Author: Spocko

Brian Williams’ RPG “Mistake” In Iraq Was A Wartime Gift 


by Spocko

Wednesday Travis J. Tritten at Stars and Stripes did an exclusive story about Brian William’s actual experience while in a helicopter in Iraq in 2003 vs. the narrative that he either helped create or failed to correct in the subsequent years.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.

The quick twitter take is to call Williams a liar, say he should be fired and bring up his daughter in Peter Pan and Girls for some bizarre reason.

That’s fun for one news cycle, but I wondered, “What can we learn from this story and how can we use it for change?”

My first step was to tweet to @Travis_Tritten to thank him and his sources, whom I will call Narrative Busters because Myth Busters is taken.  (I don’t want to call them Whistleblowers because we know what happens to them.)

How Is This “Mistake” Different?

Journalists and “journalists” get called out all the time by groups like Media Matters and comedians like Stewart and Colbert. Sometimes the media address their “mistakes,” often the critics are ignored.

What is different about this story is that it forced Williams (and NBC) to acknowledge his lie.  The reason it wasn’t ignored is because it came from another serious media player, Stars and Stripes. Especially interesting is that this player might not have run the story at a different time under a different administration.

I want to encourage more of this kind of work, especially if it is used to improve the quality of our media. What will it take?

Why Was this False Narrative Encouraged For So Long?  

Some have asked, “Why wasn’t this corrected sooner?” That’s easy to answer, William’s fabricated close call with a RPG on a chopper was part of the narrative about the war that the media created for itself and for Americans at home.

They were assisted by the military brass who knew a good story when they heard it, therefore they didn’t take steps to correct the record.  As they say, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

The lie about William’s getting shot down reinforced several ideas and narratives.

1) Iraq is a scary place and needs control. Reporters need to be embedded with “the troops” for their own protection. The green zone briefing tent gives the media what they need to know. Shorthand for staying put? “Remember what happened to Brian Williams.”

2) We need to fight these people, they are fighting us.

 “They aren’t throwing flowers and sweets at us you peace-loving hippies! They SHOT AT BRIAN WILLIAMS! Of COURSE we had to kill everyone in the area!” 

3) People with “skin in the game” sell the war better. Some in the military knew it was a lie, but why spoil Williams’ great story? “Let the baby have his bottle.”

4) Excitement! Ratings! Stories about people trying to kill rich innocent journalists are exciting! People at home can feel better about killing Iraq’s when America’s Favorite 30 Rock guest star is almost killed.

Getting the perspectives of the poor innocent Iraqis is boring and makes people at home feel bad. I’m falling asleep just typing that sentence.

5) The biggest relate-able celebrity is always used to pitch the story. Want to tell a story about the massive tsunami in another country? Tell the story of the white supermodel caught in it.

6) Use the “missing white woman” story for war. The decision by NBC and Williams to co-opt a real person’s experience was useful to get the public’s attention and empathy using someone they could relate to.

NBC and Williams might even have justified the lie saying it was representative of others’ real story that wouldn’t get covered without celebrity.

Who Kept This Narrative Going?

That the truth got out at all is rather astonishing, and I’m glad it did. Imagine if this encouraged other people to come forward to tell real war stories vs. the narrative myth created for positive public consumption?

Clearly this story could have been corrected many times in the past, but think about who would have had to do it and what they risked doing it earlier. Then think about how we can force earlier corrections.

Both the military brass and the NBC brass contributed to this “mistake.”

Military’s Role Promoting the Lie

Say you were there, either in Williams’ helicopter or the one actually forced down. When you see the story you go to your commanding officer and say, “That’s NOT what happened!” The officer thinks, “Does correcting this help or hurt our relationship with the media? Does it change the public’s perception of what is happening here?”

If the officer calls out Williams and asks for change what happens? Awkward! Maybe the officer just lets it slide and tells the solider to not bring it up since it’s true in general for people in some choppers, just not specifically for Williams.

Here’s the deal, the military media contacts aren’t the truth police, they aren’t NBC fact checkers. It’s not their job to get the media’s facts right. On the other hand, if the story made them look bad they would demand the truth, or negotiate some kind of deal. “We won’t tell anyone about your little fib, don’t tell anyone about our big lies.”

NBC’s Role Promoting the Lie

 Say you were a cameraman on the chopper with Williams and knew the story was BS. You tell the producer who thinks, does correcting this “mistake” help or hurt the story to the American public? What about NBC’s and Williams’ credibility?

How will the NBC brass feel finding out that the “brave reporter” story they have been hyping is a lie? Remember, NBC is the network who fired a top-rated money-making show because they didn’t want to be seen as anti-war.  So the cameraman lets it slide since it’s true in general for the people in some choppers, just not specifically for Williams. If people ask questions, blame the frog of war. 

