News of their world

At the News of the World phone-hacking hearing, parliamentary members ask questions and Murdoch answers. This discourse is filtered, translated, and expanded by media into a discourse for the public. Where media and the public meet, consumption, demand, answer, and reply intersect.

The hearing is the statement from legitimacy; the pie in the face attempt is the response from illegitimacy, which took shape via the legitimizing power of the hearing. The media covers the illegitimate; this story is but one in an explosion of discourse. The hearing becomes a sideshow, almost irrelevant in an ongoing discussion about the role and standards of media, the particulars of American vs British law and politics, the appropriateness of relationships between media and politicians, corporations and media, and corporations and government.

Then the story expands into oblivion, and all is said at once in silence.

Postmortem: The loudest and most abundant coverage focuses on the personal drama--the relationship between Murdoch and his son, Murdoch and his protege, Murdoch and his wife, the wife and the pie thrower, Cameron and his hired hand. Lost are the victims of the original crime, who, like the important issues of power and corruption, are rendered irrelevant to the spectacle.

The News of the World focused on the sensational. Now the rest of the media follow suit.

This means war

Midway through Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, two young guerrillas named Andres and Primitivo probe American expat Robert Jordan about politics and wealth in the US. Andres asks, "Do you have any big proprietors?" Then, "But there are not great estates that must be broken up?" The narrative goes on with Jordan answering,

"Yes. But there are those who believe that taxes will break them up."
"How?"
Robert Jordan, wiping out the stew bowl with bread, explained  now the income tax and inheritance tax worked. "But the big estates remain. Also, there are taxes on the land," he said.
"But surely the big proprietors and the rich will make a revolution against such taxes. Such taxes appear to me to be revolutionary. They will revolt against the government when they see that they are threatened, exactly as the fascists have done here," Primitivo said.

The Sun Also Rises

Robert Jordan aims to destroy a bridge nested in the hills of Spain. He's fighting fascists in the Spanish Civil War, and for this mission he has embedded himself within a group of cave squatting peasants who casually identify as Communist Republican guerrillas. Jordan's new local comrades are a motley bunch that includes a modestly perfect old man, a couple gypsies, a once-ruthless but now shelled guerrilla hero, their hard boiled matron, and a victimized young beauty Robert takes for a lover. All of them are on his mission now, and to varying degrees each of them knows it will bring death.

Hemingway's protagonist fights the fascists but much of the action in For Whom the Bell Tolls unfolds in Robert's thoughts. It is there a quiet battle burns between cynicism and idealism, drafting in its duration his politics, his humanity, values, lineage, and his identity. The conclusion is appropriately unresolved, situated somewhere between an existentialist's consignment and a young boy's pretending.

Hemingway's pacing can put the reader to work, but this work brings satisfaction when it's done.

Business rules and faith in the leadership

Mitch McConnell wants the Republican-controlled Congress to stick President Obama with sole ownership of the decision to raise the debt ceiling. Probably a good move for them. This way, come election time, the GOP-Tea Party can point to the White House and say "Obama wants to spend even more, so he raised the debt ceiling!"

The whole debate places the Republican leadership in a tough spot: They don't want any part of a default, but they don't want to be perceived as being soft on spending, either. McConnell's way provides a way out. His additional requirement--that Obama specify cuts equal to each increase--almost seems unnecessary.

The New York Times article "McConnell Warns of Risk to Party, and Country, of Default" lays out the issue from McConnell's point of view. And it says,

While Mr. McConnell’s plan would face an array of political and perhaps constitutional issues, it signaled that Republican leaders did not intend to let conservative demands for deep spending cuts provoke a possible financial crisis and saddle the party with a reputation for irresponsible intransigence.

This sentence (1) nods in agreement with the premise that not raising the debt ceiling is bad and (2) signals confidence in the Republican leadership. And the word "irresponsible" is key there; it is at once (1) a recognition that the party has already been saddled with a reputation for neutral or responsible intransigence, and (2) a denial of any intransigence because such recognition goes unstated.

