I don't know what is worse. The fact that we must now pay for tire air for our gas-guzzling, inefficient automobiles...or that I have actually been PAYING for said air. I feel such the fool. Today that ended. I went to AutoZone and purchased a small, $16 air compressor. Humph. Now I can have all the air I want...even on the road. It will only take 16 tire inflations to make this little baby start paying for itself in free air. A wise investment has been made...may I suggest you do the same?
Free air. What a concept. We breathe it. We use it to inflate tires. Politicians abuse it. Land of the free. Where apparently fear is all the rage and just as "free" as the air.
Why are so many people so afraid of change? Specifically, change related to positive environmental changes? Yes, I just watched An Inconvenient Truth (finally), and have come to the realization that the only people who find it "preachy" must be those who are insanely resistant to its message. The facts and science presented in the movie are all in the public domain for our perusal...so why are so many people angry at the suggestion that perhaps we are decadent, inefficient, selfish bastards who might want to make a few minor changes for our and everyone's benefit?
Political will. Gore mentions this more than once. And I distinctly recall this phrase coming out of my own mouth a couple weeks ago when explaining the disaster that is Social Security to my students...who had no idea how SS worked OR why it is a problem. After I gave the brief overview, they were outraged...and now feel as helpless as I do, I'm sure. Back to the fear of the environment.
At the risk of devolving into a right-left blame game dichotomy, I will say that most of the accusations of "hoax" and "bullshit" are coming from the political conservative camp. Coincidence? No, because true conservatives are also capitalists...and the greatest myth surrounding positive environmental change is the mythical (and highly unlikely) destruction of business and the economy as we now know it. Business and the economy would just change. Change with different businesses, entrepreneurial opportunities, and yes, even investment opportunities. (And how about that all-powerful morality card? Is it MORAL to wantonly destroy a finite resource, like the earth?! What WOULD Jesus do? An exceedingly uncomfortable question, I'm sure.) The question, what if the destruction of the economy doesn't happen, is neither politic nor comfortable for many conservatives to answer. I'm thinking specifically of my dad and uncle and others I know who are attached at the hip to rhetorical vitriol of people like the illustrious racist, Rush Limbaugh. They say China spews more pollutants than us...which a) is not true and b) does not negate OUR responsibility. Since when does America wait for freakin' China to do something before we do? Good grief.
I like trees. I like rivers and oceans. I don't like ice. But I must say that the ice was the most compelling and eye-opening element of Gore's argument. Hard to argue with dozens of pictures of ice shelves and glaciers that are no longer there because they MELTED. Oh, this is so frustrating! How could anyone look at those pictures and say, "didn't happen," or "they'll come back," or "don't take away my SUV!" Grrrrr.
When WILL there be political will to stop fearing the environment? When our food supply starts diminishing? When Greenland partially melts for good and Key West is under water? I just don't understand what is so terrifying about a) change and b) helping the environment stay healthy. Why is this such a fearful task? Do corporate execs dislike their green, manicured lawns? Do politicians find trees and wildlife offensive? Do none of them like to breathe?
Money. The people at the top of the world's food chain have the most money and will die last, due to their vast personal resources...which is why they don't give a shit what happens to the rest of us. Least of all to the poorest elements of society...or, say, a forest. Or a species of animal or insect.
Think of it this way. If the environmental scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right, and we are headed for tragedy AND our government and corporations decide to act and make some small necessary changes, thus reducing our "carbon footprint," what will it cost? The result will be one of two options: things will stay the same or things will improve. On the other hand, if the scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right and we do nothing, things will either stay the same or get incredibly worse. Personally, I'd prefer the first option. But then, we do live in a country where the politicians seem to think that having the largest number of the most powerful nuclear weapons will somehow protect us from absolute destruction.
I admit I don't know what the answer is. I only know that it is becoming incredibly frustrating to be well-educated, well-read, well-studied...and realize there's not a damn thing I can do. If the oceans are going to heat up, if the storms will continue growing in size and strength, if the bees die off and reduce pollination worldwide...despite how adamantly I talk about it, encourage others to think about it, and vote for people who care about it...there is actually nothing I can do unless those in power deign to act.