Why Could This Story Be Written Now? 

We are officially out of Iraq. Ha! But the good news is that this story signals it’s safe to do these stories now since they won’t hurt the war effort.  No one has to promote the need for that war anymore, they got what they wanted, now they want ISIS money.

Of course smart people might ask, “Hey, if they made up stuff about the last war, might they be doing the same now with ISIS?” Shut up. Shut up. Shut up! I can’t believe you aren’t shutting up already!

Terrorists, the military and the media have learned about how to rev up people since the non-existent WMDs days. Of course ISIS is bad, just look at these videos! We need money and troops to deal with these bad guys!

How Do We Use This Going Forward?

The media is very good at giving powerful people another bite of the apple. Maybe Williams expects to be granted the same second bite. I’m willing to give him his bite, but I want something, a commitment to doing a better job.

What will be the fall out Williams or NBC for maintaining this multi-year lie? Of course on Fox the right kind of lie is required, it gets you promoted. But the rest of the MSM is not Fox News. Networks are going to want to distance themselves from lies. Bolster their trustworthiness.  This is our opportunity to challenge their practices, remind them of their brand promise.

We can make Williams the butt of jokes, or use his story as a lever.  Are they news people or cheerleaders?

A truth and reconciliation program for war journalists doesn’t exist, but if it did, it shouldn’t just be about telling the truth, it should be about being better in the future. ‘In the past I lied. I apologize. I will not do it again. I will use this experience to be better in the future.”

That kind of pledge is what we need.

If Williams story was accurate in the beginning, would it have changed the support for the war narrative?  Maybe not, but it tells us something that they chose this narrative. There is a pro-war-I’m-a-tough-guy-take-’em-all-out-no matter-what-the-cost, bias there.  

My friends who served, write about how horrible war is and want to make sure any future war fought is worth it.

Getting swept up in a pro-war narrative doesn’t just happen. It takes a lot of people who encourage it and keep it going. We will need narrative busters for current and future wars. People who can tell the truth and help thwart a easily lead media.

Who Profits?

Finally, Williams’ lie wasn’t a mistake for the pro-war forces, it was a valuable gift, worth 100’s of millions of dollars given by NBC to military contractors (one of whom, GE, was its parent at the time). It might also have helped goose NBCs ratings and enhanced Williams’ personal reputation and net worth come contract negotiation time.

I’m glad that Travis J. Tritten’s story acknowledges the service of the people in the damaged helicopter.  But sadly I’m sure there is more than one big weapons manufacturer exec out there who can smilingly say to Williams, “Thank you for your service.”

Crossposted to Spocko’s Brain

How Torture Wins In the US Marketplace of Ideas 
by Spocko

Over two thirds of Christians support the torture of terrorist suspects.—Washtington Post Poll, January 3, 2015

How did this happen? How did actions considered morally repugnant and war crimes in World War II, become acceptable now? And by Christians, goddamnit! Who made this happen, who let this happen, who helped it happen? And finally, is there a way to change this opinion?

My friend Dr. Rebecca Gordon, goes into detail on some of these questions in her book Mainstreaming Torture, but recently I saw a TV show and heard a radio program that illustrated how some of it happened. It took a mix of secrecy, rhetorical tricks and proactive marketing to make torture become acceptable in the US.

First I watched a tv series set in 1962 in a slightly different America. Here’s the opening scene:

Fade in: Two men are watching a color newsreel in an elegant theatre. The title reads, “A New Day in America.” We see images of smiling workers in factories, farms and office settings. The announcer says, “Everyone has a job, everyone knows the part they play keeping our country strong.” he adds, “but our greatest days lie ahead.”

In the seats a note is handed off. As one of the men leaves he is silhouetted by the American flag flying on the screen. As the flag unfurls you see the stars have been replaced by a white swastika on a blue background. The announcer ends with, “Sieg Heil.” 

This is the opening scene from the new Amazon TV series “The Man in the High Castle.” (The first episode is free.)

In this alternative history, based on the Phillip K. Dick book, the Nazi’s won World War II, the US is split between the Japanese in the west and the Nazi’s in the east.

In this timeline Hitler wasn’t defeated. The Nuremberg Trials never happened. The atrocities committed by one group of humans on another were never revealed, condemned or punished.

 

Christian religious leaders go back to their churches to give Sunday sermons about the Bible and the New Testament. 

People write books, become pundits and experts in their field. They talk to the media, go on talk shows to plug their latest books and go on the speaking circuit to explain how they won the war.

In this alt-US, do they allow some dissension, or do they attack, smear and jail people who try to reveal the whole story? 

