Musings on Life

Author of the novel, Blown Covers, this is my blog for random musings on life, social equality, and whatever I may fancy. You are highly encouraged to disagree and share your opinion.

[alexmanianla]

Musings on American Reporting

As most people in the US and abroad have no doubt at this point realized, the American news industry has devolved to base levels. Sensationalism has long been its happy bedfellow, so long that click-bait articles and tabloid reporting often appear to have as much journalistic integrity as year-long mainstays like CNN and FOX.

Most young Americans have never known any other system, and while many of us crave more, the best we are able to muster up to "stick it to the system" is watching comedy talk shows with news elements, a la Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Jon Oliver. As I scrolled through the bowels of Facebook, with the carnage of buzzword articles and two to three minute sound-clips forcing their way through brilliant PR moves into my life like hookworm festering in the bloodied mess, I became interested in looking into how we got here. Who if anyone is responsible for reporting in the US devolving into such a journalistic mess - in ways that other countries have not - and can it be fixed?

Starting my investigation, I decided to ask friends on what they thought on the matter. While most of them had opinions about what sensationalism was doing to the country, they had hardly stopped to think where it had come from. However, the most prevailing opinion was "One day they were like - people love drama, let's make everything dramatic."

So when did this "drama" become the major driving force of news? I decided to use this as my focal point. So I first looked at a list of shows to premier this year and found that many of them were indeed the drama filled "reality TV shows." Hell, reality TV was even beginning to spawn new shows, such as Caitlyn Jenner's show  - the byproduct of "Meet the Kardashians" and Caitlyn's coming out story, no doubt. Whether it's true or not, the networks definitely do believe my friend's statement that drama sells. But the question now became less why the networks do what is in their best interest - make money - and more if there are any regulations to prevent corporate greed from tainting the objective connotation that the word "news" exudes.

Upon my search, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by Ronald Regan in 1987 kept popping up. Every single article I read from the US to Canada to the UK was convinced that this action alone lead to the decline of American reporting, and while the articles were all very convincing, I was skeptical. I had heard of this doctrine before - a former FCC policy that required broadcasters to cover controversial ideas of public importance while covering both sides, regardless of your opinion - but was it truly the sole reason for the lack of hard-hitting, truthful journalism? After all, very rarely is any issue that clean cut and in my mind, it was a superficial conclusion.

I remembered at one point the famous editorial from Walter Cronkite on Vietnam in 1968. One of the most respected of American reporters at the time had basically given his middle finger to both the journalistic community as well as the US government and gave an impassioned speech on the war. This speech was incredibly important and has been attributed with ending the Vietnam War, but in my mind this was a crucial moment in American Journalism as well - it was when reporters could be the news themselves.

This may have been the actually start of American Sensationalism - Case Zero if you will. Other factors have played a role for sure, such as deregulation of American Networks, and the emergence of social media as personal platforms for opinions, but the American obsession with editorializing is key here. And it plays an important, if somewhat scary role that we are only partially cognizant of.

A good example would be Bernie Sanders and the slew of news organizations jumping on his grassroots popularity. Most of these articles have no substance and merely restate for three or four paragraphs the buzzword headline that Bernie Sanders could actually win the election. But it is entirely potential that objective reporting would leave him as stranded as Ralph Nader and other Independents in previous elections, even if he has rebranded himself as a Democrat for this round. A quote below one of these articles stated: "Every new article that plants a seed for progressives to think 'Wait, this guy CAN win' means more votes for Sanders and an increased chance at his presidency."

The potential that news organizations are picking our presidential candidates is only the tip of the iceberg, however. They shape entirely public opinion about a variety of issues, and their choices without regulation shape the US for both good and bad.

One of the more scary issues is that of the Russian conflict. Reporters bring up imagery of the Cold War while dismissing anyone who offers dissenting opinion - such as Stephen Cohen. If you google his name, more than half of the articles have "Putin Apologist" somewhere in the headline and the articles accuse him of being uninformed, unintelligent or both despite his more than forty years experience as a Russian historian.

The news using simplistic villain complexes right out of Rocky and Bullwinkel may be academically stagnant, denouncing his credentials rather than his argument, but as Cohen himself states, their antagonism sells to the American public. And with a hostile West, and a Russian state media that feeds the same to its viewership, the power of the reporters to create a war based on opinion becomes an ever more real potential as American news transitions from the passive observer to the active and willing participant.

Perhaps then a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is only the beginning in a larger overhaul of our news system. Limits on the amount of editorials allowed by each paper, an accreditation system for what is legally allowed to be described as "news," and fines for news companies found to be misrepresenting the facts certainly need to be discussed. But ether way, the systemic power of the press is not going away overnight, at least not so long as it is still profitable and acceptable for opinion to be dressed up as fact.

