Media Criticism

This post is part of a series I will run over the next few months covering elections throughout the country. I have decided to highlight a few races in the Milwaukee area that demonstrate one of the underlying threads in local politics throughout the country. The city attorney race and the county executive race in Milwaukee show the ongoing tension between expanding government roles and deferring to other offices.

I am not sure the prominence of city attorneys in other communities but Milwaukee’s city attorney has been overlooked in recent years. The challenger to incumbent Grant Langley is state representative Pedro Colon who wants to expand the attorney’s office to fight Milwaukee’s growing crime problem. Langley has countered that the office has a limited mandate for crime fighting and wants to streamline the department with another term. Colon has stepped up his campaign beyond the bounds of handshakes and door knocking with a brief ad showing in the Milwaukee television market. I think that the race will be close though the tide of change in Milwaukee politics may sweep Colon over the edge due to the low profile of the office.

The hotly contested county executive office in Milwaukee features state senator Lena Taylor and incumbent Scott Walker. The main consideration in this race is the county’s budget problems including decreased funding for parks and the county bus system. Lena Taylor has hit Walker on his poor leadership of Milwaukee County while Walker has countered that Taylor is unfamiliar with the intricacies of running a county budget. There is a potential problem for voters who think that Walker will run for governor in 2010 and leave the county high and dry. I think Walker will likely win the county executive’s race though Taylor is a rising star in the state’s Democratic Party.

I will speak about the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, the state’s Congressional races and other tight contests around the country in upcoming weeks. I invite my readers to submit their suggestions for races they would like covered.

I’ve been reading the libertarian magazine Reason a lot recently. I pick out plenty of magazines every month that don’t fit exactly with my political views though I don’t know that there are any publications that hit every one of my points. Reason does a good job of covering the entirety of American politics with a libertarian lens. This month’s Reason had an interesting interview between Bill Kauffman and former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) president Carl Oglesby.

This interview started with Kauffman asking Oglesby about his rise to a position of prominence in SDS as well as the nature of leftist politics in the 1960s. Reason interviewed Oglesby for several reasons including his libertarian stances and his connection to a college student named Hillary Rodham. The interview moved smoothly until Mr. Kauffman asked the question, “Had Kennedy not been shot, do the ‘60s and the New Left Happen?�?

Mr. Oglesby is an intelligent man and a symbol of grassroots growth in adverse political environments. His response was telling of the mythology surrounding John F. Kennedy and the promise of New Frontier politics. Oglesby said that Kennedy’s assassination led to a diminished effort put into civil rights as well as an escalation of involvement in Vietnam. I understand that Oglesby lived during this time but it is important to look at both contentions from a historic perspective.

Kennedy’s rhetoric about civil rights was lukewarm due to the large contingent of Southerners in the party as well as the desire to consolidate power after a close election in 1960. America’s involvement in Vietnam goes back to the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and the effort to prop up Ngo Dinh Diem until his death in 1963. My greatest fear is that we will search for politicians who fit into the mystique of John F. Kennedy without examining their qualifications. It seems that even Carl Oglesby was enraptured with the glow surrounding Kennedy without considering the pragmatism of the entire Kennedy family.

Hello all,
I am spending the weekend in Louisville, Kentucky so there won’t be any posts until Tuesday, March 18. I will be back with two posts a day from Tuesday through Friday to catch up on some of the major issues in media, politics and culture. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

Nick

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.

I love the idea that Rolling Stone feels it has the political clout to sway an election before the Democratic primaries are done. I complimented Matt Taibbi about his solid reporting on the political scene but I would hope that Mr. Taibbi told the editors of the magazine that most of the primaries are over. I don’t think Rolling Stone has become a Pennsylvania publication and it doesn’t seem likely that this endorsement will do well in places like Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. I am sure other readers of the magazine are pondering why a rock magazine is bothering with this endorsement during the primary process.

I know that Rolling Stone waited in the past to throw its hat into the ring for Democratic candidates (there are few doubts about their political affiliations). Al Gore and John Kerry got the magazine’s blessing well into the general election season. The primaries are protracted due to the impressive qualifications of Senators Obama and Clinton but I am sure there are plenty of other issues that the magazine could cover. Rolling Stone could just put Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones (the center of their musical universe) on the cover while waiting for the final field to emerge.