We often hear this question, “How could Germans gone along with the atrocities that were happening?” Lots of answers.

• They didn’t know. 
• They knew but were afraid to speak up because of the fear of their own safety. 
• They knew, but were told these actions were necessary for safety and success. 
• They agreed with the actions. 
• They were angry at the people whom they believed hurt them and their country and wanted to hurt them back. 
• They rejected previously agreed upon legal, practical, moral and religious views about torture and accepted new definitions, rationals and priorities that were provided to them for justification of torture and other war crimes.

Who’s Selling Torture In the Marketplace Of Ideas?

Which leads me to the radio program I heard,  Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? It was a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared with John Yoo arguing that mass phone data colletion does NOT violate the 4th Amendment.

Yoo is introduced  as “controversial” by ABC correspondent John Donvan. Yoo makes a few jokes about Berkeley liberals, the audience laughs and claps and it’s off to the races.

The intro reminded me of a guest on the Tonight Show offering up a funny story before he sets up the clip from his latest fish-out-of water buddy film. 

Here’s the video link to the intro. Here’s the transcription link to the debate.

Spoiler Alert! Yoo’s side lost. The audience’s minds were changed.

PRE-DEBATE POLL RESULTS

46% FOR | 17% AGAINST | 37% UNDECIDED

POST-DEBATE POLL RESULTS

66% FOR | 28% AGAINST | 6% UNDECIDED

After watching the debate I thought about all the people who promoted and are still promoting Yoo and his ideas vs those who challenged them. Conservatives love to talk about winning in the “Marketplace of Ideas.” I laugh when I hear this. It reminds me of the sales people I knew who would half jokingly say, “All I want is an unfair advantage.”

The pro-torture forces look for venues where they have an unfair advantage like one sided “debates” where they control the microphone or use strawmen instead of guests.

They want to talk to people and venues they can control via fear and rhetoric. For example, Dick Cheney on Meet the Press talking to Chuck Todd about torture.  Todd wasn’t going to really push Cheney, he might be seen to have an option, or worse, risk Cheney not coming on the show again.

 (BTW, listen to this great clip from the Jimmy Dore Show where Todd admits if he “barks” at guests they won’t come back on the show. Audio clip, starts at 24:45 )

If Todd and the rest of the corporate media aren’t going to challenge these ideas can we get them to book an anti-Dick Cheney to go on shows and challenge him?

When only the sellers of torture are being bought by the media as public the best guests and leading experts, we get an United States like in The Man in the High Castle. We have won the war but lost the values that we believed made us special.

Is this our flag?

Or is it really this? What are our current values?

Next, what will it take to change this opinion? Who will do it? Will anyone pay for doing it in the marketplace of ideas? Or should we just accept Dick Cheney’s reality has won and move on?

*American Flag, by Eric Lynch via Creative Commons license

*Flag from screen grab of Amazon Production’s The Man in The High Castle 

Here’s What The Media Isn’t Talking About, the Immorality of Torture

By Spocko

I’ve been on the “torture beat” for a long time. It makes me a real drag at dinner parties, so I decided to move those conversations out to the web and to the media.

So much of the current discussion in the media about torture is focusing on, “Does it work?”  There is little focus on, “Is it right?”

People in the media are looking at the legality, but not the morality. Discussing morality makes the mainstream media uncomfortable. To help them out, I’ve been suggesting they talk to Dr. Rebecca Gordon, a philosophy professor at University of San Francisco, who wrote this book:

Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post – 9/11 United States.

(It got great reviews from Torture Magazine! Seriously, there is a Torture Magazine.)

Here she is on Fox News 2 KTVU last night.

This morning she was on the Majority Report with Sam Seder. (Audio link.She starts at 30 minutes in.)

Because she has a depth of knowledge she can talk about the legal and political issues around torture, but especially the moral issues. We need to talk about that. The moral condemnation of acts of torture is not a given today.

Bill O’Reilly thinks torture is moral. From what tradition? Catholicism? I’d suggest the Pope debate him but I think it is a venal sin to subject the Holy Father to Bill O’Reilly. Also, the second you mention the Catholic Church and torture everyone goes to the Spanish Inquisition. I get it, but c’mon they have repudiated that a long time ago.

O’Reilly says torturing “barbarians” is morally right when it is about “protecting the innocent.”

That is a phrase often used on the right, especially by men, to justify certain actions.” What would you do to protect your family?”  Guns everywhere advocates use it because they want you to be afraid and in protector mode.  It makes people feel good about the protecting family and surprise, it sells more guns.

One of the reasons we are seeing people coming out wanting to believe torture works is because that justifies their embrace of a morally repugnant act. “Well at least it keeps us safe.”

