Journalism (Part One)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) — the Stickies — to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View Original to solve this problem and access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse and back scratcher 

Iggy -- My designated Sticky

Dana -- My designated gentlereader

"With freedom comes responsibilities."  -Eleanor Roosevelt

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

When I was a callowyute several thousand days ago when the Black&White ages were drawing to a close, the world, and how it worked, was presented to me in a black and white fashion by the Sisters of Mercy at my Catholic grade school.

It occurs to me, although it was probably a coinkydink, that the good sisters dressed in black and white.

I was recently reading an allegedly straight news story that was an editorial wearing a clever disguise. It reminded me of what I was taught journalists do for a living.

As objectively as possible, they try to discover the who, what, when, where and why of a given news story so that we all might know what's going on in the world and conduct ourselves accordingly. Let's label this professional journalism.

A noble calling, yes?

Of course, this was a black and white and simplified version of reality -- grade school. At some point down the road, it was revealed that this version of journalism, the one that strives for objective truth, was a relatively recent upgrade.

For example, the phrase yellow journalism, and its meaning, was at least cursorily discussed. Remember the Maine! The hell with Spain! I was not taught that The hell with Spain! was the second half of the famous slogan. I offer this fun fact as a public service, in case you were also unaware.

Wikipedia: "Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales."


The two versions of journalism presented above are logical opposites, black and white. Another version, let's call it traditional journalism -- proudly, frankly, openly, and unashamedly partisan -- was the norm in America till the early 1900s.

Now that I'm a sexy senior citizen I realize that no H. sapien is capable of pure objectivity. Also, that truth is provisional and subject to modification.

However, when objectivity is called for objectivity is worth striving for. Truth that stands up to objectivity, reason, open debate and an open mind is good enough, close enough, and absolutely necessary if we're to survive and thrive.

Please check your postmodern nihilism at the door.


At the moment, my Dear Stickies, journalism is a mess. What do you get when you combine professional journalism, yellow journalism, traditional journalism, infotainment, propaganda, public relations, etceterations, and the internet?

Purple journalism.

Purple journalism: a form of journalism combining multiple elements. The purpose varies depending on the source. Most common motivating factors are profit, fame, and ideology.

Journalism, like everything and everyone else, is subject to the high-velocity disruption that is a hallmark of the age I'm living in. I wonder if you will take high-velocity disruption for granted and regard me as quaint?

At the moment, we're treading water in the Dizzinformation Ocean, including those young enough to take this for granted. Any given trusted, go-to source for news (brand name or otherwise...) may be currently featuring a story that's been tainted by professional trolls whose job it is to do so.

While everyone's aware of the blurred and ever-shifting lines between the components of purple journalism mentioned above and...

Nope, don't think so, not everyone. Not even close...
No way, Poppa.
Non-non-non. I don't think so either. 

I've just been the victim of a collective interruption by Dana, Iggy, and Marie-Louise -- in that order. Fine, point taken. The question is, what, if anything, can/should we do about it?


Assuming you prefer living in a country with free speech and a free press (my personal preference) your options are limited if you wish to avoid stepping on other people's right to run their mouths.

Another of those black and white notions imparted to me by Sister Mary McGillicuddy and her... well, sisters, was that with rights come responsibilities. Same coin, different sides.

One of the primary responsibilities that comes with any given right is acknowledging that the other kids on the playground have the same rights as you do and that you're gonna have to find a way to share the swings. I may have mentioned this ten or twenty times before.

How To Get a Clue & Maintain Your Bliss

Select a limited, cross-section of information sources that you can comfortably keep track of and ignore the rest.

Make sure that at least one of them pisses you off and that at least one of them is a bit over your head.

Fire up your cynicism, skepticism, experience, and knowledge.

Never forget we've evolved (or were created) to be tribal and that confirmation bias never sleeps.

Maintain (try to anyway) an open heart and an open mind.


When I become king I'm going to require that all news media of a certain size or larger (metrics to be determined) must declare that they are partisan, in what way, and provide a simple, short, clear statement explaining their approach to the news.

If they're about lurid pictures/video, lurid stories, and making as much money as possible that's fine -- as long as they acknowledge it. Easy peasy, right? Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2018 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to comment — or react (way cooler than liking, and Facebook doesn't keep track) — please scroll down. 

May You Live In Interesting Times (No. 4)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) — the Stickies — to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View Original to solve this problem and access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse and back scratcher 

Iggy -- My designated Sticky

Dana -- My designated gentlereader

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution..."                                                                           Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85  

Dear (eventual) Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,

As you (and my gentlereaders) may have noticed, I mostly confine my political musings to making fun of politics, politicians, and/or bureauons that work for the gummits or The Gummit.