On the blue side, President Obama is always in need of strategy; if he wanted to rebuild some Federal Government credibility among the public, he should start a PR campaign to highlight new research and development in other countries and frame this in terms of other nations progressing while America stalls. What proud American wouldn't reconsider funding NASA after learning that China is gearing up its space program?

Jose Antonio Vargas

• Gay
• Undocumented
• Journalist

If you wanted to invent someone that the political right just could not sympathize with.

Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas

Texas executed a Mexican Thursday night. The state broke no US laws and had no binding obligation to follow International law or treaty. The man, convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl, had been in the country for several years prior to his crime, arrest, and his subsequent years of imprisonment.

The President, appealing to pending future legislation, International decorum, and potential risk to US citizens abroad, asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution. By a 5-4 decision, it did not.

The majority opinion goes unattributed. Here's highlights:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be.

... The United States and JUSTICE BREYER complain of the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal’s execution. Post, at 4. Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” post, at 6, presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The minority opinion includes this ...

Thus, on the one hand, international legal obligations, related foreign policy considerations, the prospect of legislation, and the consequent injustice involved should that legislation, coming too late for Leal, help others in identical circumstances all favor granting a stay. And issuing a brief stay until the end of September, when the Court could consider this matter in the ordinary course, would put Congress on clear notice that it must act quickly. On the other hand, the State has an interest in proceeding with an immediate execution. But it is difficult to see how the State’s interest in the immediate execution of an individual convicted of capital murder 16 years ago can outweigh the considerations that support additional delay, perhaps only until the end of the summer ...

... In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Court ignores the appeal of the President in a matter related to foreign affairs, it substitutes its own views about the likelihood of congressional action for the views of Executive Branch officials who have consulted with Members of Congress, and it denies the request by four Members of the Court to delay the execution until the Court can discuss the matter at Conference in September. In my view, the Court is wrong in each respect.

I respectfully dissent.

Compared to the majority opinion, the dissent sounds rather pointed.

The Casey Anthony trial and the desire to punish

The Casey Anthony trial attracted major media attention. In the NPR piece, New Republic: Beyond Whose Reasonable Doubt?, University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos discusses belief in the system and how high profile trials like Anthony's figure into that belief. He says that we must decide what constitutes reasonable doubt and render judgment while adhering to the belief that "mistaken acquittals are vastly preferable to wrongful convictions". The price of this jurisprudence of prudent judgement, however, may lead to "deeply disturbing" verdicts, as in the Anthony case, where the defendant likely "has gotten away with murder", thereby challenging our belief in the system. He's counseling us. And with good reason.

Indeed, I think one function of high-profile trials such as this is to show that the system "works". The media inadvertently and advertently promotes the status quo, which requires a measure of belief in the judicial system. So, the pundits screamed when the verdict was read because they think the system should have rendered a guilty verdict. That an injustice has been done may be one reason for the vigor and volume of their response, but I would suggest another reason is at play here, too.

Casey Anthony's behavior defies our expectations of what young mothers are supposed to look like and act like. Pundits wanted to punish the mother not so much for killing her child as for the way she behaved after the death. What constituted evidence also constituted her crimes: Getting the tattoo and going to night clubs.

The concept of a mother who does not cherish her child challenges the ideal of the self-policing individual and the centralized interest in the protection and regulation of life. Media figures apparently salivated in agreement at the prospect of punishing Anthony, building a consensus among the public that the young woman was guilty and deserved punishment.

National myth

Most cultures and countries have their national myths. The myth serves many functions: They create and enable shared experiences, solidify a national identity, and promote values, just to name a few.

In America, myths about the Founding Fathers abound. America also has many myths about its soldiers. A primary myth revolves around the story of the young soldier--a boy, really--who goes off to war and returns a man, stronger than he was when he left.

Ideally, some young woman waits for him. This is the story of the journey, but focused and particular to the American soldier. These myths come to life in movies, books, and video games. But they take deep root in the public psyche when perpetuated through news media. The media's promotion and America's subsequent embrace of the so-called "Greatest Generation" exemplifies many of our military myths, including this one. Military sacrifice thus becomes the highest honor affordable to the middle and lower classes.

