Amy Goodman and Jon Stewart should join forces

I think Amy Goodman and Jon Stewart should join forces to create a youth led movement for accountable and democratic news media.

Why?


1. Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" last Halloween was basically a huge waste. Somewhere around 200,000 young people showed up from around the country, displaying their creativity, intelligence, and passion for all America to see---but why? It was a perfect rally for the hipster generation---all the material accoutrement of the revolutionary events our parents marched in to create real change during the 60's--but no real content, except to mock and/or laugh. But Jon did prove that if he wanted to, he could get the younger generation to show up. And that's not nothing.


2. Later, when Rachel Maddow interviewed Jon Stewart, he seemed to suggest that the rally's purpose  was to send a message to the media, not the right wing. He even says the 'real' fight going on in America isn't between Democrats and Republicans, but between corruption and not. And yet, he never went far enough to say what causes the myriad of problems that we find in the media.


3. Amy Goodman represents everything that Jon Stewart seems to want out of the media, under his definition that it is the media's job to shine light on corruption. She has an incredible record of seeking out the stories in our country and around the world that the people in power don't want anyone to hear. And yet beyond the war crimes, the corporate exploitation, the government crackdowns on activists, the corrupted judicial system and our crumbling environment--Amy Goodman's real cause is independent media. As she explained in the heart wrenching 2006 documentary "Independent Intervention", there is no chance for our democracy, and the world's population, without a robust independent media.


4. In Jon Stewart's most recent interview with Chris Wallace, he seems to be even closer to acknowledging publicly what really ails the news media, as he admitted that the bias of places like the New York Times and CNN isn't a liberal agenda but towards "sensationalism and laziness"(clearly caused by profit motives). Stewart seems truly pained by this, it's obvious throughout his interviews and on his show that he deeply feels there is a problem with media today.


5. Amy Goodman has no problem at all stating what the problem is, as found in the "About" section of Democracy Now!: "But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogeneous in the early 1980s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media."

6. Jon Stewart is incredibly funny.


7. Amy Goodman is so dead serious.


Is this not a match made in heaven? Our generation is desperate for a cause, and here, two of the biggest heroes in the media--one with a proven track record of inspiring his audience to action, the other with a the kind of experience and integrity that all journalists should aspire to. Jon needs to make the connection between the corporate monopoly on the media and the problems in the media today. (These points are made brilliantly and methodically in Robert McChesney's book "The Problem of the Media".) And Amy Goodman needs someone who can strike an emotional chord without alienating people with her penetrating honesty and intensity.


I don't know how exactly this union should start---maybe Amy could come on the Daily Show? Or Jon to Democracy Now? Maybe Jon could mention Amy's existence to his viewers? I can't really imagine it. I just want them to come together.


If you could pick two of your heroes to join forces who would they be?

Post-Cause

I don't think we should have causes anymore. This is not to say that we should ignore the worlds problems. But rather that causes create a dogmatic 'us vs. them' mentality. They perpetuate the idea that there are certain causes one can choose to fight for or not, and the strength of your engagement in that fight is equivalent to the moral fortitude of your character. I think this keeps a lot of people out of doing what is good and right for the world, which is exactly what causes are created to promote.

Don't get me wrong: adopting a cause takes a lot of guts, and really representing it takes a lot of hard work. Fair or not, if you declare that eradicating sweatshops is extremely important to the world, you're gonna get a lot of flack from people who just don't care about sweatshops, or resent you for making them feel guilty about their Nikes or their tees. Plus, if you dedicate yourself to the cause, and you want to have some success in your life, the fight is EXTREMELY difficult and long. Even if you work your butt off, you may never see any significant change for what you were fighting for. And I know there are countless numbers of individuals who engage in this struggle on a daily basis without judgment, suspicion or cynicism of others who are not a part of the fight.

But I have also met those that strongly represent causes, be they political, health-related, civil rights, environmental, etc, that were often too quick to write you off as one of 'them'. If you didn't sign their petition or knock on doors or whatever else was really urgent to them right then, you were part of the problem instead of the solution. Not unlike religious dogma, their conviction that their cause is the right one is only confirmed by societal rejection. Drawing lines between those that 'see' or 'know' what's really going on and those that don't, the world becomes a constant battle, and those who represent 'causes' can always find ways to feel like the enemy is everywhere. That conspiracy theories abound in some of the most entrenched literature of these causes is not surprising. It seems to me that there is no quicker way to feel isolated, judgmental and cynical about the state of the outside world.

