Someone asked my why the silly name Tommy Pain and tommypain1000.blogspot.com. Well, I was feeling a little lazy and short on time. The literary reference is obvious, if somewhat self-inflating and gratuitous. It turned out that someone else got tommypain.blogspot.com first. I just did the quickest simplest thing I could to move onto creating content. So, sloth, conflict, self-importance, and time. Fortunately, the name should prove to be irrelevant - its only a handle or address. Ultimately, people will either find the content stimulating or not. If the former, maybe someone will develop a big idea in response. If the later, well, google doesn't care if I blather.
Content creation is, unfortunately, a slow process for which I have too little time. The last blog clearly needs additional editing, as I knew when it was published. This editing will happen soon, but I needed to see progress by getting something out here in the meantime. BTW, this article is part of a much larger piece that will be published in 8-10 installments.
As I pull logical constructs together, jumps appear where assumed but unexplained analysis and connections need to be teased out to ensure that the good reader understands well enough to make informed decisions regarding the value of the concepts presented. Originally, 8-10 pages of content in this particular thread seemed a likely target. As editing progressed, it became clear that individual articles of 8-10 pages needed to be published to cover my planned subject matter. And as I noted above, it looks like there will be 8-10 of these articles.
By the way, I'm not being cute (but maybe a little lazy) in constantly saying 8-10. These are my estimates for now and it's coincidental that the anticipated page lengths of the chapters is similar to the anticipated number of chapters. All of this may change as more gets committed to type and goes through the process of editing.
For now, this is the end of house-keeping issues.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Faith and Media or Unfaithful Media?
The last entry ended with a question: How has the plurality of interest-groups diverged from a healthy dialog with room at the table for everyone? That's a tough question to answer.
Many on the left fault the Democratic Party, arguing that an unclear message cost the election. But that misses how electoral communications work. Is president Bush an evangelical? Many Republicans think so, but a number of experts say he is not. Was he in favor of eliminating abortions? His past says no, and his focus has been on destroying Social Security, not stopping abortion. What was his message? That he has a sense of humor?
Every politician must, to some degree, tell people what they want to hear. And different people are looking to hear different things. So yes, signals can be confusing, on both sides. But, I don’t see that the Democrats did much worse than the Republicans in conveying their messages. Looking at the political landscape, I can't see how the right and the Republicans could have lost.
John Kerry achieved a stunning vote total. Moreover, he did this despite unprecedented slanders and libelous attacks. He did this in spite of efforts to mobilize racial and religious tensions. And, he did this in spite of wide-spread voting process irregularities. In the end, however, the sitting president won and more importantly saw his party gain in the House and Senate. So what was behind this?
A good starting point is to analyze our media. The Fourth Estate has long been accorded special rights and privileges because of its role and responsibility to keep the all facts on the table and to insure that minority interests are heard. In other words, it should provide a countervailing force to: 1 Pure majority power; 2 Propaganda, or the manipulation of facts by the powerful. Today, those roles are undermined by a combination of factors including: 1 Mass-media (fewer but more common messages heard throughout America and across interest-group boundaries); 2 Weak media (ranging from limited reporting & poor research budgets to intentionally skewed reporting); 3 Changed leadership in certain interest-groups which better manages the media through a variety of techniques.
These factors have altered the quality and nature of reporting made available to the American people. And this, in turn, has altered the quality and nature of people’s knowledge and understanding of the facts and issues. As a result, the dialog, debate, and compromise among the various interest-groups has been substantially reduced. It can be argued that these changes are eroding the rights of minority interest-groups (and increasingly put them at risk); in part by denying most citizens full & clear access the facts. It can also be argued that these changes are snowballing as powerful leaders become bolder and bolder in their tactics.
These changes in public intelligence have a strange symbiosis with faith. The threats of fundamentalist religious leaders (whether economic boycotts or controls over voting blocs) have driven some changes. Other changes have occurred because fundamentalists tend not to care about issues (including how government is run and power is distributed) apart from those directed by their leadership, allowing corrupt business and political leaders to harvest votes cheaply while forwarding their own agendas. And, ironically, as the empirical become distorted and devalued, individuals are forced to rely more on faith to make decisions.