The larger issue with Rolling Stone’s recent endorsement is the decreasing impact of endorsements at large. The magazine has always been a supporter of liberal ideas while bucking the mainstream Democratic establishment in many articles. I have never run across a conservative music magazine that offers an endorsement of Republican candidates. There are many problems with endorsements including the lack of credibility by supportive politicians, business owners and activists. Rolling Stone just doesn’t have the political clout that it wants to have. The editors should continue to uncover problems in American politics sandwiched between flashy pictures of Amy Winehouse and the latest interview with the guy from Maroon 5. A music magazine with a few articles on politics will never gain credibility with activists in the same way that Roll Call will never be read by hipsters looking for CD reviews.

I am going to spend this week discussing the blurring of media, politics and music in America. This discussion will span different periods because there are deeper stories than the Toby Keith-Dixie Chicks debate after 9/11. This post will revolve around the “conservatism�? of Frank Zappa, the prolific composer and musician.

I need to start by saying that I am not a huge fan of Zappa’s music especially his solo work after the Mothers of Invention disbanded. I see virtues in a lot of his work though the experimental nature of his 50-plus albums means that there are hits and duds for every music fan. My right to like or dislike Zappa’s music was something the artist fought for during his career.

Everyone should check out Zappa’s debates with blowhards like Robert Novak in an episode of Crossfire in the midst of the music censorship scandals of the mid-1980s. Frank Zappa was concerned about censoring music even though the music he was defending (Van Halen, Prince) may not have figured prominently in his musical tastes. His belief in freedom of speech seemed to pit him against fellow conservatives who were concerned about moralizing speech instead of tolerating the beliefs of others.

Frank Zappa’s conservatism was truer than the ideological beliefs of Dennis Hastert (good bye, Denny), Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh combined. Modern conservatism is rife with morality and an obscene defense of capitalism’s worst aspects. Zappa’s conservatism is libertarianism which is the elimination of government influence in every aspect of American life. This libertarianism existed without a moral bent because Zappa did not want sexuality and musical tastes dictated by the government. Modern-day conservatives and libertarians should realize that Frank Zappa is an example of pure belief in an idea. I cannot abide by the claims of parties to a higher ground because there is no purity in political ideology. Frank Zappa may not have made my favorite music but his political beliefs were admirable in a society based on labels, political or musical.

The last portion of this week’s coverage of foreign media takes us to Australia. The independent website Crikey bridges the gap between stuffy journalism and the uncertainty of the blogosphere. I have read some of the free entries offered through Crikey’s website and think that the newspaper demonstrates the virtues and problems inherent in expanding independent media.

An entry about former Prime Minister and lieutenant of George W. Bush’s Team America John Howard shows the benefits of independent media. The title picture shows Howard receiving a glass bowl while grinning ear to ear. Bernard Keane lays out Howard’s tenuous conservatism and reactionary approach to politics thoroughly in the article. The writer’s criticism of Howard fleeing to the United States to gather among cloistered conservatives is a spot-on analysis of a discredited leader without a job. I enjoy the fact that Keane and other Crikey writers use their freedoms to express disgust at the hypocricies within their native political system.

Several problems with Crikey make wholesale belief in its journalist integrity difficult to achieve. Australia does not have an explicit constitutional or legal provision for freedom of speech and expression. The nation’s media relies on provincial and national judicial decisions to guide limitations on free speech. Australia has shifted away from Howard’s conservatism toward moderation that means that censorship may not be looming. It is not difficult to imagine, however, that a situation could arise where the judiciary, executive and legislative branches embrace reactionary control over the media.

I also think that the use of former political insiders as columnists can be troublesome. Writers like Christian Kerr provide invaluable insight into the inner workings of Australian government with an underlying agenda. This agenda may manifest due to frustration with party platforms, personal problems with particular leaders as well as future political ambitions. I would not say that Christian Kerr consciously thinks about his personal career when writing but writers often fail to recognize their own biases and perspectives. These problems with insider information are not unique to Crikey but readers in Australia should be skeptical about taking everything on the website for granted.

The Irish Independent is one holding of a multinational media conglomerate called Independent News and Media PLC. The term “Independent�? is thrown around quite a bit between Ireland’s largest publication and a company with more than 150 holdings throughout the world. The title of the Irish Independent would be changed to The New York Post: Dublin Edition by media observers who like to apply black-or-white dichotomies to journalism.