Fear is as free as the air and just as easy to swallow. The hard thing is to close your mouth, open your eyes, ears, and brain, and realize that one of these is poison.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Freedom of the press = Illusion
After watching Idiocracy last night, I found myself craving a book. If you don't know the movie, it essentially argues that at our current rate of mindless television consumption, we will become raving idiots incapable of the most average and common sense decisions in about 500 years. Being a fan of TV, I found this supposition uncomfortable...but not wholly impossible. I also read. But how many people do you know who watch some TV and read a great deal? My guess would be...not many. Most people get all of their information, news, opinions, and data from the tube. People swallow what they're told without ever questioning the source...or asking, what's missing?
Which leads me to the freedom of the press. One of our valuable and guaranteed freedoms a la the First Amendment. But is the press still the fourth estate? Does the press still have the power to expose cheats, frauds, and bad guys? More importantly...if they do have the power...do they ever use it?
Watching the development of broadcast, internet, and print press for the past 20 years, and having first hand experience in print, leads me to some uncomfortable conclusions.
The press is no longer the powerful fourth estate of checks and balances on the "people in power." Why? Because they are controlled by huge multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations that, directly or indirectly, make it known what is safe to report on and what is not. Think about it. Who owns CNN? Who owns Fox News? Who owns the New York Times? The Washington Post? ABC and the other networks?
This is not the era of the mom-and-pop owned network. Furthermore, think about how these operations make money. Advertising. And WHO is advertising? Giant, multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations. Proctor and Gamble. Ford. Disney. Now put the two together. Essentially, corporation A who owns the network is making millions of dollars off of corporation B, who advertises their products on corporation A's network. What do you think would happen if an enterprising reporter had the gall to discover and then report on some nefariousness going on at corporation B? (Think, Enron.) Enron was not a pariah, an enigma of the corporate structure of our capitalist society. People who run these corporations are ALWAYS looking to cut corners and to make an extra buck. If you've never worked at a corporation, you're probably thinking, yeah right. Either trust me, go investigate it yourself, or work for a big corporation for awhile..say in the accounting department...and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Back to the question. Enterprising reporter uncovers massive nefariousness...reports on it without getting the approval of the editors and higher-ups (ie, the people with the advertising purse strings). What do you suppose would happen?
Allow me to interject a story here that may answer this question. When I was 25, I wrote a column of my own design called Renter Know-How for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Into the second year, it was becoming quite popular in a dead section of the paper, my editors were happy, readers felt like someone was on their side (in rental situations - I almost always took the renter's side in any landlord-renter dispute), and I was enjoying the regular gig of being an opinion columnist. One day, I got a letter from an angry and frightened woman - her mother was being evicted without the legal time limit notice or a legitimate reason. I called her up and got her story. One of the great benefits of my column was this ability to share amazing stories with the public...I was not wearing my "journalist" hat - this was my opinion column, so the same rules did not apply - related to "balance" (which is a farce half the time anyway). I sent the column in, exposing this poor woman's story and opining on the power of landlords.
My editor liked the column and ran it without changing anything. The very week it appeared, I got an email from that same editor saying I had to run an apology. Because the advertiser (the evicting property management) was threatening to pull their ads from the real estate section...because I didn't get their side of the story. Had I been wearing my "journalist" hat, full rules of balance apply and I absolutely should have gotten their side of the story. But I wasn't wearing that hat...and the editor knew it.
I refused, in my youthful optimism, I believed truth was more important than money.
That was my wake-up call. In the press, money trumps the truth. The editor ran a small apology tagging my next column (putting words in my mouth) and my column was summarily canceled. The advertiser won because money trumps the truth.
