Wrong Target, Wrong Strategy

In your closing paragraph you say:

Most importantly, we will promote the idea that college students must create the ethos for the world that they live in and college students and Americans can do that by fighting the corporatization, consolidation, and crisis in journalism by fighting for a vision of a world that truly functions in a democratic manner and truly promotes the tradition of civics independent thinking that are etched in the very essence of our nation’s history.

I must confess that this massively long, run-on 73 word sentence leaves me syntactically confused. (Are college students a subset of Americans or are College students and Americans two different populations?). Beyond that, the ambiguity of the italicized terms makes what you are “fighting,” difficult for me to understand.

You seem to imply that most adult Americans have familiarity with books such as, Tragedy & Farce. In other articles, you refer to “The Chicago School,” and the views of economist, Milton Friedman. You speak with great respect for the works of Noam Chomsky. You Apparently hold the belief that the vast majority of American adults have the same familiarity with these institutions and people as do you. When I tell you that only a small minority of adults have ever heard of these people or organizations, confirm it, if you doubt me, by going to all of the studies of general knowledge which are readily available. Or, Just for fun, watch Jay Leno as he does his occasional “Jay Walking” interviews. That’s a good sample of the adult American knowledge base.

If I am misinterpreting the thrust of this article, please tell me. While discussing the failure of your school paper to cover the Winter Soldier event, this failure can be generalized as your discontent with the failure of MSM to provide accurate reporting of events or people you consider important. Whether print or electronic media, all whose livelihood is dependent on advertising readers, viewers, listeners, and advertisers would certainly agree they find themselves to be in crisis. Only thing is, it is a safe bet that their crisis and yours are miles apart.

For any medium whose income depends on subscribers, viewers, listeners or advertisers, they are going to give coverage to that which will attract their market. Period. End of  discussion. Dead bodies, fires, explosions, floods, car chases, and celebrity sex and drug scandals evoke far more interest and thus, money, then any political cause you can find. While political campaign news is dominant, it comes as no surprise that the focus is on the battle, with issues getting next to no coverage.

As I say in my recent article, “Protests don’t work,” I take the position that the activist community has picked the wrong target. It isn’t the MSM, it isn’t even the electorate. Instead, in the case of ending the war, it’s only one person – The President of the United States. Nothing is going to change the actions of the current incumbent. Whoever is inaugurated next January must be convinced not only that our military presence should be ended, but that the process employed to do so, can be accomplished in the midst of leaving a region still volatile and threatening to the security of this country. Instead of taking to the streets, I suggest that those demanding this action would be better served by addressing that plan.

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 25 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 97 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 4:24:59 PM
 

Right Target, Right Strategy

If you’ve followed the trends of media consolidation in this country or the current crisis in journalism in America (through books like Tragedy & Farce by Nichols and McChesney), than you won’t be surprised by the fact that Columbia College’s newspaper and radio station is atrociously bad.

Nowhere there do I suggest that most adults have read Tragedy & Farce. I definitely do not think that to be the case. It's unfortunate because if all adults were inclined to read a book like Nichols's & McChesney's book on America's crisis in journalism many of America's problems would begin to be solved. That said, your general knowledge and Jay Leno citation is irrelevant.

If I am misinterpreting the thrust of this article, please tell me. While discussing the failure of your school paper to cover the Winter Soldier event, this failure can be generalized as your discontent with the failure of MSM to provide accurate reporting of events or people you consider important. Whether print or electronic media, all whose livelihood is dependent on advertising readers, viewers, listeners, and advertisers would certainly agree they find themselves to be in crisis. Only thing is, it is a safe bet that their crisis and yours are miles apart.

I think you are misinterpreting. I do not understand what you are saying here nor think it shows any understanding of what I was saying in regards to my Winter Soldier event. The point I was trying to make was that instead of checking a student's press release the newspaper went for people in the administration---the people who run student organization offices for student organizations---and asked them what the event was going to be so they could "cover" it. By doing that, they listed the event wrong.

For any medium whose income depends on subscribers, viewers, listeners or advertisers, they are going to give coverage to that which will attract their market. Period. End of discussion. Dead bodies, fires, explosions, floods, car chases, and celebrity sex and drug scandals evoke far more interest and thus, money, then any political cause you can find. While political campaign news is dominant, it comes as no surprise that the focus is on the battle, with issues getting next to no coverage.

