oh really. . . (*yawn*)

a friend of mine sent me a story from bill o'reilly's blog. my friend knows i tend to disagree with o'reilly but i think he finds o'reilly fairly agreeable and thought as i once studied journalism, i would be interested in o'reilly's thoughts. the story is reachable by clicking on the header, in case you want to see for yourself.

about 3-4 weeks ago the new yorker ran a story on the la times, specifically on what is happening to their business. (bill was correct-it is in decline. in fact, i need to cancel my subscription. some days their sports section does not even run a kings story. sports is usually 8 pages during the week and the quality is poor in comparison to other local papers like the daily news or even the oc register. i prefer to read the san francisco chronicle online.) but i digress in talking about sports. . .

the new yorker's article got me to thinking about the role of the press. their stated role. at least in many cases, should be similiar to that of a watchdog. it is why we have the freedom associated w/ the press. so they can watch our leaders while we're doing the dishes and picking up the kids. if, in our current culture and political climate, they are considered liberal, so be it, (though i find them far from liberal enough, by and large.)

still, the real question that occurred to me upon reading about the la times' business was one of supply and demand. more and more the editors of our papers around the country are forced to treat their work like a business. this is to say, they have to give the public what it wants. you might disagree with me if i say the public gets dumber by the hour, but then again, you might agree w/ me. and as such, the public wants less and less as it relates to real news, controversial stories, facts about our leaders, etc. so the press is in a quandary. give 'em what they want, or continue its role as public watchdog? well, business wins, generally. and so it looks like we will let the press go to pot. and i would say this is yet another early sign of the decline of the empire.

as "the people," if we can't take a stand with our business community to say we will find ways to perpetuate journalism as we know it, to hold journalism to a standard in the tradition of our great journalists like pulitzer and bernstein, we have a problem. because if we are willing to let the quality of journalism decline, if we are willing to cater to the lowest common denominator, it is us who loses, specifically later generations. it is us who will not catch the politicians when they are hiding things from us and/or not doing what we pay them for.

and it is not just politicians whom journalists check. they check the cops lest they get too heavy-handed. they check the corporations lest the top executives raid pension funds or use fuzzy math to show profits that don't exist or hide their money in offshore tax shelters. the stories appear every day but it seems no one is reading them.

and so, journalism finds itself at a crossroads. feed the people what they need or what they want? right now, it appears what they want is getting the upper hand. still, i have hope we still yet get it right.

i get frustrated w/ journalists who act as if the public knows, (100% and unerringly,) what is good for them. the truth is, often they do not. when scarborough goes on the air and says americans prefer this to that by a 55-45% margin, he means to lend the choice some sort of innate divine right of kings blessing, as if the majority could not possible be wrong. but we know better than that. right?

the truth is it can go either way at any time. sometimes the majority is spot on. other times they're overwhelmingly wrong. but to posit that their (our,) endorsement makes it so is ludicrous. and if we can get to this point where we admit the public sometimes does not know what is good for it, it seems to me it isn't much further until we get to the point where we value journalism and its role in our society so much that we protect it, (nurse it back to health even.)

media outlets that gain money from the basest instincts of its consumers should pay a tax to promote the public service side of the business that puts those reporters out there watching the various entities on our behalf, that gets that front page section ready every day and promotes a lively debate in the op-ed pages. how do you ensure they do such a thing? mandate it? i guess not. but i don't purport to have the answer. i am more interested in the questions.

why does bill o'reilly say many newspapers do not want to report the story? is it true? i suppose maybe it is but it's hardly a part of the story considering how much coverage the story's gotten. i've been reading about it for a long time. i think the following two paragraphs say much about bill o'reilly:

There are a number of reasons for the depressing situation, pardon the pun. The internet provides news efficiently, the decline of public education means fewer Americans care about what's going on, and people are very busy these days. Many of us don't have time to spend an hour reading the paper.

that paragrph was factual and reasonable. and he hit the nail right on the head. he is accurate-these really are the reasons newspapers are in decline.