Who benefits when we ramp down the fear? Who benefits from a nation of frightened taxpayers? Who benefits from a country that accepts torture as inevitable and even a moral good?

The same people who want us to be constantly afraid, profit from that fear.  Retired generals working for Raytheon and General Dynamics tell us ISIS is the worst of the worst. We need to be afraid so we can feel good about the military protecting us and, surprise! We buy more drones, weapons and bombs. It also boosts the stock price of their employers.

The line they give is, “If we are afraid, we can do whatever we want.” If some entity wants to keep doing whatever it wants, it will keep us afraid.

There are different kinds of strengths that can benefit us, financial, material, physical, but also moral. Torturing people, and then refusing to hold the architects of torture accountable makes us morally weak.

I’d like the media to start talking about this. It would be great if they brought in religious people and secular humanists to talk about torture as morally wrong. They could talk with the fearful, who can explain how their fear should overrule all other values.

If someone sets up this kind of show and wants Dr. Gordon on, drop me a line I’ll help make it happen.

LLAP,
Spocko
spockosemail at gmail. com

Would Brian Williams Go To Jail To Protect A Source? Analysis of The Newsroom, Episode 4

by Spocko

 Daniel Ellsberg once said that he got the Pentagon Papers out to impress a woman. In his book Secrets Duncan Campbell at the Guardian said this about Ellsberg’s story.

“It is also, in a way, a love story about how he fell for his wife, Patricia Marx, and her pivotal role in ensuring that the papers were leaked.”

In the forth Episode of The Newsroom, Reese, the president of the company that owns the network ACN, is explaining to the female producer MacKenzie, why they can’t run a big story. The new network owner’s lawyers had advised him that the Justice department would hit ACN with “crippling criminal fines.”

MacKenzie calls this horseshit and starts shouting about what everyone gave up for this story. Will, the anchor, might go to jail to protect the source. If the story doesn’t get out she feels that it was all for nothing. Reese tells her why he thinks Will has been so willing to stand up for journalism for this story.

Reese: “Since the day you got here Will has been having a battle with himself, is he a real journalist or is he just good on TV? Did you ever think he might be doing this for you?” 

Mac: “I’ve got his ring on my finger he’s not doing this to win my approval.”

Reese: “Then it would be the first thing I’ve seen him do that wasn’t. “

All this season I’ve been watching The Newsroom to see what Sorkin can tell me about some of the pressures that real people might feel in his fantasy network newsroom.

 I then compare what I see that meshes with the experiences of myself and others in the corporate world, the world of media and in our personal lives. My goal is to figure out how we might use those same pressures on the real network news to our benefit.

The Will/ MacKenzie dynamic is something that might be hard to replicate with the journalists at the cable and network news. Lots of people assume that the network news people have no values. But I don’t think that is correct. I think that they are constantly trying to balance competing values and looking for excuses or reasons to follow one over the other. They tell themselves things like ‘live to fight another day” when they back away from a story.

I wonder, do any of the Sunday show hosts or network news anchors have a MacKenzie in their lives? Do they care what anyone thinks about their journalism? Are they looking for an excuse to not do the best they can, or a reason to do it?

In this episode the broadcast version of the Snowden-like story is squashed because of nervous lawyers’ opinion and the phrase, “crippling criminal fines.”

Of course they could be wrong, but it is a standard acceptable excuse to a corporation to not run a story. Blame the government! It will cost us too much! They have internalized that their duty is to the shareholders, not to the public. (Go ahead and say it’s all about money, money, money, but remember, MSNBC didn’t care about the money when it canceled the highly rated and profitable Donahue show. News Corp kept the money losing Glenn Beck Show on the air with no advertisers.)

 Sorkin has shown us that money, “crippling fines,” have the biggest impact on the network’s ultimately behavior.

If the parent corporation really wanted to make money on Sunday mornings shows they wouldn’t have Chuck Todd talking to President McCain every week. They have other reasons for keeping those shows on.

Sure we can beg Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolis or Chuck Todd to honor their inner MacKenzie, but they might not have one. Instead, why don’t we push the institutional investors, AKA, “The Almighty Shareholders” on how unprofitable the Sunday shows and the news divisions are?

Then the parent corp will start talking about its duty and quoting from the ignored FCC charters about “serving the public.” They would be making long speeches about how essential the news is and how it doesn’t have to make money.

When the TV networks decided that serving the public came after serving the shareholder, they became vulnerable to the same whims of advertisers as a sitcom. When they saw being “the press” as a way to make money from the access privileges and didn’t feel the need to fulfill their other press duties, they became vulnerable to Wall Street’s demand for quarterly profits.