[alexmanianla]

Musings on Flags and the Fourth of July

This past week, flags have been breaking the internet as much Kim Kardashian's butt. In a nation that usually considers news to be 24/7 coverage of a flight simulation, it was refreshing to have some semblance of actual news coverage. Of course, in true American style, we promptly beat it to death with ubiquity via Facebook profile rainbows and confederate flags to the point that I almost thought I was shitting glitter in the Dukes of Hazzard's Dodge Charger.

And as Independence day is upon us, a new flag has been thrown into the cluster-fuck - the star-spangled banner. Of course, the Fourth of July has always been a time for our less-than-secret national flag fetish - our flag pride, you might call it - to be proudly paraded down the street in the light of day. *Gasp* Think of the children!

During this holiday, we all obnoxiously run down the street in red, white, and blue shouting USA repeatedly. I, myself, generally shy away from nationalism, but on the Fourth, no matter which country I'm living in, I take part - having done so in Beijing, Munich, and most ironically, London.

But this year, with all the other flags running through my head with various time periods and meanings attached to them, I became curious. What did the Fourth of July mean to Americans during the civil war? Was there a line drawn? Who celebrated, and why? And most importantly, what importance did the flag play?

To learn more, I spent the day looking through old newspaper articles from that time period. What I found fascinated me, and not necessarily because of what I found, but rather for what was omitted, not just in the time period itself, but in our time as well.

Almost all of the pieces I found were editorials, and most of the articles from the North were incredibly predictable denouncing the South leaving the Union. However, newspapers such as The Daily National Intelligencer published articles on July 4th focusing on the pomp and circumstance we associate the holiday with today, including fireworks, shows of military prowess, and most importantly an inclusive national identity. It belittled all criticism to more brotherly rebuke than the hate speech you would expect of a bloody civil war, which would be won mostly by attrition.  

As for the flag, in the North, and even in some places in the South - as suggested by The Delta in New Orleans - the Star-Spangled Flag was not the Northern flag but rather represented the United States as a whole. Decidedly absent was any talk of race politics, although "all men created equal" was a certain talking point. I think this an important reminder for race relations even today, because it trivialized by omission the black part of the argument in a way that would establish race relations to this day - if we do the bare minimum, such as admit that a practice is wrong that had been dropped for 30 years in the rest of the world, we have solved racism. Now we can go back to pandering to the upset white majority.  For example, much more energy was spent on welcoming in fact Southern celebration with the line "Let Whig and Tory all agree, and spend this day in mirth and glee."

Where it gets interesting and incredibly revealing on modern flag politics is the Southern reactions to the Star-Spangled Banner, which are so similar to a Fox News Editorial I had to do a double-take. This flag was not necessarily seen as a competing or enemy flag to that of the Confederate Flag, but rather as a corrupted one. As The Charleston Daily Courrier reported "[The North] has distinctly repudiated all the principles of the 4th July, 1776. We have not” and The Lynchburg Virginian went on to say of the American flag that it had been "prostituted and dishonored." This is likely why the Confederate Flag is one of the, if not the only flag used by a competing army that has been allowed to persist past said army's defeat - it was used not as a symbol of a new nation, as they still saw the American flag as their own. The Confederate Flag was only the rallying cry of an idea, one that would separate a nation.

But what idea did it represent? Modern Confederate apologists might quote these Southern newspapers written during this time period to "prove" that the flag was about constitutionalists. And while there are no explicit mentions in these articles about racism, it may just be a characteristic so taken for granted during this period that the writer(s) felt no need to mention it. Equally possible, It could be like a man proving his gigantic penis size with between the lines suggestions - big cars, muscle milk, and "do you even lift, brah." And it is true - if you read between the lines of the articles, it does give you a point to assume that the flag represented the idea of slavery, but I do not like assumptions, so I instead dug a little deeper. I went to the official declarations of succession from each state to make sure I was not making false deductions. Mississippi declares "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery," and Georgia continues with stating that the entirety of their purpose was to "resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity." So in this analogy, I guess the South's metaphorical ex-girlfriend already shared its dick pic and it does not look pretty.

