers more likely to succeed based on a looser interpretation of public interest. Most reports on Martin’s press release and the recent vote by the FCC have said that a limited number of markets would be affected based on these rules. Concerned media watchers like the Consumer Federation of America’s Mark Cooper feel that most markets will be influenced negatively by these rules.

I hope that my CW station does not have a local news component. I also hope that Journal Communications which runs the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel does not grow in its involvement in local media. The consolidation of media is dangerous because competition is vital in weeding out bad information. If a few companies own a majority of the media outlets, they can dictate the news that people rely on in their daily lives. I hate to be cynical about a hypothetical situation but I loath supporting media conglomeration by business owners with a political interest.

I hate the crass rhetoric of hawks in America who say that anyone who opposes the president’s war does not support the troops. It is patently absurd to say that I cannot hope that soldiers stay safe and sound overseas while the American government is pulling a Three Stooges act on foreign policy. I despise the war in Iraq but I want every soldier to avoid harm. With this statement in mind, it may be surprising to die-hard hawks that I support Freedom’s Watch in its fight with NBC.

NBC recently refused to run an ad by Freedom’s Watch during the holiday season asking people to continue supporting troops overseas. The reasoning behind NBC’s decision was part of a policy to avoid advertisements authorized by the network that deal with policy issues. There was also a problem of the URL of the Freedom’s Watch website being displayed on the ad (which makes no sense whatsoever as a reason for prohibition). I can understand the butt-covering that NBC executives are using in refusing the Freedom’s Watch ad. The problem is that the idea of money as free speech should actually be allowed to take its course in this case.

My support for the Freedom’s Watch ad is contingent on another ad being run at the same time. This ad would be funded by a group that opposes the war with the exact same amount of time and exposure as the Freedom’s Watch ad. NBC’s refusal to run the ad is certainly going to increase hits on the Freedom’s Watch site which may be more important to the organization’s leaders than running the actual advertisement. I think there is a real opportunity to initiate a standard of networks encouraging both sides to address major policy issues in America.

NBC needs to reconsider its decision as a way to surpass other networks in terms of encouraging discourse. This is an incredibly naïve attempt on my part to apply an unrealistic standard on cold, heartless networks who are more interested in getting shows like Kid Nation on the air than helping out the public. A debate over the politics of the war instead of the black/white debate between hawks who apparently LOVE the war and doves who HATE the troops can increase the viewership of NBC. I just hope that the writer’s strike continues so that NBC will start to consider new ways to draw in new viewers.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a much anticipated speech on Thursday regarding the role of his Mormonism in a potential Romney White House. Romney gave a well-orchestrated speech that did not delve into the specifics of the Mormon belief system while trying to reassure voters that his beliefs would not influence his decision making. There are a number of reasons his speech on Thursday will be totally irrelevant in the long run, not the least of which is the fact that Romney did not speak about his actual beliefs in any detail.

The fact that Romney did not go into the specifics of Mormonism is not as troubling as Romney’s judgment about his role in the Republican Party. Romney is not an overwhelming favorite nor is he a lone front runner in the primary season. The fact that Mitt Romney felt the need to give this speech presumes a stature in the Republican Party that does not necessarily exist. This speech will be long forgotten if Romney fails in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Romney’s speech did not reveal anything to the American public that they could not have gathered from the primary debates. Romney peppered in references about fighting terrorism and other right wing values that had nothing to do with Mormonism. This speech was just another stump speech without redeeming value for Romney’s campaign, the future of the Republican Party and the status of religion in politics. I only hope that Iowans and Granite State voters are smart enough not to be swayed by the media hype around this speech.

Romney’s JFK moment was just another campaign appearance in a bloated, money-driven campaign by a man who flip-flops more than anyone in politics. I don’t care how significant the media says this speech was; the election coverage hypes everything out of proportion to fill time until actual votes are cast.

I know that readers of this blog are probably sick of me talking about the primary debates. I also understand that I sound like a broken record when it comes to the failings of the televised debates for both parties. I am here today to say that I have heard the best debate in a long time about the issues and it involved no visual elements whatsoever. National Public Radio and Iowa Public Radio have done what a dozen plus debates have failed to do: get candidates to talk about issues.

There were parts of the Democratic debate on December 4th that were uncomfortable or imperfect. The question about buying Chinese toys for Christmas was a throwaway question and Christopher Dodd seemed to criticize and make light of the question all in one answer. I couldn’t possibly blame NPR for the failings of political dialogue; that blame is best left to commercial media, the parties and the American public. The NPR debate format may not have solved all of the problems with American politics but it gave a game plan for future debates to succeed.

NPR used a few questions from listeners and activists to guide the debate. The candidates present in Iowa for the debate were given room to roam when answering instead of being penned in by the fact that the debate host had to get through dozens of ridiculous questions. The debate was more civil even when Hillary Clinton and John Edwards got into a tiff about the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by Congress. I am no Luddite and I enjoy technology but my hope is that we have more radio debates in the future. It is time to stop messing around with all of these crazy debate formats and spend hours on public radio listening to candidates have substantive conversations about the real issues facing America. Down with YouTube, up with old time radio!

This week’s Sunday interview by The New York Times Magazine was with British author Ian McEwan. Every time I read an interview with an author, I always cringe about the incessant focus on the author’s greatest work. I think Deborah Solomon does a great job delving past McEwan’s work Atonement to speak about atheism and converting books into movies.

The discussion of McEwan’s pronounced atheism and the problem of writing characters with a strong sense of spirituality was particularly interesting. As someone who is a skeptic about religious fervor, I agreed with McEwan’s assertion that the conscience of the average atheist is as strong if not stronger than the believer. Some individuals use a deity as a crutch while others accept the inspired word of their God without any analysis. It takes hard work and effort to maintain agnosticism and atheism in a world where religion is seen as a prerequisite for any sort of authority.

Solomon digs further into the issue of religion later in the interview when talking about attacks on author Martin Amis regarding his criticisms of the Muslim faith. I agree in part with McEwan’s assertion that Amis and other authors need to be free to criticize religion in the same way that religious leaders can criticize secular humanists. The key for any critic of religion, politics or society is not to paint too broad a brush stroke about an entire group of people. I can guarantee that there are plenty of Muslims who disagree with the reactionary response in the Sudan to a teacher allowing students to name a teddy bear Mohammed.