You go ahead and live and die in a world where media functions like that. I am not settling for that kind of putrid journalism. This is America where James Madison established a tradition of freedom of the press. We deserve better and should fight for better. To say that because things are the way they are means we should not fight for improvements is wrong.

I do not know if that is in fact what you are doing but I gather from the way you have argued that this is the stance you take on the media.

As I say in my recent article, “Protests don’t work,” I take the position that the activist community has picked the wrong target. It isn’t the MSM, it isn’t even the electorate. Instead, in the case of ending the war, it’s only one person – The President of the United States. Nothing is going to change the actions of the current incumbent. Whoever is inaugurated next January must be convinced not only that our military presence should be ended, but that the process employed to do so, can be accomplished in the midst of leaving a region still volatile and threatening to the security of this country. Instead of taking to the streets, I suggest that those demanding this action would be better served by addressing that plan.

Well, I feel you are making a huge oversimplification. But, if we want to use this logic, let's consider that the way to solve things is putting pressure on the next president.

Where is the effort to pit Obama against Hillary or vice versa? Why aren't people, at a time when delegates are precious to each of these candidates, saying that they will vote Hillary over Obama if she adopts an immediate withdrawal strategy and agrees to reparations for Iraqis and benefits for all veterans who have come home (basically IVAW's demands) or vice versa?

Again in our nation's history, we see people settling for the lesser of two evils and settling for the lesser of two evils of the Democratic candidates that have run for the Democratic nomination. This is unacceptable after seven years of a presidency where violating the rule of law has become routine. After Bush the Recidivist War Criminal, we the people have to push candidates to support the change we've been craving these past seven years. 

Continuing with your logic, if we aren't going to pit the two candidates against each other so that we can get a better Iraq withdrawal plan, than the people must get behind a third party or Independent candidate and go out and fight for him or her ferociously so that he or she is polling enough percentage points to force the Democratic candidates to adopt a more progressive message that will not lead to a similar election which reminds Americans of Kerry's or Gore's poor performance in 2004 and 2000.

But back to media reform because that's what this article is about (and if we go off talking about this election, I will ignore it because I wrote this with the intent of promoting discussion on how to reform media, which unfortunately, Sherwin, you killed with your negative and pessimistic comment.)

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 5:15:17 PM
 

Round 2

I must first tell you, that your recognition of my power to end discussion of media reform, (with my “negative and pessimistic comment,”) comes as a great surprise to me! I had no idea you regard me as such an influential figure on the behavior of the OEN Membership.

Before proceeding with my response to your comment, I would like to ask for clarification of the following statement:

“… we are a group that will seek to acknowledge the simple fact that all media reform begins with taking action to preserve the Internet now before the corporations do any more damage to it than they have done already. we are a group that will seek to acknowledge the simple fact that all media reform begins with taking action to preserve the Internet now before the corporations do any more damage to it than they have done already.”

I must confess that this is the first time I have heard of any corporation having somehow damaged the internet, and I would appreciate any specific instances you can cite, which has caused you to have this concern. Are you perhaps referring to the growing spam problem? Then again, you might be referring to the introduction of various flavors of malware. In either case, I know of no publicly held corporation accused of being involved in perpetrating either of these admittedly serious problems, with which all Internet users must contend.

In your comments, and those that I have received in my article, “Protests Don’t Work,” readers ask for a discussion of how MSM outlets can be improved in the accuracy and quality of their reporting and editorial content. In principle, the answer is readily apparent. Since every print, radio, Television, and, for that matter, every for-profit internet publication, exists for the purpose of making money, there is a path to reform. It can be achieved by ending participation of the audience, until the quality is raised to the standards demanded by them. Ultimately, revenue is determined by size of audience, which determines income derived from advertisers and/or subscriptions.

It comes as no surprise that much, if not all, of the “traditional” media are fighting for survival. From the once giants of the daily newspaper conglomerates, to the broadcast and cable TV networks, all are struggling for survival against the power of the Internet. Literally every function, once the purview of the MSM, is now matched or surpassed by this free communication modality.

Of course, one question to be asked is whether reforming traditional media is worth the effort, in view of some studies suggesting that movement to the Internet is accelerating. As one example, here is a 2006 study of demographics of the most watched cable news and opinion shows. Similar studies of other media may suggest that the exodus to the Net should determine where energy and resources might best be directed.