Now, you could put your hands in your ears and pretend these texts do not exist, as most apologists do, but it is undeniable given these facts that this flag belonged in a museum the minute the Confederacy ended. Perhaps this is a statement on our educational system or perhaps it is a statement on instantly available information causing laziness in fact checking, but we are better than this. There is a reason I always miss this crazy country whenever I leave and it is not because of a flag that represents the opinion of the few - it is the flag that represents the diverse lives of our countrymen that make this country beautiful. So as I eat my shish kebabs in teriyaki sauce, potato salad, and vodka jello cake with products we have columbused (ie. "discovered" from another country and claimed as our own) from Turkey, Japan, Germany, Poland/Russia and France respectively, remember the flag that brings all us weirdos together. Or at least try to for ten seconds before we turn back to our celebrity gossip about Magic Mike and get lost in Channing Tatum's abs and baby blue eyes.

[alexmanianla]

Musings on SB 101

Over the past 4 days, I have received multiple messages in regards to SB 101 in Indiana. A Hoosier at heart, and currently being an openly gay man, lots of people have wanted to know my opinion on the law, both supporters and detractors of SB 101 However, misconceptions about both the law and Indiana have made the entire conversation much more frustrating than it should be.

Before continuing, I would like to play devil's advocate. I will admit, SB 101 on its own is not entirely homophobic, as Governor Mike Pence and others continue to state. There are 30 other states and even the federal government who have passed similar laws. However, many of the supporters then play the victim card and ask why they are being singled out as bigots when this law is so pervasive?

The answer is actually quite simple. As any good lawyer will tell you, many cases are won on ambiguities in the law, and SB 101 has a huge loophole for LGBT minorities. While other discrimination against women, race, ethnicity, etc. is prevented by the clause in section 2, requiring that those willing to implement SB 101 in their own private case still be bound by existing state legislation (including anti-discrimination laws), there is no such anti-discrimination law for the LGBT community, neither nationally or locally.

This legislation has never existed in Indiana, and though it has made redressing LGBT discrimination difficult in the past, often proving ineffectual (Paul Michalik vs. Brian Brothers), legal redress still existed. With this law, however, legal redress against any private entity is no longer even possible for LGBT identifying persons in regards to their sexual or gender identity. The governor has claimed that this is not intentional bigotry, but when asked whether he would remedy this by lobbying for an addendum clause to the legislation (SB 101) or by adding LGBT persons to Indiana's version of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), he directly stated he would not (Interview with George Stephanopoulos).

Naturally, this is why people are angry about the legislation both inside and outside the state. But even understanding that this is what SB 101 represents, many Hoosiers still support the bill, and the rest of the world is completely at a loss. I have heard my friends in Europe call Indiana - which they previously couldn't even locate on a map - Nazis and Facists out of shock, and friends in California and New York call them bigots.

But having lived in Indiana for more than a decade, I'm hardly surprised by any measure and neither should you be, as all those yelling at Indiana have played their own role, albeit not directly.

To understand this, let's take a step back a little more than ten years ago when Massachusetts passed gay marriage. For those who had been fighting on the coasts, this was a huge deal, given that it was the first US state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world where gay marriage became legal. But in Indiana, I remembering hearing my father talk about "all those gays," which he believed to only be a "problem" on the coasts. Much like Ahmadinejad at Columbia university talking about how "we don't have gays," much of Indiana has often held this view.

Of course I can refute this, having had my share of closeted men - many husbands and boyfriends - hit on me after I came out when they thought no one was looking. And when certainly no less than 50% of the state's gay population is closeted (arbitrary estimation based on experience - not based on actual statistic), at least partially, and the rest of them either flee to Indianapolis, Chicago, and beyond, what experiences do the greater populace tend to have with them? Cheating husbands and boyfriends bringing to mind stereotypes of slutty gay men akin to that of Queer as Folk. Then add to that the fact that gay marriage was not allowed to progress organically, but through forcible court order, and you can certainly see how the older generation that currently holds institutional power in Indiana would see this as a frontal attack on their values.

There are naturally exceptions to all of the above - there are liberals in the state that abhor the law and gay men that have stayed behind that defy stereotypes who are much stronger in will than I will ever be. But the point still stands that we are hardly done with fighting for gay rights. Gay Marriage is just the beginning for most of the USA, and to pretend that everywhere is as far along as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. is not only a lazy mistake, but also a potentially fatal one to make.

Grass roots movements need to be restarted in the rest of the country - campaigns for safe zones to provide an environment for those behind the steel closet to come out and show what it means to be gay on a local level. After all, Hoosiers are reasonable people - they have been ranked some of the nicest in the country. If you present the issues to them in a non-confrontational way, they will slowly come around more often than not. Will it be hard when there is currently so much opposition in Indiana? Of course, but taking the higher road often is. It's easy to yell - it's hard to take the yelling of others and calmly turn it into a solution.

Disclaimer: Feel free to share your opinions! This is just a musing based on the past couple of days, and I'm by no means saying I'm correct.