In the end of the episode we see how people who try to hang onto their values in the network TV world do it. MacKenzie gets the story to a principled journalist, a 71 year old woman at the AP. The network that should have benefited from the scoop, ACN, won’t. No guts, no glory.

Charlie, the network news president, thinks he has found someone who shares his values who will buy the network. But it turns out he was suckered by another rich person using the upcoming sale of the network as leverage for her own purposes.

I think this is Sorkin’s way of reminding us that money people always have their own agenda that is only tangentially related to what a company actually does. They will say they are on the side of quality or schlock, as long as they get what they want at that time.

If “The Almighty Stockholders” don’t buy into the fundamental difference of owning a “press entity” vs owning a Content Creator, they will let “The most trusted name in news” become a slogan and nothing more.

Network News Brands and Their Value

Is the news network brand damaged when they fail to identify who is paying retired generals pushing drone strikes and bombings? Is their paid compensation from Raytheon or General Dynamics relevant? Or doesn’t it matter if “everyone is doing it?” Does that mean failing to identify the drug companies behind doctors is next? Would that hurt their brand? Why identify one funding source and not the other?

Sorkin is also showing us that individuals can maintain their values in an organization that says it can’t afford to have them. Right now the individuals pay the price. At one point in this episode MacKenzie challenges the source to flee to Venezuelan or face a grand jury instead the ACN staff. The source responds,

“Do you really think the price for telling the truth should be that high?”

MacKenzie shakes her head, “No I don’t.”

Who is paying the price for the failure of our network news? We know who benefits.

To quote John Stewart to the hosts of Crossfire, “Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Stop hurting America.”

Where’s Our Anti-War Propo? Lessons from The Hunger Games: Mockingjay
by Spocko

I’m guessing a lot of adults skipped, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1” I didn’t. Maybe you thought, “Why watch a movie about a bunch of poor people fighting for the amusement of the rich when I can watch Black Friday videos of people fighting for free?” But I’m glad I watched it, because it reminded of some important lessons about persuasion.

(Side questions: Do rich people camp out overnight in front of the high-end retail stores for Black Friday sales?  Is there video of people fighting over the last $3, 395 beige lizard Clara convertible clutch?)

Mick LaSalle, my favorite writer of movie reviews didn’t like it, but points out a key part of the movie, the focus on making propaganda and selling war.

On The Newsroom Who Pays the Price for Having Principles? Episode 3 Analysis
by Spocko

Episode 3 of The Newsroom deals with a Snowden-like leak to a TV journalist. I wonder, how would a mainstream TV network actually handle a story like this? Spoilers below.

ACN newsroom is raided by FBI to find leak source.

The big issues The Newsroom dealt with in episode three include:

• US Government possibly charging a journalist with espionage
• Snowden-like revelations about the government’s role in riot deaths
• Protecting the Snowden-like source’s identity
• A Bezos-like billionaires possibly buying a TV news network

This episode also had multiply eye rolling moments:

• Awkward relationship conversations between several men and women.
• An awkward business conversation between a rich nerd and old school news executive

Sorkin is criticized for how he writes women, but I’m going to say most of his relationship conversations in The Newsroom suck. I see those scenes as filler between the interesting issues and monologues, kind of like bad commercials for dating sites.

Of the interesting parts the Snowden-like revelations all seemed familiar. Then I figured out why. I had recently watched Citizenfour by Laura Poitras about the revelations of Snowden and the process. Go see the movie. It really is watching history unfold in real time. Plus you can see how the mainstream media really handled the Snowden story.

Watching the story unfold in Citzenfour makes it clear Snowden made the right choice going to Poitras, Greenwald and the Guardian. Even if he had a team like the ACN people backing him, you can see how they could get convinced to turn it all over to the government.

Sorkin is trying to show how a TV network might act if they got a Snowden-like story. It has all the components:

• Idealistic young journalist who does the right thing
• Cynical famous news anchor tried to reclaim his young idealistic self
• Hyper-competent producer with integrity
• Network news management backing the news–until the bill comes due
• Corporate Lawyers lawyering.
• A government bully who waves the “national security” flag at every turn
• Snowden-like character pushing the timetable

At one point the network president talks about how scared Neal, the journalist who ran, was. When people with guns show up in a newsroom with warrants to take away your hard drives, that’s scary. Threatening you with serious jail time is even scarier. I get a nosebleed just thinking about the stress Neal is under.

Eventually the high powered lawyers at the network negotiate a “ceasefire” with the deputy US Attorney General.

Would any of the TV networks have stood up to the government in this scenario? Why or why not? And if they did, what would be the consequences?

The last part of the episode points out the problem of not having the kind of funding that enables you to do the right thing. If a principled parent corp can’t protect you, then you need a rich backer who can.