There are salient points made in the Irish Independent beneath the veneer of tabloid formatting and sections on entertainment and sports. Columnist Kevin Meyers is one shining beacon in the Irish newspaper’s glossy pages. His recent diatribe against tribunals into corruption in Irish politics show the sophistication of thought in the newspaper’s editorial department. Meyers states that there are many examples in his own life of Irish corruption that are fairly typical of life throughout the nation. His opening sentence states that if you “sink a spade into any part of Kansas, and you will find dirt.�? The broad focus of tribunals, the frustration of the general public and the dejection at the state of affairs in Irish religion and politics could be applied in most countries.

I think that media writers, journalists and casual observers need to look beneath the surface when thinking about conglomerates. Editorial departments don’t want to have their papers deluged with advertisements, “fluff�? stories and reprints from international news services. Journalists and editors want to speak about the issues instead of the “sexy�? issues of the day (in the United States, this would mix traditional sexiness with hot button issues). I spoke about Milena Gabanelli from Italy’s RAI earlier in the week regarding journalistic bravery. Kevin Meyers and other writers at the Irish Independent need to exercise greater control of other sections of the newspaper to expose the entirety of Irish culture to sunlight and thoughtful analysis. The Independent News and Media PLC may seem quaint compared to Fox News Corp and other international conglomerates but further growth could cast the pall of mediocrity over places like Ireland.

The third installment of my foreign press coverage this week takes on Canada’s preeminent foreign policy journal Embassy. This weekly publication covers international affairs from the perspective of legislators and experts on Canadian policy in a decidely non-partisan fashion. I reviewed the last few editions of Embassy to find samples that demonstrate this publication’s strong record of analysis.

An article in the February 27th edition discussed a statement by the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister that applauded Pakistan’s recent elections. The editors of Embassy take apart Maxime Bernier’s statement because of the contentious nature of Canadian politics in recent years. The notable exception to the frequent spats between the Liberals and Conservatives is a recent turn toward bipartisanship on the Afghanistan mission. I like how Embassy discusses the mechanics of debate established in Canadian national politics as well as the role of both parties in contributing to a poisoned dialogue that acts as a bad example for nations like Pakistan.

The main reason why I enjoy Embassy over coverage in Canada’s main newspapers is the off-the-wall topics covered in the editorial section. Angelo Persichilli’s editorial on the restrictions on Italian-Canadians running for positions in Italy’s virtual parliament. I remember reading about this unique method of representation months ago but I did not realize that Canada’s national government was playing such a mixed role in another nation’s elections. Persichilli’s advocacy for free campaigning by Canadians running for Italy’s parliament is one example of the unique ideas promoted in Embassy.

I know that there are corollaries to Embassy in the United States including Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs and Wilson Quarterly. The problem is that these publications aren’t released on a weekly basis. There is a gaping hole for a weekly newspaper dealing exclusively with foreign policy in this country. I would advocate for a daily paper on this order but I know that this request would be a bit too much.

I mentioned state-run media briefly in Monday’s post about Italian media and RAI. The same issue of Monocle where I learned about Milena Gabanelli runs an interview with Washington D.C. bureau chief Roselena Ramirez from Venezuela’s state-run TV station TeleSUR. Ramirez makes a valiant effort to defend her country’s media while showing journalist integrity but falls short for a fundamental reason.

Luke Crisell asked Ramirez whether Americans felt that Hugo Chavez was involved directly in operations at TeleSUR. Ramirez was understandably defensive in responding to this question by offering an anecdote. A panel of media veterans who were reviewing TeleSUR’s credentials asked a similar question. Ramirez responded by throwing back the question to reporters who work for ABC which is owned by multi-national company Disney. The notion of a billion-dollar company like Disney holding the same sway as a national leader may sound right in an impassioned defense of media integrity but I am not convinced.

State-run media outlets like RAI and TeleSUR are outlets for narcissism, egotism and corruption. There is no system in the world where a lack of competition is better than a profuse amount of competition. Journalism and reporting need to be exposed to competing viewpoints without interference from the figures being critiqued on a daily basis. Hugo Chavez uses the media as his bully pulpit to the world which means that he is receiving some benefits for being the head of state (the same state that is providing a large amount of funding for TeleSUR).

One problem that arises from an all-or-nothing approach to government funding of media outlets is the main alternative. We experience this alternative on a daily basis when we watch CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. These cable outlets are run by corporations which deluge the airwaves with advertisements to make something as unprofitable as journalism palatable for investors. Every nation needs a fusion approach to media funding which includes a substantial stake taken by the public. There can be a place for corporate media, public media and state media as long as each is present in a society. An imbalance in any direction (even toward public media) means that there is a tyranny of perspective.