If that sort of thing happens in a half-million circulation daily paper in a mid-sized city, I guarantee it happens on a much larger scale at larger news outlets all over the world. Which means...if money trumps the truth, we the people are NOT getting the stories we should be getting. Because the purse-string folks are controlling WHAT we hear and read. Therefore, I don't trust anything I see on TV or in print - I'm always asking, what are they leaving out? What stories are getting buried because it might hurt some advertiser and hence, hurt the press outlet's bottom financial line?
Is this freedom of the press? In a word, no. How far off are we, then, from the disgusting, garbage-filled, world of stupidity presented in Idiocracy?
Which leads me to the freedom of the press. One of our valuable and guaranteed freedoms a la the First Amendment. But is the press still the fourth estate? Does the press still have the power to expose cheats, frauds, and bad guys? More importantly...if they do have the power...do they ever use it?
Watching the development of broadcast, internet, and print press for the past 20 years, and having first hand experience in print, leads me to some uncomfortable conclusions.
The press is no longer the powerful fourth estate of checks and balances on the "people in power." Why? Because they are controlled by huge multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations that, directly or indirectly, make it known what is safe to report on and what is not. Think about it. Who owns CNN? Who owns Fox News? Who owns the New York Times? The Washington Post? ABC and the other networks?
This is not the era of the mom-and-pop owned network. Furthermore, think about how these operations make money. Advertising. And WHO is advertising? Giant, multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations. Proctor and Gamble. Ford. Disney. Now put the two together. Essentially, corporation A who owns the network is making millions of dollars off of corporation B, who advertises their products on corporation A's network. What do you think would happen if an enterprising reporter had the gall to discover and then report on some nefariousness going on at corporation B? (Think, Enron.) Enron was not a pariah, an enigma of the corporate structure of our capitalist society. People who run these corporations are ALWAYS looking to cut corners and to make an extra buck. If you've never worked at a corporation, you're probably thinking, yeah right. Either trust me, go investigate it yourself, or work for a big corporation for awhile..say in the accounting department...and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Back to the question. Enterprising reporter uncovers massive nefariousness...reports on it without getting the approval of the editors and higher-ups (ie, the people with the advertising purse strings). What do you suppose would happen?
Allow me to interject a story here that may answer this question. When I was 25, I wrote a column of my own design called Renter Know-How for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Into the second year, it was becoming quite popular in a dead section of the paper, my editors were happy, readers felt like someone was on their side (in rental situations - I almost always took the renter's side in any landlord-renter dispute), and I was enjoying the regular gig of being an opinion columnist. One day, I got a letter from an angry and frightened woman - her mother was being evicted without the legal time limit notice or a legitimate reason. I called her up and got her story. One of the great benefits of my column was this ability to share amazing stories with the public...I was not wearing my "journalist" hat - this was my opinion column, so the same rules did not apply - related to "balance" (which is a farce half the time anyway). I sent the column in, exposing this poor woman's story and opining on the power of landlords.
My editor liked the column and ran it without changing anything. The very week it appeared, I got an email from that same editor saying I had to run an apology. Because the advertiser (the evicting property management) was threatening to pull their ads from the real estate section...because I didn't get their side of the story. Had I been wearing my "journalist" hat, full rules of balance apply and I absolutely should have gotten their side of the story. But I wasn't wearing that hat...and the editor knew it.
I refused, in my youthful optimism, I believed truth was more important than money.
That was my wake-up call. In the press, money trumps the truth. The editor ran a small apology tagging my next column (putting words in my mouth) and my column was summarily canceled. The advertiser won because money trumps the truth.
If that sort of thing happens in a half-million circulation daily paper in a mid-sized city, I guarantee it happens on a much larger scale at larger news outlets all over the world. Which means...if money trumps the truth, we the people are NOT getting the stories we should be getting. Because the purse-string folks are controlling WHAT we hear and read. Therefore, I don't trust anything I see on TV or in print - I'm always asking, what are they leaving out? What stories are getting buried because it might hurt some advertiser and hence, hurt the press outlet's bottom financial line?
Is this freedom of the press? In a word, no. How far off are we, then, from the disgusting, garbage-filled, world of stupidity presented in Idiocracy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)