This emerging dependence on faith for decision making is not limited to religion, but includes any number of subjects (pollution, energy policy, welfare, international affairs, party allegiance), thus reducing the effectiveness of plurality in our great country. Hence, the leadership of powerful groups is beginning to dictate the direction of American politics, unfettered by free and open dialog. Do you need evidence? Who thought, even 4 years ago, that Social Security would be under attack and at risk of being destroyed? Who thought Medicare would be about to run out of funds without debate? Who thought that a “Market Oriented” administration would install a Medicare prescription drug bill that prevented Medicare from using market dynamics to obtain fairly priced drugs? Who thought we would be dragged into an illegal war, which was unrelated to our security needs, and in fact has raised the level of risks our citizens face?
None of the above is meant to allege a grand conspiracy. While certain leaders have taken advantage of the current situation, and some have coordinated their efforts, much of our situation seems to have developed by accident or as unintended bonus consequences to the actions of various players. We know that sense of team or kinship is a common political phenomenon that exists in all cultures. What is of interest is that there has been a confluence of teams, behaviors, and interests of late that has reduced free dialog in this country and enabled the establishment of a something verging on a fascist state. This has occurred elsewhere in history with disastrous results – but the results could be worse for us and the world given the power at disposal of this country today. But I'm jumping ahead here.
An interesting counterpoint on our modern state of religion can be found at godownsyou.blogspot.com (link on page). Back in the sixties, a magazine, Time I think, asked the question: "Is God dead?" That's not a question that would even be considered by editors today, in fact we see Time and similar magazines discussing God & religion, in what appears to be an attempt to take advantage the resurgence of religion in America. And there can be no doubt that some of the resurgence of religion is caused, in part, by dark elements who interfer with the disemination of empirical knowledge. More on this point later.
The occurrence of aligning the profit motive in media with our faith based team culture began, I think, as an accident. But it's an accident that is being exploited by both religion and media who see the synergies of working together. Religious and quasi-religious groups can bring pressure on broadcasters and the FCC. Look at the recent refusal of a network to air Private Ryan when it had been aired on public television twice before. The pressures can include both positive and negative sanctions. This implies that war between the media and religious groups isn’t inevitable, but that co-option can take place. The religious groups can offer pre-packaged “information” reducing the costs of programming. They can work their legislative and administrative contacts to make ensure that their allies are well treated in government (for example rolling back long-standing prohibitions against media consolidation). They can provide the media with a range of available “experts” who can speak in clear and sometimes interesting ways on a variety of topics. This isn't the full extent of common interests between media and religion, but serves to give example of the temptations offered to the media that tend to prevent it from being “fair and balanced”. Meanwhile, media, it's leadership (it's owners and pundits [who I define as media correspondents who attempt to form opinions for profit – previously we thought this was done with a sense of independence but we are increasingly seeing that pundits thirst for profits puts their opinions up for sale]), and the Republican leadership, is finding religion a useful prop to shape public opinion. Had our religious leaders pointed out the lie’s that went into selling the war against Iraq; or had they stood up and simply noted that God doesn’t condone war; or if they pointed out that this war was evil and unjust; it seems likely that the administration's war plans would have been curtailed. But, instead, many of the evangelical leaders (who appear, in general, to more successfully control the thinking of thier followers than other religious leaders), went on record in support of war. The much of the media and many of the evangelical leaders in this country worked together to whip up enthusiasm for a war that heart corrupt from the beginning and against the better interests of most Americans.
This resurgence of religion ties to several trends which correlate obviously and strongly to the rise of power for the current administration. As I have suggested above, it appears that the administration is forwarding a private agenda, not that of its key constituents among the religious right. We haven’t yet see Congress take on the abortion issue, even though they have the votes. But we have seen the Republicans attack the limited social welfare system that exists in this country. Where there have been paybacks to the religious right, it has been in the workings of UN committees and international charitable groups where the impact in this country is more image than substance. We have also seen huge financial payouts to “faith-based initiatives”. Here again, faith is the driver. In this case being the vehicle for political payoff. Sadly, the track-record of these groups is suspect at best, regardless of whether one agrees with their philosophy. Moreover, this is the intermingling of government and religion which has been resisted through constitutional protections for over 200 years. The separation, being in part to protect religions from the potential bullying influence of Government, has been savaged by those naive religious leaders whose pet programs are funded. But, money buys votes. So despite what a terrible precedent this set, and despite any the difficulty related to putting this particular genie back into the bottle, it is where we are today.