[For the record: I'm not an anarchist of any stripe; I acknowledge the need for government and the fact that not all bureaucrats, in fact, probably/hopefully, are not bureauons.]

However, the current kerfuffle over the Donald's impending choice of the next Supreme concerns me enough to activate my preachy/opinionated side. You've been warned.


When I was a callowyute I was taught that The Gummit (which at the time was called the federal government) consisted of three coequal branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

I was told that this was a feature, not a bug, and that divvying up the power provided us with a system of "checks and balances" to ensure maximum freedom, minimum government.

Congress, our freely chosen representatives, would create the Rules&Regs and decide how the dough was spent.

The president and the minions of the Executive branch would enforce the Rules&Regs, spend the dough, and take care of the day to day stuff.

The Judicial branch would determine if the Rules&Regs had been violated, and if so, administer the appropriate penalty. Penalties for a given offense are spelled out ahead of time, you can't make 'em up as you go.

Sounded/sounds good to me.


The system above is based on a set of ground rules called the Constitution of the United States of America. It not only spells out how the federal government is to be structured it spells out what the three branches are permitted to do. Any powers not granted -- are not granted.

And of course, the fundamental rights of all Citizens of the Republic are spelled out as well.

The Supreme Court, made up of nine judges that are appointed for life (tenure on steroids) so they're beholden to no one, has the final say on ground rules disputes.


Still sounds good to me. But, why are the kids on the left side of the playground freaking out over the fact a Supreme Court judge has just resigned and the Donald, who hangs out on the right side of the playground (well, sorta/kinda), per the rules, gets to choose a new judge?

Well, at least nominate one, he or she has to be approved by the Senate. The United States Senate, wherein every state of the republic has two duly elected representatives -- no matter how large, or small, or rich, or poor, or powerful, or weak a given state happens to be.

Which also sounds good to me, in fact downright clever... and fair. So why...

[Aw c'mon! Everybody knows that! Trump can, and will, nominate a conservative. This'll mean the court's got five conservative judges and four liberal ones.]

Exactly, Dana, and that's my point. 

[Huh?]



Liberals, particularly the ones that call themselves progressives, believe that if you don't like what the Constitution says about something, you can just put an updated spin on it and do what you want -- as long as you're on the side of the angels. 

The end justifies the means as long as you mean well. What could possibly go wrong?

It's hard to change the ground rules, on purpose, and that's as it should be. In order to keep a democracy from devolving into a mobocracy or a tyranny, it's necessary to make it hard for a well-meaning (or malevolent) majority to change the ground rules to avoid the law of unintended consequences. 

This protects a given minority from a given majority, and a given majority from itself.



Our good friends on the left are freaking out because, as usual, they're determined to pass whatever laws they deem necessary to save us from ourselves. If they have to do it by end-running the Constitution and Congress by legislating from the bench, so be it. 

But without a majority of the Supremes on their side, or at least someone like our soon to be retired Justice Kennedy to act as a swing vote, this is much more difficult.

After all, when you're trying to save the world who has time to wait for Congress to pass the appropriate laws, much less change the Constitution? If you need to bypass the democratic process to save our democracy, as long as you're certain you're right, a lefty's gotta do what a lefty's gotta do.

If they don't draw a red line, the next thing you know important matters that need to be decided on, but that aren't mentioned in the Constitution, will be left up to the individual states. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2018 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to comment — or react (way cooler than liking, and Facebook doesn't keep track) — please scroll down. 










  

A Conspiracy Theory

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my (eventual) grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who don't, yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View Original to solve this problem and access lotsa columns.]

WARNING! This column is recommended for Sexy Senior Citizens age 50 and above who prefer perusing the web via a decent-sized screen. The reading of this column by grups and callowyutes may result in psychological/emotional/etceteralogical triggering.

                                                 Glossary  

                                  Just Who IS This Guy?

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars 

Dana -- A Gentlereader
Iggy -- A Sticky (GT*)

Marie-Louise -- My Muse (GT*)

*Currently Grand Touring 

Free market: "... a system which imposes upon enterprise a discipline under which the managers chafe and which each endeavors to escape."
                                                                                 -Friedrich Hayek

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies (& Gentlereaders),

Capitalism and free market are terms that often should not be sharing the same sentence (or the same dictionary definition) – depending on how ya define your terms.

Merriam-Webster says that capitalism is: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (my emphasis).

In other words, at least in theory, people compete for your hard-earned money by offering you the best combination of product, price, and service for something you want/need/are willing to pay for.

Dr. Deirdre McCloskey ("Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication" University of Illinois at Chicago) has gone to a great deal of trouble to document the fact that capitalism, starting roughly 200 years ago, is responsible for our age of unprecedented prosperity.