But the entire concept of the TV newsrooms needing to make a profit, is also a big point I think Sorkin is making. To make a profit do you have to change your news or change your views on what is news?

The rich nerd backer they bring in to be the White Knight is clearly designed to bring up all the fears serious journalism people worry about. “How about a disaster channel? or a “Stalking Danny Glover” channel?” the Bezo-like character suggests to the network president.

But the current reality is that those crazy ideas are already being implemented, but the craziest idea is no longer even brought up. It’s now the standard. News needs to make money. But what if the news division wasn’t a profit center? Would removing the need to make money mean the advertisers and government can’t push them around when it comes to news? What would/could networks do with that freedom that they aren’t doing now?

ACN currently has a dream deal for good journalism. But in the real world those kind of dream deals exist for non-good too. For example, the one News Corp gives The New York Post. They get to lose 110 million dollars a year, EVERY YEAR.

What kind of journalism are they doing there?

As part of a bigger company the network news division can be used as a money losing strategic asset to accomplish other corporate goals. That’s how Murdoch used his at first.

It is not a given that no money pressures lead to the freedom to do the right thing. But if that freedom is combined with some principles, then the power can be directed.

What are those principles? A responsibility to tell the truth? Or a responsibility to increase quarterly profits? Can you do both, or does one need to take the back seat? Who decides?

Sorkin’s fantasy network reminds us what pressures the TV networks face, what principles they say they believe in and explores how they might act when those principles are tested.

Photo credit. HBO’s The Newroom

The Newsroom: A Fantasy Network Reality Show
by Spocko

Aaron Sorkin writes more fantasy than George R.R. Martin. The Newsroom is Sorkin’s latest. I watch SF and fantasy for entertainment first and if I get some insights into human nature and into a different world that’s a bonus. The season three opener of The Newsroom was useful in both these ways and also gave me some ideas for media activism.

These things happened in Sunday’s episode of The Newsroom:

• A TV news network learned from a major mistake made last season. They changed their behavior to maintain a higher professional standard and are trying to do better.

 

• People in the news division have values and responsibilities in their lives and profession other than the bottom line. They will act on these even at the cost of their ratings or job.

 

• The president of the network states that the news division’s autonomy can only be protected if they have good ratings. Rating are not separated from quality or ethical work. Ratings equals money. If they don’t maintain high ratings they will lose autonomy.

 

•  It appears the news division’s recent failure impacted the parent companies’ financial projections. The parent company is now under some kind of attack from outside entities with unknown goals.

Which of these are fantasies, which are likely real life situations? It’s tempting to say one and two are fantasies and three and four are realities. But I think they can all be realities.

Emergency “Boston Bombing” Reporting vs. Regular Reporting


In this episode they deal with the Boston Bombing reporting and mention how Reddit members, Twitter and “Citizen Journalists” are covering the news. Of course there are digs at all including other networks, “We don’t go in based on tweets from witnesses we can’t talk to. What kind of credible news agency would do that?” cut to Fox News.

But this is Emergency Reporting where mistakes are often made.  So they can blame the fog of breaking news, but getting it right does matter. Especially when someone’s life is put in danger because of a failure of the people working as journalists.  People might forgive some mistakes in a breaking story, but what if it’s a regular occurrence?

What kind of mechanisms are in place for people at news organizations to do the right thing? Can we help them? Get other interested third parties to help?  Can we get others to punish them for failing to do the right thing?

Who cares about Regulatory Violations and Journalism Ethical Failures?

Remember Lee Fang’s report: Who’s Paying the Pro-War Pundits?  He showed how the TV networks weren’t identifying the weapons makers who were actually paying the retired generals and pundits on the news and discussion shows.

Depending on the situation, these failures could be violations of the FCC, FTC and SEC regulations.  They could also be violations of the networks’ own journalism guidelines.

When the retired generals and pro-war pundits went on it wasn’t an emergency with no time to check details.  The producers and hosts failed to do their job, not only the ones implicated in Fangs’ story, but also many more in 2013 based on a Public Accountability Initiative report.

Unlike the cast in The Newsroom, we have not seen any of the networks changing their behavior around their failure to identify people.  Is it because no regulatory or employment lawyers were involved? No public pressure? Is it because no revenue was threatened? Because all the cool kids are doing it? (Except for that stuck up suck up News Hour on PBS.)

When people in TV news divisions got busted in 2008 in the New York Times story for using the Pentagon officials working for military contractors, the issue was one of identification AND financial conflict of interest.  The TV networks acted. They fixed the problem as they saw it by taking the financial conflict of interest out of the equation and firing the retired generals they were paying. They now bring new retired generals back as guests.  But the identification problem still exists.