I spoke to the Editor of a national newspaper who was in charge covering the Presidential campaign. This was during the Gore/Bush elections. I asked why they were willing to print obvious lies coming from campaigns, rather than do fact checking and set the record straight as part of their reporting. He told me that their job was to report news, not make it. What is said by a campaign operative or candidate is news, the facts aren't. This was an intelligent independent thinking individual, academically well-trained for a career in journalism and with many years of experience under his belt. I would bet that most citizens of this country expect that their media are uncovering the facts and making them available to be part of the dialog that precedes elections. Is it any wonder we have president Bush?
Many on the left fault the Democratic Party, arguing that an unclear message cost the election. But that misses how electoral communications work. Is president Bush an evangelical? Many Republicans think so, but a number of experts say he is not. Was he in favor of eliminating abortions? His past says no, and his focus has been on destroying Social Security, not stopping abortion. What was his message? That he has a sense of humor?
Every politician must, to some degree, tell people what they want to hear. And different people are looking to hear different things. So yes, signals can be confusing, on both sides. But, I don’t see that the Democrats did much worse than the Republicans in conveying their messages. Looking at the political landscape, I can't see how the right and the Republicans could have lost.
John Kerry achieved a stunning vote total. Moreover, he did this despite unprecedented slanders and libelous attacks. He did this in spite of efforts to mobilize racial and religious tensions. And, he did this in spite of wide-spread voting process irregularities. In the end, however, the sitting president won and more importantly saw his party gain in the House and Senate. So what was behind this?
A good starting point is to analyze our media. The Fourth Estate has long been accorded special rights and privileges because of its role and responsibility to keep the all facts on the table and to insure that minority interests are heard. In other words, it should provide a countervailing force to: 1 Pure majority power; 2 Propaganda, or the manipulation of facts by the powerful. Today, those roles are undermined by a combination of factors including: 1 Mass-media (fewer but more common messages heard throughout America and across interest-group boundaries); 2 Weak media (ranging from limited reporting & poor research budgets to intentionally skewed reporting); 3 Changed leadership in certain interest-groups which better manages the media through a variety of techniques.
These factors have altered the quality and nature of reporting made available to the American people. And this, in turn, has altered the quality and nature of people’s knowledge and understanding of the facts and issues. As a result, the dialog, debate, and compromise among the various interest-groups has been substantially reduced. It can be argued that these changes are eroding the rights of minority interest-groups (and increasingly put them at risk); in part by denying most citizens full & clear access the facts. It can also be argued that these changes are snowballing as powerful leaders become bolder and bolder in their tactics.
These changes in public intelligence have a strange symbiosis with faith. The threats of fundamentalist religious leaders (whether economic boycotts or controls over voting blocs) have driven some changes. Other changes have occurred because fundamentalists tend not to care about issues (including how government is run and power is distributed) apart from those directed by their leadership, allowing corrupt business and political leaders to harvest votes cheaply while forwarding their own agendas. And, ironically, as the empirical become distorted and devalued, individuals are forced to rely more on faith to make decisions.
This emerging dependence on faith for decision making is not limited to religion, but includes any number of subjects (pollution, energy policy, welfare, international affairs, party allegiance), thus reducing the effectiveness of plurality in our great country. Hence, the leadership of powerful groups is beginning to dictate the direction of American politics, unfettered by free and open dialog. Do you need evidence? Who thought, even 4 years ago, that Social Security would be under attack and at risk of being destroyed? Who thought Medicare would be about to run out of funds without debate? Who thought that a “Market Oriented” administration would install a Medicare prescription drug bill that prevented Medicare from using market dynamics to obtain fairly priced drugs? Who thought we would be dragged into an illegal war, which was unrelated to our security needs, and in fact has raised the level of risks our citizens face?
