The Week in Nontroversies

Controversy is an expected part of life in the public sphere, because any life that well-scrutinized is going to show some flaws. It’s even more of a usual occurrence in politics because people are actively looking for weaknesses to exploit. Some politicians make it too easy though, with infidelities or illegal business dealings. Unfortunately, controversy paints with a wide brush, and while a politician may be guilty of an infraction in just one small area of their life, all of their decisions and abilities are called into question by it. With Bill Clinton, a personal abuse of position in regard to marital infidelity and sexual malfeasance in the office was used by his enemies to undermine his legislative efforts across the board.

When political enemies don’t have a leg to stand on, though, they have to dig for nontroversies - controversies stemming from non-issues, distortions, and matters of almost no actual importance. Last week, after a few journalists complained about the President’s teleprompters blocking their camera angles and after a very slight mix-up in the order of speeches at an event, and suddenly Barack Obama’s use of a teleprompter became a major issue. This is a doubly effective tactic of distraction because it goes after one of Barack Obama’s greatest strengths; his strengths as a writer, speaker, and as politician who’s able to control himself from making fatal blunders of speech by staying on message. But since the invention of the technology, every President has used it, as well as actors, journalists, executives, etc. And really, why not, when a teleprompter makes it easier to read prepared remarks and still see your audience without losing your place, unlink printed remarks or note cards. It also ensures that you won’t ramble off on a topic and that you’ll be sure to say everything you want to say. No one has any problem with a President writing a speech, and they’d have no problem with him then reciting it word-for-word, but suddenly through in a teleprompter and make it Barack Obama, and they assume a conspiracy wherein someone is pulling his strings and forcing him at gunpoint to read it. This is even harder to believe about Barack Obama who, unlike his most recent predecessor, is well-known for being actively involved in the formulation of his speeches.

Then Barack Obama went on The Tonight Show, which was certainly unusual, but given that George Bush made appearances on Dr. Phil, did not seem to be a sudden and drastic change in the Presidency. People tried to make a controversy out of this, as though if only he spent that 20 minutes in the oval office instead of on television, that he could turn our economy around once and for all. When that nontroversy failed to capture the public’s rancor, the smear merchants then hooked onto a poorly chosen but innocuous comment. Days later, headlines rang out with faux-outrage about the President disparaging the Special Olympics by comparing his paltry bowling score to that of a handicapped person. Even actual journalists quoted him as saying that his score was like “the special olympics or something.” However, those of us who actually watched AND listened to the interview saw that his comment about the Special Olympics came not immediately after telling us his bowling score, but after Jay Leno applauded sarcastically and gave feigned encouragement saying “that’s very good, Mr. President.” It was to this support, despite his performance, that Barack Obama was comparing the Special Olympics. He wasn’t saying that his bowling skills were those of a Special Olympian, but that Jay Leno was acting towards him the way spectators of the Special Olympics acted towards participant, with positive encouragement even when they are unsuccessful. Was it in bad taste? Yes, maybe a little. Was it offensive? No. Does it say anything bad about his character, his view of the handicapped, or his abilities as President? Most definitely not. So why are we wasting time on it?

Everyday there are new nontroversies to distract or to entertain, to enrage or obfuscate, while elsewhere the real problems and offenses are overlooked and underreported. By focusing on inane minutiae, we make it more difficult to solve real problems, which is of course precisely what some people want. Barack Obama’s political enemies see his popularity, and see that his plans have a chance of succeeding, two things which would spell disaster for their political futures. They could offer better alternatives, or support him in hopes of gaining that same popularity and public trust, but instead they choose to distract and make people forget the reason’s they like Barack Obama by giving them false controversies.

The Sad State of the Fourth Estate

They call it “comedy.” They call it “fake news.” What we saw last night on The Daily Show, though, was neither fake nor funny (well, a little funny.) Last night, Jon Stewart was joined by Jim Cramer, former hedgefund manager and current host of CNBC’s “Mad Money.” This interview was a week in the making, after Rick Santelli cancelled on an appearance that would have coincided with a scathing piece The Daily Show had assembled about CNBC’s failure to see the financial crisis coming, warn their viewers, and then admit their obvious mistakes and place blame anywhere near where it belongs. Jim Cramer took particular offense to the implication and took his views public on his NBC sister stations, thus incurring an even better response from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.

Anyone who hasn’t seen this interview really should, regardless of their interest in finances or in The Daily Show, because it is a bold example of something that The Daily Show is rarely credited with and so many actual news programs are lacking: journalism. Jon Stewart brought Jim Cramer on who, to his credit, had accepted the invitation to discuss the issues face to face rather than continuing the back-and-forth in the media sphere and the two of them discussed Stewart’s initial point about the state of business reporting at CNBC. What Jim Cramer and many of the people reporting on this interview missed was the broader point about the state of journalism. For all of the talk about liberal media and its fringe views, the fact is that the Fourth Estate has never been more corporate. Newspapers, cable news, even blogs are often beholden to corporate parents and sponsors to operate, and as the economy has worsened and traditional models have become obsolete, they’ve had their resources diminished.