If efforts to reform are directed to traditional media, the mechanism to be employed is communication with editors, commentators, or show executives. Not only is this an opportunity to influence the work of these individuals, but in some instances such communications can possibly affect the attitudes and predispositions of the audience, as well. Even more powerful, but harder to achieve, is to be invited as a guest on a television show, or as a guest op-ed editor in a print publication. Since most of those in the activist movement are not recognized as experts, such invitations can only be achieved through outstanding writing, or perhaps, production of a viral video product.

In closing, let me refer to a question you raised in your comment:

“Why aren't people, at a time when delegates are precious to each of these candidates, saying that they will vote Hillary over Obama if she adopts an immediate withdrawal strategy and agrees to reparations for Iraqis and benefits for all veterans who have come home (basically IVAW's demands) or vice versa?”

My response to this is, that people, in general, set priorities for themselves, which they perceive to be in their own self-interest. If I am correct, it follows that, for the majority of Americans, the political campaign is, at most, a spectator sport. Yes, between one and two thirds will vote for the candidate that has been most successful in marketing to them. Yet, before and after, most will go on with their lives, largely uninterested and unaffected by what goes on in Washington or their State Capitol. When major events occur, affecting their lives, (like 9/11 or Katrina), they become involved, and if personally unaffected, return to life, as before.

You, I am sure, have been introduced to Sir Isaac Newton’s Three Laws of Motion. Developed in the late 17th century, they have withstood the test of time, remaining accepted to this day. The First Law states:

“A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless a net force acts upon it.”

That law applies to human behavior as much as it does to non-living objects. Even when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary, you, me, and everyone else, cling to our own attitudes and beliefs. It takes massive external force to convince us to change our core beliefs, values and behavior.

There is a line in your biographic statement which perfectly illustrates this assertion:

“…and while some will tell him what can be done, he is only concerned about what should be done.”

I feel confident that others beside me, many of whom you may both like and respect, have, in one form or another, suggested that, if you continue maintain this view, you are far more likely to suffer defeat and disappointment, than success. Yet, you staunchly maintain this view, and make it one of your primary tools, as you seek to achieve your goals.

So, my question to you is simply this: After being confronted by many holding beliefs opposing your own, you do not even consider surrendering those beliefs. Therefore, by what process do you then believe you can be successful in changing the beliefs of others, just as strongly held as your own?

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 25 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 97 comments) on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 8:01:19 PM
 

I Seriously Question The Way You Approach

My beliefs, values, and stances on issues.

It would seem that if I hold a stance that many others do not (or a value or belief), then I am somehow supposed to surrender it. Even if I can justify it, if I am perceived to be in the minority by you, there exists no reason for me to maintain my views or opinions.

As for the Internet issues concerning corporations, see below. These will get you started:

1

2 

3

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 8:39:03 PM
 

You are partly wrong, and very Right!

You have misinterpreted my point relating to your attitudes, values, and beliefs. While I believe that, in holding these values, you will have difficulty in achieving your goals, I am the last person in the world to tell you what your personal beliefs should be. That is your own personal and private business. What I suggested in my closing statement is, that, just as you are, and will continue to be resistant to changing those beliefs, so too is everyone else.

Your action goals (broadly, reshaping the world to be the kind of place you envision), require changing the beliefs of many, many others. The question I posed was simply this. If your values are resistant to change, what convinces you that you will have greater success in changing the values of others?

My own personal take on the values which must be changed, for your goals to come to fruition, relate to the apathy and appalling ignorance of a huge percentage of Americans. Along with this is a pronounced tendency to react to emotion-generating symbolism, rather than fact, and reasoned argument. This is an America, vastly changed from the America I knew at your age, in 1955. The factors which have brought about this change are far too many to enumerate here. Yet of one thing I am certain. It took us a half century to get to this point, and that bell is not going to be quickly un-rung.

With respect to your fears of corporate exploitation of the Internet, an apology is due to you. I had completely forgotten the issue of Net Neutrality, which is rather strange in view of the fact that from1998 to 2003 I was employed by one of the larger Internet Service Providers, doing workforce analysis and planning. No longer an employee, and just a consumer, it is easy to forget the critical issues facing an industry. Rather than making your blanket charge, I think you would have made a far more powerful argument for your position, had you provided these cites in the body of the article.

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 25 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 97 comments) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 9:27:22 AM