That returning soldiers often face unemployment, alcoholism and addiction, shrinking benefits, and physical and mental trauma goes unmentioned.

NPR is engaging in some myth making with their series "Who Serves". Here is an exemplary installment: "For Some, The Decision To Enlist Offers Direction"

Vignette, junked

One of them rose out the passenger side, measured steps took him inside the house. The other stalled in the driver's seat. Both wore black t-shirts, hiking boots, blue Dickies, close shaved hair. Looking on them saw hard looks, but those weren't hard looks they gave, trying. They were young. In short time the white Lincoln Town Car backed readily out the driveway, then pulled less readily up the street trailing a scent of stale cigarette smoke and car freshener like words in a goodbye letter between teenagers.

Is making a question into a headline stupid?

Using a question for a headline entices readers with deception. The question-headline implies that (1) the article will focus on the question and (2) deliver a clear cut answer. Instead it delivers disappointment on both fronts. For example, a headline yesterday asked, "Will Michele Bachmann's gaffes hurt her presidential candidacy?" As if an underpaid junk peddler at The Christian Science Monitor can tell the future. The article was really an excuse to again cover her recent "gaffes". A reader might also assume that the article writer seeks his opinion on the matter. But, no.

The question-headline also has a more dubious function. It posits doubt and/or masks an accusation. Asking "Will Michele Bachmann's gaffes hurt her presidential candidacy?" is the same as reporting that Some people say Michele Bachmann makes a lot of gaffes. So the question highlights the doubt or accusation. Another example, today The Christian Science Monitor (which is just full of questions lately) asks, "Obama's push to boost tax revenues: Will voters approve?" The question implies that Many voters will not approve of Obama.

The question-headline is also no different from other headlines in that it frames the conversation. In this case, readers are forced to think of Obama in terms of his acceptability rather than consider the real question behind his proposal: Should people pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they derive from society? And you can't answer that without first defining what services our taxes, when filtered through State apparatus, should provide. But rather than encourage debate, the media force-feeds us contrived drama.

The hoax

The Washington Post presents an article documenting propaganda that doesn't use the word propaganda. "Israel ramps up campaign against Gaza aid flotilla" also avoids saying why groups from around the world would risk their lives to send aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Likely, the aid comes second to the organizers' ultimate goal of bringing attention to the Israeli occupation. In direct denial of this goal, the headline frames the article from the Israeli point of view, and focuses on Israel's hoaxy response.

Christian died of blunt force trauma

So give me back to Death
    -by Emily Dickinson

So give me back to Death --
The Death I never feared
Except that it deprived of thee --
And now, by Life deprived,
In my own Grave I breathe
And estimate its size --
Its size is all that Hell can guess --
And all that Heaven was -

Popcorn

Statistic-oriented articles about population surface fairly often but in the lead up to this summer's release of the 2010 census data we find more articles like this CBS piece "Minorities make up majority of U.S. babies". This story emphasizes a statistic showing most people over 65 are white but minorities are having the most kids and makeup the majority of the population under age two. According to the article, this demographic shift begs us to worry for our future.

First quoted is Laura Speer of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, an organization aiming to help disadvantaged children. She says,

It's clear the younger generation is very demographically different from the elderly, something to keep in mind as politics plays out on how programs for the elderly get supported ... It's critical that children are able to grow to compete internationally and keep state economies rolling.

Although the article writer focuses on race, the stakes here are very much rooted in class and economic concerns, as Speer alludes to so deftly. But race makes for a more attractive story angle. The rise of black single mothers is another focal point for the article.

The final word goes to Tony Perkins, president of the conservative interest group Family Research Council who "emphasized the economic impact of the decline of traditional families, noting that single-parent families are often the most dependent on government assistance." In his words:

The decline of the traditional family will have to correct itself if we are to continue as a society ... We don't need another dose of big government, but a new Hippocratic oath of "do no harm" that doesn't interfere with family formation or seek to redefine family.