Why did TV networks change their behavior around retired generals talking on the news in 2008 but not in 2014?  Again, we might get some ideas from The Newsroom.

In this episode you can see which types of pressures appear to take priority over others.  Some are internal to the person, some to the division, others to the company and then still others to a higher power, or for some the highest power, The Shareholders.

In a scene with the president of the company:

I want you to do the news well, but your power comes from your ratings and the autonomy of the news division comes from your power.

You are not going to be able to do the stories you want. You are not going to be able to say what you want. And frankly are not going to be able to stay on the air because my mother and I can only protect you from the board if you are making money.”

If the parent companies only see their news divisions as a profit center, like any other, then they will use the standard club, “Make money or we cut you loose.”

In the episode, Will, the ACN anchor laments. “But we did everything right!” when they didn’t get good ratings, as if quality and ratings were tightly linked. He thinks the news is special, that they have a responsibility to the public and viewers, not just The Shareholders.

However, as we have seen in the case of MSNBC, a parent company will cancel a highly rated, money-making show to serve another goal.

Were The Shareholders served by canceling Donahue, the highest rated show? The executives needed to make a case to someone for losing ad revenue when they canceled that show.

Did they use a larger picture revenue goal?  Did they articulate to The Shareholders that the brand image might become anti-war, and that would be a bad thing?   (MSNBC was partly owned by military contractor GE at the time.)

The issue of which of the many pressures the ACN team are under and which they will prioritize was still in flux at the end of the episode. In the real world all these same pressures are going on at the TV networks, but assuming that it’s always about the money is incorrect.

At different times, certain groups within a company will respond to and act for reasons that aren’t always directly tied to The Bottom Line.  And, if you are clever enough, you can even give them reasons why doing the right thing is good for the bottom line.

“Thank You for Your Service” a note to Progressive Volunteers, Activists and Supporters 

by Spocko

Maybe your proposition or candidate won. Maybe you got crushed by big money and blatant voter suppression techniques.  After a win some people look around and pat each other on the back and appreciate everyone’s hard work. Of course then some killjoy will say, “Now the hard work begins.”  Please. Just let me celebrate for a bit Debbie Downer.

After you fail some people will attack the people next to them. Instead of a “Thanks for the hard work, we’ll get ’em next time!” it becomes, “I knew we shouldn’t have listened to you! Spocko, your shenanigans cost us the election!”

Before any of that happens I want to say thank you to everyone who has spend so much brainpower, money and energy to help progressive causes and candidates.


Thank you for your service. On behalf of all Vulcan Americans, I appreciate your work, win or lose.

We can disagree on methods, issues and people, but I try to remember that our colleagues do the work because they too want to make the world better. Sure they might be misguided, wrong or naive, but they usually aren’t doing it maliciously.

We can get depressed with failure and quit, or learn from it. I try to channel my anger at the people I think are hurting America.

I try to remember to praise and support the people helping, even if not every attempt is a win. Yes, let’s learn from our failures, but in addition to soul searching, identifying and fixing failing internal strategies and actions–let’s look at the people, structures, systems and attitudes that defeated us and attack them. 

• Pissed that big money swamped your proposition? Take that experience and use it defeat Citizens United. 

• Angry that the media sat back and enjoyed the millions in campaign ad money with nary a story about money in politics? Time to check if they recorded all the “who paid for what” details in their public files and bust their ass if they didn’t comply.

  Do it now while you are still angry. The least they can do with all that juicy, juicy TV ad money is to do their publicly mandated job of record keeping, especially if they aren’t going to do any journalism. 

• Does it make you crazy that the people behind dark money got what they wanted and nobody knows who they are? Support people like my friends at the Center for Media and Democracy who are digging up the dirt on them. Then USE THAT DIRT!

  They are hiding for a reason, figure out what that reason is and use it as leverage. Maybe they don’t want their customers, investors or employees to know. They can either explain how their support of crazy candidates and regressive policies are in line with their brand values or stop supporting the regressive policies.  What else are they hiding? Footage of the CEO kicking a dog in an elevator? 

I want to contrast this work with people who dedicate their lives to making the world worse, more divisive and hateful. They know what they are doing, they aren’t dups. Instead of wishing them ill, I hope that they will have a Tony Stark or Lee Atwater level conversion and they use their power for good.

I went to a Day of the Dead party last week. I loved hearing the stories about friends’ dead relatives and loved ones. Sometimes the person wasn’t loved, but provided an example of how “not to be.”

Big Media Companies, “What are they afraid of?” 


