"Media in an Anxious Democracy"
Sydney M. Williams
Thought of the Day
“Media in an Anxious Democracy”
January 30, 2017
“Elections
belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they choose to turn their back on
the fire
and burn their behinds, they will just
have to sit on the blisters.”
Abraham
Lincoln
“Let us not seek
to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and
hatred.”
Martin
Luther King, Jr.
Spending five days in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, as we
returned from Florida, was a reminder that partisanship, as bad as it is today,
was far worse 156 years ago. But we cannot be complacent. Democracies are
fragile; free people depend on the rule of law and adherence to civil behavior.
While it was their right, sixty-eight Congressmen sitting out Mr. Trump’s
inauguration did not help unify a nation after a fractious, but decisive
election. Women marchers wearing pussyhats and using profanity lacked decorum.
For Madonna to use the “f” word on CNN and to say that she’s “…thought an awful lot about blowing up the
White House” was offensive and reckless. For protesters to hang Trump in effigy and to
loot stores and burn cars was criminal. Civil disobedience is a right of free
people, but these actions showed disrespect and did little to bind the wounds
of an anxious nation. How have we gotten to this place?
There are multiple answers, but no easy ones. One thing, however, that
does accentuate and differentiate today’s feelings from past cycles is the
ubiquity of news, or what purports to be news. We know more about Presidential candidates
than ever, some of which is true, but much that is false. Thomas Carlyle, a 176
years ago, wrote of the press as a “fourth estate” – a critical adjunct to democracies.
They inform the public and serve as feedback to government. They provide facts
and offers opinions. They are as essential as are legislative bodies. But when
reporting is biased, they fail in their responsibilities. And, with over 80% of
reporters self-identifying as liberals, that is what we have today. The press helps
polarize the people.
With 85% of Americans connected to the internet, most get their news
from on-line sources and television, places where news is delivered in snippets
and always with a political bent. According to Pew Research, less than 10% of
18-49 year-olds get their news from print media – still the best source – despite
the bias in papers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
Chicago Tribune and The New York Post.
Mainstream news media, because of proliferating social media, is
searching for relevance in a changing world. Like so many industries, they have
become victims of Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction. Mr. Trump
has an uncanny ability to put the press, like his political opponents, on the
defensive. He has called them out for the prejudices they express, and diverted
them into fact-checking outrageous, but harmless, allegations like the numbers
who attended the inauguration – “alternative facts” according to Kellyanne
Conway – leaving little time to investigate, report or comment on real news. It
doesn’t take much imagination to understand why the media despises Mr. Trump. His
tweets render them superfluous.
Nevertheless, it is easier to criticize the press than to reform it;
though humility and honesty would be a starting point. News is ubiquitous.
Buckminster Fuller’s “Knowledge Doubling Curve” suggests that the amount of
knowledge in the world doubles every thirteen months. For a front page editor
to decide what stories to run is no easy task. Yet, there is little question
that news articles have become indistinct from editorials. Separating truth
from fiction is difficult for readers and viewers. Making matters worse, our
schools are spending less time teaching students American history, failing to
provide them an understanding of our nation’s past and its current civic
institutions. Consequently, young people (and many older ones as well) are
unable to put today’s events into perspective.
That anxiety of our leaders in Washington was not allayed by President
Trump’s Inaugural. When he said “…today,
we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or
from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C.
and giving it to you, the people,” the crowd on the mall erupted in
applause, but from the indicted sitting behind him the response was tepid. He
later added, “What truly matters is not
which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled
by the people.” One could almost feel Senator Mitch McConnell and
Representative Paul Ryan wince (Democrats appeared nonplussed), while his
supporters cheered. It is the hubris of the elite that was his target, as much
as the politics they profess.
Mainstream media called the speech divisive. That it was, but not in
the way the Obama Administration had been: The latter had divided us between
rich and poor; white v. blue collar; gay/transgender v. straight; men v. women;
Black v. Hispanic, and both v. White; Muslims, Christians and Jews against one
another. Mr. Trump emphasized the divide between Washington and Main street. He
took on the establishment, represented by politicians of both parties,
mainstream media, bankers, big business, the entertainment industry, the
teacher’s and other government unions. He clearly pointed out that their
interests are in opposition to that of the people: “The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.”
Will politicians heed Mr. Trump’s call for unity? I hope so, but I do
not have high expectations. The new President reminds me of Jimmy Stewart, as Jefferson
Smith going to Washington to tilt with a corrupt and “swampy” Congress. Mr.
Trump is not only up against Democrats, but against many in his own party,
along with thousands of bureaucrats and lobbyists who collectively have made Loudon,
Fairfax and Howard the three richest counties in the United States. He is up
against mainstream media, which seeks a raison
d’etre in a world passing it by. The elite – politicians, media, lobbyists,
entertainers – have much invested in the status quo. They will fight to
preserve what has served them well. Consider, for example, the number of
politicians who have used public office as a springboard to private wealth. It
is little wonder Mr. Trump won. One
reason that Democrats are so incensed with Mr. Trump is that, in important
respects, he has usurped their model, like inviting private sector union
leaders to the White House three days after taking office. Democrats have
become the party of the establishment, apologizing for the elite and ignoring the
needs of working men and women – unless, of course, they work for government.
What makes Mr. Trump’s chance for success a possibility is that his age
and personal achievements suggest no further career ambitions. He is rich and has
notoriety, unusual even in our age. There is the probability that cuts to
regulation and lower corporate taxes will boost economic growth, thereby
reducing individual fears. He has surrounded himself with successful men and
women of strong character, people from banking, industry, the military and
eleemosynary institutions – individuals with independent opinions and thought.
That they are willing to disagree with him has been apparent in Senate
confirmation hearings. For the most part, these are not “yes” men and women who
will blindly press forward the President’s agenda, but independent-thinking decision
makers who will do what they believe to be right.
Some stress is good. It sharpens minds and makes us more conscious of
events around us. But too much stress can be disruptive and counterproductive.
We may have to “sit on our blisters,”
as Lincoln opined; but let us hope it does not lead to “bitterness and hatred,” as Martin Luther King warned. Maybe, just
maybe, Mr. Trump has the answers to get us back on track. I hope so.
Labels: media, politics, the liberal press, Thought of the Day, Trump
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home