But the collapse of journalistic standards is another reason some have turned away from the press. Most Americans are not ideological junkies, craving their daily dose of political propaganda. Just give us the facts, and some lively opinion based on the facts. The political jihadists who have taken over some newspapers are driving people away.

the first sentence clings to truth in journalism by sheer hint. in fact one could say almost anything in this manner and be basically correct. for example:

the adherence to religious dogma is another reason the u.s. leads the world in murders per capita.

i'm sure that is a true sentence and yet, it is far from relevant, really. the fact that americans are not ideological junkies, (that characterization may hint that o'reilly's staged outrage is wearing on him,) craving our daily propaganda, is a platitude. i find o'reilly's use of the word "lively," to be most telling. what scholar would say the debate need be lively? how about evenly matched? or erudite? well supported?

but lively is bill's game. he gets in there and blusters and talks like a man who is ever ready to take someone behind the wood shed and give them a whooping if necessary, and he is lively. but in a way he is right too, despite his swipe at self preservation. the facts are key. the debate is a natural but we do not need to hold it sacred. whenever two or more gather, there will be debate. no need to protect it.

the facts are another matter. they need to be accounted for at all times. hence, we need the journalism of ethics and standards. bill's last sentence in this paragraph, (i have to admit,) gets on my nerves a little. again, it's quite colorful. as if the islamic culture is not being demonized enough over here and americans are just not frightened enough, bill takes the opportunity to use "jihadists," to drive his point home. political jihadists. this is meant to say the liberals who stand by their journalistic standards demanding all things political be held accountable, are conducting a holy war against the people who might have subscribed, (i think i am supposed to get, the good and decent people who might have read their paper.)

bill gives opinion which is how he gets away with a sentence like that (again.) the political jihadists, (who these people are we must guess. bill could be implying it's the owners of the new york times but who really knows? he goes on to say the times ran 53 articles critical of the president in 30 days over katrina. katrina may represent the single most easy episode to be critical of the president for in his tenure and given the number of op-ed pieces the times prints, is almost two a day really that much? is it overkill?)

maybe the jihadists is the chicago tribune corporation which took over the la times or maybe it is the owners of the nyt, for bill? but these are also the papers whose ownership is most alligned with o'reilly's values. the corporate owners are the ones most focused on profits and therefore, most willing to listen to what the people want.

it is interesting to note the family owned papers like newsday have maintained staffing levels at a higher rate than the corporate owned ones and allowed profit margins to slip down in order to maintain their journalistic integrity. (meanwhile, the la times wins a record number of pulitzer prizes and loses its editor in chief and another fraction of staff, not to mention pages.) so bill attempts to bite the hand that feeds him in order to perpetuate the myth he is really trying to sell here, which is that the media is liberally-biased.

oh? and so, the jihadists is really just liberals again. bill is ranting against liberals. i totally get it now and i should have gotten it sooner but the truth is, one has to dissect what a guy like bill o'reilly says if one is to understand it for what it is. seriously, he uses language like a tool in order to promote his opinion. it's worth saying too, o'reilly is an articulate fellow.

when bill goes on to say this paper or that paper has 9 to 1 liberal columnists to conservative, he further means to polarize. and this is what i dislike about bill o'reilly. it's not the bloviating so much as it is the divisiveness. if he were less obsessed with polarizing people, less concerned with telling his audience they must be attached to an accepted wing of today's ideological poles, i wouldn't mind dealing wth what he actually has to say.

later o'reilly mentions the new york times (in a way meant to imply they are especially liberal,) yet it was an nyt reporter who was doing the bidding of the current administration when joe wilson wrote a piece critical of their motives for going to iraq, (and critical of their "evidence,") by publishing the name of a cia operative who was undercover, (joe wilson's wife.) (robert novak, another right wing schill faux journalist was also involved.) when her (judith miller,) editor removed her from all things washington and assigned her elsewhere, because of the appearance of journalistic impropriety, he later said she kept drifting back over there. this is to say, she continued to turn in the occasional story on national affairs and washington politics. and no wonder, she was the tool of karl rove and scooter libby who of course, are tools of dick cheney.

the point is, o'reilly should stop lumping everyone together. it does none of us any good to label ourselves or stigmatize another perspective we see as contrasting with our own. so it is that o'reilly later says this:

And then there is the hate factor. Not only do many newspapers aggressively push an agenda, but they demonize those with whom they disagree.

i guess o'reilly would say i am demonizing him right now if he were to read my lengthy retort, but i don't mean to demonize him. i mean to take issue with his methods and techniques, and with the substance of the things he says. in fact, i hope i have said enough to withdraw myself from liberalism's corner while pointing out the error of o'reilly's way, which of course is his liberal use of bias and innuendo. . .