I think my uneasiness with causes comes down to a basic challenge that I've struggled quite a bit. Ok, I want to be a good person, and do something that is good for the world. But which cause? Believe it or not, I don't think that this is a rare goal of individuals. (I really do believe that most people want to be good, and want to do things that are at least non-harmful to others or society in general. I know some will disagree with this, but I don't think it is a matter of knowable fact, and thus I feel that my faith in it is both justified and beneficial.) So what should I do?

The sheer number of causes, of issues and problems that one could approach is daunting. Beyond that--I feel strongly that my choice would be arbitrary. Sure, I could dedicate my life to infectious diseases in 3rd world countries. But why not try to save the rainforests in Brazil? That you have to 'pick one', and 'do something' is a fine enough answer, but hardly a good reason to convince others they should join the fight. And how can you ever expect to really make progress if you can't even justify to yourself why one cause should be fought for over another?

And thus, I think the current structure of activism is backwards. To be good, I do not think we fight for causes that represent problems we want to solve. Instead, we should observe ourselves more closely, and solve the problems for which we are the cause.

I'm not suggesting that this is easier than adopting a cause--I don't think it is. There are a lot of problems that we contribute to without realizing it, and discovering these transgressions is difficult and at times uncomfortable and unpleasant work. And yet, it is in some ways easier to know where to start. As a taxpayer in New Orleans, my money causes the disfunction that I observe in my city. Because I don't voice my opinion to my elected representation, I fail to do my part to solve the problem. As someone who drives a car, I am a cause of global warming and of the harmful relationship our country has with oil. Because I don't pay close attention or attempt to ration my use of gas, I fail to do my part to solve the problem. And so on and so on.

More importantly, approaching doing good this way will eventually free individuals from having to represent ideals instead of themselves. I think living as a solution, or as someone committed to solving only the problems they directly contribute to, will make the responsibility more balanced and allow people to be more in tune with themselves instead of the external issues that surround them.

I certainly, as usual, don't claim to have succeeded in doing what I suggest here. And I don't know if I'm saying anything much more complicated than 'do your part' or 'be a part of the solution'. But sometimes, just writing them down brings them that much closer to happening, and sometimes, the simplest things are worth saying again.

***P.S> I want to in general give more credit to all my amazing friends/family who, w/o the conversations I have with them I would never get half the ideas that I do, so thanks for all the other ones I should have and for this one esp. David and Jordan B.!***

Are You Slightly Privileged, Slightly Uneasy?

"And young people like yourselves, despite the allure of careers and comfort, have defected. Our only hope for real change lies in the possibility that all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards of the prison uprising in Attica: expendable. That the establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, if necessary to maintain its control will kill us. But if the guards stop obeying, if you stop obeying, the system falls."

--Howard Zinn in "The American Ruling Class"

This is the quote that keeps running through my head since I first watched "The American Ruling Class". Not shocking: Zinn is talking directly to me. I'm slightly (well more than slightly) privileged and slightly (well now, a little more than slightly) uneasy. While I can see that things are very bad for so many people in this world, things are just good enough for me that I can convince myself that things are alright for those who are struggling. Or, maybe I recognize that I want to do something, so I become involved in the within-system organizations that are available for upper class liberals like me. I join the Democrats, and fight for their cause, to increase equality in our country. That's the right thing to do, right?

But it seems to me that Zinn is suggesting being a democrat is no better than being a republican, it's only a better lie you can tell yourself when you are feeling uncomfortable about the bad situations that you see around you. By representing the elite liberal viewpoint, I'm actually just playing my role in the system that oppresses those that I want to help. I'm the prison guard, without me, the prisoners would not be kept where they need to be--after all, I am who is suppose to be representing them in the negotiations.

This question is very challenging. I have been struggling with it a lot, and I don't know the answer. Is it possible to change a broken system from within? Or by working in the system are you just perpetuating it? The current political situation is an interesting one to examine. Now, we have Obama, whose election, in many ways, was suppose to represent the causes of the previously disenfranchised, the anti-Bush. But the incredible struggle for health care simultaneously invigorated the far right while watering itself down to the point of distaste for many 'very' liberal democrats. Meanwhile, the economic 'recovery' could be summed up as rich people being uncomfortable for a short period and then thankfully becoming rich (and in some cases *goldman sachs* richer), while 1 out of 6 americans are currently unemployed with the poverty rate higher than it has been in decades. So, it does appear to me that cheering the current democratic 'victory' is something of a sham. It entails swallowing a whole lot of things that I think are wrong, and accepting that the things I want "aren't possible", when that really means "not possible within the current system".