That quote is loaded. To be non-traditional--often the result of personal irresponsibility, it seems--is to be poor and a threat to society's existence. The article offers no alternative political point of view.

Huntsman 2012

New Republican candidate John Huntsman received a warm welcome from media this week. According to the coverage, he's the nice handsome wealthy unassuming centrist whose campaign has begun so modestly you just have to believe in him. Matt Bai, political chief at The New York Times, writes the following:

If the field stayed wide open, the 51-year-old Huntsman—with his silver hair and his prized Harley and his mastery of Mandarin Chinese, with his record as a tax-cutting governor and his vast family fortune—would be an intriguing prospect ... 

On television, Huntsman radiates strength, with his conventional good looks and easy demeanor, but in person he sometimes has a lesser presence. Average in height and build and self-effacing in a Jimmy Stewart kind of way, he’ll slouch a bit and bow his head, holding a microphone prayerfully with both hands, until it almost seems as if he is receding in front of you. He comes across as genuine and unpretentious, without a hint of entitlement—the kind of guy you’d be glad to run into at your kid’s soccer game.

The Christian Science Monitor offers a list of 10 things to know about Huntsman that reads more like a PR piece than journalism. Their list includes the following:

The relatively moderate Huntsman, whose good looks and polish position him as the GOP’s Obama, may be more electable than most of his more partisan contenders. He’s also a strategic politician who sees an opening in a weak field ...

“Jon Huntsman has an attractive combination of style and substance,” says Professor Chambless. Indeed, the articulate diplomat, who inspires adjectives generally associated with a Hollywood sensation–tall, lean, photogenic, charismatic–appears to be the Republican best poised to challenge Obama on the style front.

And he’s no laggard in the substance department, either. He has held two diplomatic posts, one in the economic powerhouse of China, and he's twice been elected governor– he left office early in his second term for the China post–of one of the reddest states in the union, Utah.

His business success rounds out Huntsman’s impressive résumé. And as a moderate, the ex-governor has a shot at capturing the critical independent vote. Given all that, it’s no wonder Time magazine called him “the Republican Democrats fear most,” and Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, once said the prospect of facing Huntsman in 2012 made him a “wee bit queasy.”

NPR demonstrated their enthusiasm by devoting several stories to Huntsman. Will Rick Perry get this kind of welcome? Maybe this much and more.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Reading Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Early in the novel our freewheelin' protagonist McMurphy approaches the insecurely effeminate and possibly homosexual patient Harding following the latter's humiliation during group therapy. McMurphy aims to open Harding's eyes and expose the cruelty of Nurse Ratchet. Harding protests at first, defending the therapeutic methods of the clinic by asserting that its practitioners' expertise is too much for any layman to critique. In other words, the medical community's knowledge is their power. But McMurphy persists, using analogy and his gruff but down-home brand of empiricism to bring Harding to realize that Ratchet's clinic seeks to instill and maintain order through shame. Harding is won over, but then one-ups McMurphy by claiming that they are both peons, separated only by a few degrees.

I can't tell if, in Kesey's mind, Ratchet represents merely a bad apple within the system or if she is the system. Another observation: Having seen the movie many times, I'm surprised by how important a role gender plays in the original story.

Any case

Citing the War Powers Resolution, dissenters in Congress yesterday challenged President Obama's authority to engage in hostilities in Libya without their authorization. Legality here hinges on interpreting the vague resolution which, despite having been ignored time and again since its inception, seems to heartily support the current challenge: § 1543 defines applicable circumstance as, among other things,

... any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces ...

Any case? Points for critics of the administration.

But Harold Koh, State Department legal adviser, counters that "the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.” Moreover, this is NATO's mission now--since at least April 7--and the US only lends support and not manned armed force.

The decades-long trend shows the Executive branch gaining power. Hard to imagine any check on that now.