By Spocko

For Halloween I’m reminded of a book reading I attended in San Francisco where I asked Matt Taibbi what companies like Goldman Sachs were afraid of. His answer was, “Not journalists!” then he laughed. Next he said, “They are worried about a few left over SEC regulations that they haven’t bought off yet.”

Yesterday I read that Matt Taibbi has left First Look Media before the launch of the Racket, the digital magazine he was hired to create seven months ago. The Intercept did a story about what they say happened.  Of course I’m waiting for the disgraced Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz to comment on this so I can hear from the other side. I’ll bet “the truth lies somewhere in the middle” and he will “leave it there.”

As I read the Intercept story I wondered if people at various companies that were to be the subject of the Racket are breathing a sigh of relief. Are they laughing? It appears that Taibbi leaving was a combination of a personality misfit with “the corporate form” and the need of Silicon Valley folks to always be thinking about ROI.

The damage control people at these companies might want to hold off on the champagne popping. Taibbi will find an outlet to write for and the Racket isn’t dead, but it has serious labor pains.  These things happen. Remember the News Corp iPad Online venture The Daily?  Murdoch dropped $60 million on it and it was shuttered after two years.

If ROI is in Omid’s Silicon Valley start-up DNA he should have thought outside the box (or law) like Rupert Murdoch. He could have used his knowledge of the upcoming stories on companies to short their stock before the story dropped. Hmmm, would that be illegal? Not if he told his congressperson about it and he makes a trade on the info. It’s good to have happy congress people as your allies.

If only Omid understood that to mold national attitudes, topple dynasties and pressure politicians you have to lose lots of money for a long, long time. If you want to have your parent corporate entity make money, use other sub-entities known to create revenue like cartoon shows, test prep companies or a businesses that sells stuff on-line. But Murdoch’s goals aren’t the goals of everyone who gets into the media business.

The Public Interest, RIP

Expecting the media to “serve the public interest, convenience and necessity” is out. The marketplace rules are in. The TV and radio spectrum, as well as the Internet we created, aren’t considered under the trusteeship model anymore because the lobbyists argued a broadcaster’s commercial success would be indicative of the public’s satisfaction with what they are delivering.

Under that model First Look Media should be using their news reporting and constitutionally granted 1st Amendment power to generate revenue for shareholders, just like Roone Arledge taught ABC and the rest of the networks to do. Suddenly news divisions weren’t a cost center anymore, but a profit center. Everyone loves profit generators, and by everyone I mean Wall Street and corp execs whose bonuses are tied to revenue or stock price.

If you look at what the big media companies are afraid of it hasn’t been getting busted for failing to serve the public interest for decades. They know they aren’t going to lose an FCC license. They might get a fine, but it’s just a Cost of Doing Business in the short term and something the lobbyists will fix in the long term.

FTC problems might cramp their style when it comes to ad revenue, so they pay attention to that.  SEC regs could be a problem, if anyone at the SEC actually started prosecuting people. It’s hard to believe that the SEC would go after someone who buys their pixels by the barrel and hires lawyers by the trainload, but maybe someone at the SEC will notice some problems they need to be addressed.

What makes the parent companies nervous is if the people working in the news divisions start thinking they have to actually follow left over rules and regulations. Or that they are journalists who have to ‘serve the public interest’ vs. make money on their specific programming.  Murdoch can explain to the media entities parts of the bigger companies that a parent company loosing 100’s of millions on something like the New York Post is a smart business move because of his big picture. Because of that, they don’t worry about generating standalone revenue.

They are also afraid that the big investors might think the parent company doesn’t have their journalists and news divisions under control. If the parent company gets a whiff that someone in the media group is trying to dig too hard or isn’t playing ball, they will get a Arthur Jensen to Howard Beale call where it is explained how the world really works.

For example, if your biggest sponsor makes cars, you really shouldn’t be doing stories that make them look bad, even if the cars kill people. But sometimes you can’t ignore the truth, so you wait for an excuse like a settlement lawsuit where someone else makes the case. “Hey I wasn’t the one calling them “killer cars” I’m just reading the court transcript!”

Luckily during that period of reporting the hard truth, before the pull back into the quest for profit, some sunlight can shine through the cracks. There are still good people in the media who believe in a better “Big Picture” than Murdoch’s. It takes courage and support from others who also see the problems and want to help. Other times journalists “embedded” in the MSM need an excuse to do a good job in the face of the howls for quarterly profits or fear of offending advertisers.

After talking to Taibbi I started asking a similar question of people who have been covering corporate corruption and personal mendacious acts that hurt Americans. “What are they afraid of, and how can we make those fears come true?”

I’m sorry for these media labor pains, but I look forward to future sunlight from Taibbi, First Look Media and the Racket, because we all know what sunlight does to vampire(squid)s.

Happy Halloween!