On the other hand, am I really going to claim that progress has not been made within the system as it is? Aren't we, as individuals, as nations, as a world better off than we were 20, 100, 200 years ago? It's a very debatable question, but hard to unequivocally say that things are getting worse. Not to mention I can only barely conceive of what working 'outside of the system' or 'stop obeying' could mean practically. What else can I do besides join the fight that has been making some progress some of the time using the channels that are available to it?

Zinn's quote paints a dim picture of me, the liberal elite. It's not that I have the wrong ideology, but rather because I have the right kind that complacency is so alluring. If I have a vague notion that things aren't right, I can vote for a democrat and chalk up their failures to politics as usual, while I go along my business living a comfortable, free life. And there is a big part of me that thinks there is something really wrong with a system where this is a natural, common choice. But if I'm honest, I think all it can definitely imply is that there's something really wrong with me for choosing it.

Please Watch The American Ruling Class

The American Ruling Class - Watch the Documentary Film for Free | Watch Free Documentaries Online | SnagFilms

I have recommended a few movies on this blog, but have never felt more strongly that everyone I know needs to watch a movie immediately than I feel right now. The movie is "The American Ruling Class". One of my immediate reactions to the film, besides horror, sadness, and the intense desire to abandon everything I was doing to start fighting for the causes the movie outlines, was why hadn't I seen this movie already?

Of course, the answer was right in the first scene, which was set at Yale's graduation. I am a member of the American Ruling Class. People who are members of this class will be made very uncomfortable by watching this movie. In fact, watching this movie was a very uncomfortable experience. Everyone is implicit in the class structure that it outlines, there's no safe spaces for the apathetic or unconcerned. And so, in a way I'm not recommending this movie, because I think most people I know would find it very disturbing to their worldview and the choices they have made so far in their life.

But of course, I am still VERY STRONGLY recommending this movie, because I have yet to be able to form a reasonable argument against this movie. Thus, I have the selfish motive of asking you, my extremely intelligent readers, to watch this movie and maybe find the flaw in it's reasoning that will convince me that what it satirizes isn't completely true. Either that, or you become as inflamed as I am and we can start the revolution together.

Just joking.

Sort of,

The American Ruling Class - Watch the Documentary Film for Free | Watch Free Documentaries Online | SnagFilms

Democrats Need to Start Playing

It is now popular for opinion columnists to write about the impending victory of the Republicans in fall of 2010. I think this should be described as what it actually is: a victory for Fox news. For some reason, Jon Stewart is the only 'news' source that consistently reports on the kind of gross and overwhelming lies that Fox News perpetuates every single day. To date, the Fox News Channels consistently garners about 3x as many viewers as the second place news channel, CNN.

As movies like OutFoxed and the Daily Show demonstrates almost every night, the Fox News Channel is anything but news. It's very difficult for me, and probably most liberals, to even watch the shows, because they are so thick with bias, exaggeration and confounding facts.

I don't like Fox news, and I wish they didn't exist. But I also don't think they are going away anytime soon. The left's answer to the network, MSNBC, though, I find even more annoying. Especially Rachel Maddow. She seems to think that she's going to beat Fox News by emphasizing, over and over, how stupid they are, or at least how much more clever she is. This is really stupid. People watch Fox News to be entertained, not to learn. And they are entertained, because Fox News emphasizes how scary and terrible the world is, and when people feel something, even if it's a bad feeling, they keep watching.

The left also needs to entertain. Except the emotion that they should stir is compassion, not fear. This would be a channel I would gladly watch. Rachel Maddow should be made over to look like a soft comforting woman, who, hour after hour, details the horrible and outrageous travesties that insurance companies have committed against people just like me. MSNBC should make these sob stories news, in the same way that Fox constructs stories and construes facts to make people afraid. In fact, I don't even think MSNBC would have to lie as much as Fox does, at least with the health care issue. The left needs to 'stoop' to Fox's level. I don't think it's stooping. It's a way of reminding liberals around our country why they are bleeding heart liberals in the first place. And it's not because they think they are more intelligent than everyone else. But rather that they see the inequality and suffering that is caused by individuals who are afraid, and they want to do something about it. And that's what the liberal media needs to remind them of, and the only way they will ever have a fair competition with Fox News.