the nba sends a message?

when the nba mandates a white, business-oriented dress code for its players, i wonder if it has fully considered the message it is sending.

on the surface, the message is: society is more comfortable with people who dress in a certain fashion, (the fashion itself, a non-fashion of coats and ties and slacks and loafers and tucked-in shirts,) therefore, because the league's image is in need of a cleanup and because the league needs the players to look like role models, (even if they are not that,) for the many black kids who look up to them, (so the league can sell the players and itself and make lots of money for both parties, but disproportionately more for the owners and executives whose job it is to supply the capital on the front side and market the league believing all the while theirs is the real talent and guys who are athletic and play basketball well are a dime a dozen so the league is justified in taking the lion's share of profits,) we impose this dress code to make our athletes who happen to be mostly black, look, well, white.

is that the message the nba meant to send? the underlying message is directed at those young and impressionable the nba deigns to tell that clothing, yea fashion choices, make the man, which should be considered a lie. the nba is telling kids not to dress like a rapper and one can only speculate about the reasons. is it because rappers are considered bad or evil or in poor taste? is it the white man's incessant fear of the black man? (and if so, isn't that fear a natural byproduct of the slaveowner-slave relationship?)

are jay-z and sean "puffy" combs not role models?

look, draw your own conclusions here. i'm always more interested in the questions than the answers but this move by david stern is topsy-turvy.

the nba is in effect saying, (by this dress code edict,) the clothing of the white man is respectable and anything that deviates from it is not. (at the same time they are saying long live the status quo, hooray for the establishment, and rich people rule.)

this is not the message we should be sending to our kids, especially those who do not come from advantage. we should be telling them substance is what matters, not attire. maybe the dress code is not even about black and white. maybe it's about young and old. maybe the kids who play basketball for a living are doing their version of the vietnam war protest, only their rebellion comes in baggy, low-riding pants and throwback jerseys, backwards baseball caps and doo rags.

are the black kids who enter the nba still wet behind the ears, embracing white, corporate america? or are they merely paid by that monolith, happy to take the cash and accompanying lifestyle, but inclined to move off in their own direction as it relates to their personal and private lives? for way too long we have asked if david stern approves of ai. i wonder if ai approves of david stern. i wonder if stephen jackson is a fan of ken lay. does ben wallace endorse the corporate world of the halliburtons et. al., shuffling money off to the caymen islands to shelter profits from taxation and paying off politicians in nigeria at the expense of the people whose babies will breathe polluted air?

is the nba telling all kids the uniform preferred by corporate america is the only acceptable attire? if so, is that fascist and misguided?

also, if shirts and pants today, is hair next? will wallace's corn row/afro puff tandem be replaced by a fade? or is corruption solely the realm of fashion? what about cars? can they pull up to the arena in a stretched hummer limo with spinning rims or will they be required to own a town car or a navigator? and what of tattoos? so associated with jail and drugs. . .perhaps stern can ban them? surely he would have to grandfather in the tatted players of today but he could get the word out that outside of the tats in existence this very day, tattoos are banned from the bodies of nba players and punishable by laser removal and a charitable donation.

how pathetic the various elder statesmen of sport, too, this past week lining up in support of david stern's misstep. the anti-role model charles barkley declared the new code good for the black kids of america and michael irvin could be seen grinning on espn in support of a dress code that would tolerate his suits, (which tend to look magnanimous in a hollywood nightclub but would likely get a young, black kid in a corporate job interview a "good-luck-and-we'll-keep-your-resume-on-file," and the door.)

isn't it time we stopped kowtowing to the insecure? who cares what the person is wearing? care about their performance. care about their actions. ron artest is not a thug because of his clothing. nor is jim brown a thug because of his skull cap. actions should define people, (and it could be argued they do for the reasonable but in this case, the unreasonable exercise command.) when teaching children i think it is wise to denounce the action, as opposed to the man. (by the way, for those who haven't been paying attention, jim brown is closer to being a saint than a thug.)

on the other hand, if the lesson the guys in the nba and the black kids are getting is: the world is not fair and does not necessarily makes sense but if you do not conform, it will break you so it is important to choose your battles wisely and suck on a lemon from time to time, then that is a whole other thing and brings up an entirely new set of questions.