Electronic Music

Imagine the Casiotone (with other higher-end synthesizer-oriented electronic musical instruments) begatting modern electronic music. The story of this genre would be a story about technology turning in on itself through the medium of music wherein it expresses something essential about itself: That it must evolve or risk dying. When a technology reaches some perceived peak, such as the printing press and paper, that technology, it is thought, risks and awaits eradication. If it cannot be improved upon, it eventually will be outmoded. This truth is expressed at the micro-level in electronic music--a genre in which the triumph is to achieve a seamless transition from one piece of music into another piece, eventually rendering the first piece unrecognizable and forgotten, its sonic identity at once consumed and carried on in subsequent arrangements.

I don't like or listen to this music.

Lack of opportunity

One oft-used phrase by government administration officials and therefore journalists and pundits is "lack of opportunity". A quick Google search suggests the phrase comes most readily when writing about US domestic issues, but it also comes in handy for international discussions. NPR recorded a prime example last month when quoting a nameless official during coverage of President Obama's latest address to Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa:

It's important to note that the political movements we've seen are rooted in part in a lack of opportunity in the region ... We see this as a critical window of time to take some concrete actions.

A people who lack opportunity to this degree may trend toward revolution. Power voids abound in such an environment, potentially opening the door for enemies of elite US interests to seize control.

Now, less than a month after that speech we discover a rigorous but unofficial US military campaign to squash a popular uprising in Yemen. This episode, for some reason, is different from the war in Libya: It is Rebels who uprise in Libya; only "militants linked to Al Qaeda" uprise in Yemen.

Yemen has been governed by Ali Abdullah Saleh since 1978. That's 32 years of autocratic rule. Earlier this year mass protests began targeting unemployment, poverty, and government corruption. Saleh refused to step down. Embattled now, his regime remains tenuously in power thanks to the State Department, whose spokesman Mark Toner is quoted in The New York Times as saying,

With Saleh’s departure for Saudi Arabia, where he continues to receive medical treatment, this isn’t a time for inaction.  There is a government that remains in place there, and they need to seize the moment and move forward.

So, our government supports an authoritarian regime that presides over poverty, unemployment, and corruption--a lack of opportunity--in turn creating a power vacuum which opens the door for enemies of elite US interests to seize control. If the elite in this country perceive a threat to their interest from abroad, it seems they are creating the bed in which they lie.

Shame and Power

News media now push this story about sexually suggestive photos sent via Twitter by New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. A few months ago it was Congressman Christopher Lee emailing shirtless pictures of himself. How are these important? The answer can be found in Foucault.

These stories share the assumption of scandal--the media's judgement that these actions are inappropriate and deserving of shame and public scrutiny. Media represent power. They are agents of powerful private interests joined at the hip with policy makers who seek control over behavior. Power enforces control, encourages self-control and the policing of peers. Power seeks to regulate sexuality ultimately to ensure the stability of the population (i.e., control population growth, minimize conflicts leading to lawlessness, etc). Weiner and Lee are guilty of expressing their sexuality in unsanctioned ways.

These men--let's pretend they are both guilty--expressed their sexuality in an unobtrusive, non-aggressive way: Electronically. Although the acts are basically harmless and victimless, power aims to extend domination and control over sexuality even as it exists and is practiced in the electronic sphere. Hence, the public shaming.

The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry)

We find no apocalyptic visions in its pages; if anything, Siva Vaidhyanathan's confidence in the inevitable and not-too-distant demise of Google urges us to extrapolate lessons learned from its rise and fall and apply those lessons generally across a world where information and power are wielded digitally. But don't misunderstand: Google is still the matter.

It takes a few sections but Vaidhyanathan eventually establishes his own ethos as critic without penning a straw man version of Google Inc. to stand against. No, he just argues that although Google does obscure its ultimately commercial and self-interested motivations via its reassuring corporate philosophy, "Don't be evil," it is our faith in Google and lack of critical thought that pose a more dangerous threat. So, Vaidhyanathan's discussion of Google is, in a more abstract sense, a discussion about ourselves and the institutions we come to rely on so quickly.