None of the above is meant to allege a grand conspiracy. While certain leaders have taken advantage of the current situation, and some have coordinated their efforts, much of our situation seems to have developed by accident or as unintended bonus consequences to the actions of various players. We know that sense of team or kinship is a common political phenomenon that exists in all cultures. What is of interest is that there has been a confluence of teams, behaviors, and interests of late that has reduced free dialog in this country and enabled the establishment of a something verging on a fascist state. This has occurred elsewhere in history with disastrous results – but the results could be worse for us and the world given the power at disposal of this country today. But I'm jumping ahead here.
An interesting counterpoint on our modern state of religion can be found at godownsyou.blogspot.com (link on page). Back in the sixties, a magazine, Time I think, asked the question: "Is God dead?" That's not a question that would even be considered by editors today, in fact we see Time and similar magazines discussing God & religion, in what appears to be an attempt to take advantage the resurgence of religion in America. And there can be no doubt that some of the resurgence of religion is caused, in part, by dark elements who interfer with the disemination of empirical knowledge. More on this point later.
The occurrence of aligning the profit motive in media with our faith based team culture began, I think, as an accident. But it's an accident that is being exploited by both religion and media who see the synergies of working together. Religious and quasi-religious groups can bring pressure on broadcasters and the FCC. Look at the recent refusal of a network to air Private Ryan when it had been aired on public television twice before. The pressures can include both positive and negative sanctions. This implies that war between the media and religious groups isn’t inevitable, but that co-option can take place. The religious groups can offer pre-packaged “information” reducing the costs of programming. They can work their legislative and administrative contacts to make ensure that their allies are well treated in government (for example rolling back long-standing prohibitions against media consolidation). They can provide the media with a range of available “experts” who can speak in clear and sometimes interesting ways on a variety of topics. This isn't the full extent of common interests between media and religion, but serves to give example of the temptations offered to the media that tend to prevent it from being “fair and balanced”. Meanwhile, media, it's leadership (it's owners and pundits [who I define as media correspondents who attempt to form opinions for profit – previously we thought this was done with a sense of independence but we are increasingly seeing that pundits thirst for profits puts their opinions up for sale]), and the Republican leadership, is finding religion a useful prop to shape public opinion. Had our religious leaders pointed out the lie’s that went into selling the war against Iraq; or had they stood up and simply noted that God doesn’t condone war; or if they pointed out that this war was evil and unjust; it seems likely that the administration's war plans would have been curtailed. But, instead, many of the evangelical leaders (who appear, in general, to more successfully control the thinking of thier followers than other religious leaders), went on record in support of war. The much of the media and many of the evangelical leaders in this country worked together to whip up enthusiasm for a war that heart corrupt from the beginning and against the better interests of most Americans.
This resurgence of religion ties to several trends which correlate obviously and strongly to the rise of power for the current administration. As I have suggested above, it appears that the administration is forwarding a private agenda, not that of its key constituents among the religious right. We haven’t yet see Congress take on the abortion issue, even though they have the votes. But we have seen the Republicans attack the limited social welfare system that exists in this country. Where there have been paybacks to the religious right, it has been in the workings of UN committees and international charitable groups where the impact in this country is more image than substance. We have also seen huge financial payouts to “faith-based initiatives”. Here again, faith is the driver. In this case being the vehicle for political payoff. Sadly, the track-record of these groups is suspect at best, regardless of whether one agrees with their philosophy. Moreover, this is the intermingling of government and religion which has been resisted through constitutional protections for over 200 years. The separation, being in part to protect religions from the potential bullying influence of Government, has been savaged by those naive religious leaders whose pet programs are funded. But, money buys votes. So despite what a terrible precedent this set, and despite any the difficulty related to putting this particular genie back into the bottle, it is where we are today.
I spoke to the Editor of a national newspaper who was in charge covering the Presidential campaign. This was during the Gore/Bush elections. I asked why they were willing to print obvious lies coming from campaigns, rather than do fact checking and set the record straight as part of their reporting. He told me that their job was to report news, not make it. What is said by a campaign operative or candidate is news, the facts aren't. This was an intelligent independent thinking individual, academically well-trained for a career in journalism and with many years of experience under his belt. I would bet that most citizens of this country expect that their media are uncovering the facts and making them available to be part of the dialog that precedes elections. Is it any wonder we have president Bush?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)