Recently, newspapers that have lasted more than a century have folded under the economic pressures, and even biggest cable news networks have had to cut staff and close bureaus around the world. As their budgets have been scaled back, the budgets of corporate PR divisions and firms have risen and gotten better at delineating information as they want it to be seen. That has left the public in a dangerous position where they are under-informed yet always inundated with talk. News outlets, afraid of losing what little influence and access they have, and unable or unwilling to do the serious, long-term investigation they were once famous for, have now traded excellence for efficiency. Stories with an easy angle are repeated ad nauseam; boisterous personalities are given priority over knowledgeability; softball interviews are offered in exchange for access to the biggest names.

What Jon Stewart demonstrated is what people like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were famous for: speaking truth to power. Jim Cramer himself as well as being a representative of CNBC has influence and authority in the business community, and as such has a responsibility that both he and his network failed to honor. Additionally, as a journalist, he failed to ask the tough questions, dig deeper, and find the truth before reporting to his audience. If he had, he might have had a better, more informed opinion to give to people who rely upon or value his financial advice. Instead, as he said on The Daily Show, he would give a forum for business leaders who would lie to him and then he would share that information - without question or critical investigation - with an audience that took his authority and certitude for veracity.

In today’s White House briefing, one reporter even praised Jon Stewart’s demonstration of serious journalism in a question to Press Secretary Gibbs. What does it say about the state of our media when a White House reporter, a post given normally to the most inquiring of serious journalist, praises a supposed mere comedian? It says that in the 21st century the satirist is alive and well while the traditional investigate reporter is threatened with replacement by news spokespeople. Many of the people we find reporting the news are doing simply that: reporting what they are told, and not trying to find the stories or uncover the truth.

It’s easy to marginalize The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but in the guise of comedy, they are often more willing and more able to speak the hard truths. The Daily Show, as an entertainment and comedy program, doesn’t rely on getting access to CEO’s or politicians, so they can ask the hard questions without fear of being cut-off. What Jim Cramer, CNBC, and the mainstream media need to remember is that just as they need stories, there are people who need their stories told. The folks at CNBC may want big-name guests to interview, but at the same time those big-names need the pulpit that CNBC provides. It is a mutual relationship and though in recent years the power has shifted away from the news outlets and to those being covered, the media need only remember that they are the gatekeepers to the public forum and that their is always an audience for hard news. For evidence look no further than the ratings Jon Stewart received on Thursday night, and the ratings points that CNBC has been losing since this all began.

On Love and Ideology

I’ve always been fascinated by people like Jim Carville and Mary Matalin who hold politically opposite points of view and yet love one another enough to want to spend their lives together. Of course, that relationship is fascinating for other reasons as well, but it seems strange to me people who can compartmentalize like that, especially people who have very clear and strong political beliefs. Plenty of people pay little attention to politics, and switch parties from election to election, so in that case it makes perfect sense to me that they could love just about anyone regardless of ideology because it means so little to them. For people that do really care, though, I have trouble seeing how they can maintain relationships, friendships, romances with people at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Take, for instance, my family. My father is about as politically opposite from me as you can get. There are certain things we can agree on, but they are usually general observations about the human condition and have little, if anything, to do with policy. The differences are stark enough that if I wasn’t related to him - if he was just someone I worked with or met elsewhere - I wouldn’t be able to get past these differences.

At other times, I’ve been interested in or even dated women who, when I found out their political beliefs, became completely different people in my eyes. Where once I had some adoration or affection, I started to have antagonism. Ideology isn’t like a taste in music or favorites pastimes, where they all may share some similarities or you can grow to appreciate them. A person’s ideology shapes their perception of the world, and when two people have opposing views, it means that they see the world in two completely distinct and antithetical ways.

It doesn’t just go for politics, obviously, but for things like religion and philosophy as well. If you believe there is no higher power, how can you have real love and affection for someone who does. In your mind, they are not merely wrong but deluded, and their beliefs mean that they, in return, think you are misguided. Sure, these are things people can look past, and many do, but what kind of love can there be between people when you think that a person is fundamentally wrong about their worldview?

I think it’s easy for people to accept one another’s religious beliefs, even if they are contrasting, because so much of religion is hypothetical. Without real evidence to contradict one another, and with most people having their own doubts about the certainty of religion, it’s easier to assume that you may both be right about some things and wrong about others. When it comes to political ideology, there is evidence in the real world - examples to be drawn from - and those beliefs lead to actions with real-world consequences. A lot of religions and philosophies share common themes about the best way to live your life, and they may be all equally valid, but political ideologies are rarely about more than one valid answer to the same question. With religion, it’s as though each group has a different map to get you to the grocery store, with both eventually leading you there. With Democrats and Republicans, one route will get you to the store, the other will lead you to a dentist’s office; sure, a few people may need to get to that dentist’s office, but the rest of us are trying to get groceries.

So how can people with fundamentally different perspectives truly share anything resembling love? Is it possible to be friends with or actually respect someone who you believe is destroying the world one vote at a time? If love is about trusting someone and accepting them for who they are, can you love someone whose values you don’t trust and whose beliefs you yourself can’t accept?