The operative word is the previous sentence is unprecedented. The planet Earth hasn't previously experienced anything like it. Go a-googling if you don't believe me. Here's a taste. The U.S. weight loss market -- that is, just the U.S. --was worth $66,000,000,000 in 2017.

However, Dr. McCloskey likes to substitute the awkward phrase trade tested betterment for the word capitalism due to the frequent bad press capitalism receives from fat reporters/various and sundry ungrateful Citizens of the Republic. However...

Big, No, HUGE But

They have a point, BUT, they're still missing the point, as are their philosophical enemies.

I recently stumbled on an essay published by a website called Bleeding Heart Libertarians, ("Free Markets and Social Justice") titled The Conflation Trap by Roderick Long. 

BHL, consisting mostly of academics writing for academics, is not exactly poolside reading material. However, since I'm a wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart and conservative impulses, I occasionally wade through a posting or two although I frequently find myself in over my head.

While not exactly light reading, the essay in question explains how/why the terms capitalism and free-market aren't always playing on the same team.


Conflation trap refers to the fact that conservative and libertarian free-marketeers often "tend to conflate the results of crony corporatism with those of free markets."

And...

"...where the right-wing version...treats the virtues of free markets as reason to defend the fruits of corporatism, the left wing...treats the objectionable fruits of corporatism as reason to condemn free markets (my emphasisses).

In other words...

Big ass companies, although they often produce shtuff we want and need,  often take advantage of their sheer size to tilt the playing field by...

Rent-seeking, "a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection" (Investopedia). And/or regulatory capture, "...a regulatory agency...advances the commercial or political concerns of...groups that dominate the industry...it is charged with regulating.

[There are many more tactics in their bags o' tricks, the two above are just my personal faves.]

That is, they use their size to cheat. That's not free-market capitalism, which is why conservatives and libertarians should condemn such behavior regardless of whether or not we wind up with cool stuff.

Left-wingers often do condemn this sort of thing (unless the firm in question is politically favored by the Depublicrats or they have a personal stake...) -- and then blame/condemn the free market. I repeat, this is not free-market capitalism.

Conspiracy Theory

Lubbock, Texas. Spring, 1985.

Bob L.: "It's all a con, man."
Me: "It's a freakin' conspiracy, what it is."

O.K., this is the conspiracy part of our literary extravaganza. Like most alleged conspiracies, it's more of a self-reinforcing cosmic coinkydink than an active conspiracy.

That is to say, no secret meetings were/are held at the snack bar of a flea market in Lubbock, Texas -- the one where Ronbo had her purse swiped? It's just gummit employees and employees of The Gummit and politicians and chafing managers (see Hayek quote above) pursuing their own rational self-interest.

The bottom line is a system in which...

The Depublicrats (D.) and bureauons tend to blame the "free" market whenever Giantco Inc. gets caught with its thumb on the scale. Vote for us/we need more gummit, and The Gummit, and Rules&Regs.

The Republicrats (R), allegedly conservatives and/or libertarians, are often prepared to ignore Giantco Inc. getting caught with its thumb on the scale, reinforcing the left's view of the "free" market.

They call for smaller/limited gummit -- and then vote for the corn cartel, the sugar cartel, the cable cartel, etceterel. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the poster children of too big to fail. Bloated and unaccountable defense spending, subsidized this, subsidized that, etceterized, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.


Mr. Long points out...

[Note: approaching a very cool and perceptive observation.]

...that Big Gummit v. Giganto Inc. is comparable to the church v. the state in the middle ages. They need (and use) each other to survive and thrive while each plots and schemes to gain the upper hand.

Depublicans v. Republicrats? In any given election in which we choose a favorite son/daughter to be a (theoretically temporary) part of The Gummit, better than 90% of incumbents will be reelected. Can't be our fault... I'll bet it's the Pooteen (i.e., Russians) and his evil henchmen! Hmmm...

The Gummit, the pols, the bureauons -- and Giantco -- conspire against the Citizens of the Republic merely by being themselves and doing what they do. Without federal term limits -- we're screwed. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day. 
Please scroll down to react, comment, share, donate, or shop at Amazon

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains. Just click here or on the Patreon button at the top or bottom of my website.

If you do your Amazon shopping by clicking on an Amazon link above or below Amazon will toss a few cents in my direction every time you buy something. 

Your friendly neighborhood crank is not crazy about social media (I am a crank after all) but if you must, you can like me/follow me on Facebook. I post an announcement when I have a new column available as well as news articles/opinion pieces that reflect where I'm coming from or that I wish to call attention to.

©2019 Mark Mehlmauer As long as you agree to supply my name and URL (Creative Commons license at the top and bottom of my website) you may republish this anywhere that you please. Light editing that doesn't alter the content is acceptable. You don't have to include any of the folderol before the greeting or after the closing (Have an OK day) except for the title.