Journalism (Part 2)

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

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." -Groucho Marx

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

Last week's letter ended thusly:

"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." -me

Since Journalism is both an institution and a profession with deep historical roots, and I've taken it upon myself to drag it into the new millennium (kings can do stuff like that), I thought I'd explore the who/what/when/where and whys of...

[Can I ask a question, Poppa? What exactly is purple journalism? Ain't that what you called it?]

I'm flattered and honored you were paying attention, Iggmeister. I credit Marie-Louise for purple; the word popped into my psyche unbidden and I knew instantly it was what I wanted.


Purple journalism is not a new form of journalism, it's just a name for journalism as it's actually practiced nowadays. Take the New York Times. It claims to practice objective journalism but they have an obvious left-wing ethos that bleeds through on every page (traditional, partisan journalism).

However, they're hardly a tabloid. One can also find much in the way of good writing and quality coverage in any given edition (objective, professional journalism).

However, they're not above sensationalism and publishing obvious hit pieces about their ideological enemies. For example, anyone truly familiar with Jordan Peterson, fan or foe, could spot the obvious hatchet job written by Nellie Bowles and published on 5/18/18, that as best I can tell, is about Dr. Peterson's evil twin, it's clearly not about him. The article is pure, bright yellow journalism.

Clang! Fox News, fair and balanced  

No, it ain't, and everyone knows it. It's by conservatives and for conservatives. Rupert Murdoch identified a wildly underserved segment of the TV news market, conservatives, and gave 'em a news network of their own. They're happy and he made another gazillion bucks. Win-win.

Discussion panels with one liberal and multiple conservatives aren't fair and balanced. Ironically, all he did was reverse the ratios that CNN and PBS use. They claim to be fair and balanced as well.

Inviting political hacks, one (R)epublicrat and one (D)epublican, to throw bonkercockie at each other, preferably while behaving like Jerry Springer guests, isn't fair and balanced news, it's showbiz.


Now,

Given that it's widely acknowledged H. sapiens can and do strive for objectivity when it's called for (well, sometimes), but by nature are biased creatures, and

Given that most of the mainstream media are obviously partisan in nature, and

Given that what mainstream actually means is a relatively large audience and content that's not considered too far out there and

Given that, because of the internet, there's no shortage of content that is indeed far out there and much that's even farther out there than that...

Let's label this the era of purple journalism. Let's abandon hypocrisy (fair and balanced) and declare that honesty is the ideal of purple journalism. Not necessarily honest content, honesty about what sort of content.

"While we don't usually publish outright lies, we're not above it if we think we won't get caught, or even if we do that it won't actually matter. We're in it for the money and it sure beats having to get a real job."


While King Crank's Declaration of Honesty will be required for mainstream media outlets, my hope is that any outlet that offers content that it claims to be journalism will do so voluntarily.

For example, imagine The Drudge Report admitting declaring that "We're politically conservative but thrive on sensationalism. Many of the headline links you find on our site will turn out to be nearly as deceptive as clickbait links. We like to sex things up to get you here, keep you here, and keep you clicking."

I'll betcha a bottle-a-pop that Facebook's declaration would be as convoluted, confusing, and deceptive as their explanations of how to use their privacy settings.

[Whatever... but how would you enforce this law? Who or what determines what should be included in a Declaration of Honesty?]

Thanks, Dana, this is the best part. It doesn't matter what's in the statement.

The public, and a given outlets competition, will be the judge of that. If it's been determined that an outlet is large enough to be required to make the declaration, failure to do so will result in the CEO spending an hour in the royal pillory. Media coverage will be encouraged and facilitated.

A useful law that doesn't require bureauons or some sort of police to enforce, if I do say so myself, is a very cool law. 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. 
















  

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.