Breaking up the circle jerk

A few days ago I grandly intoned that "Jon Stewart matters". What I meant was that Stewart has proven himself as a pop cultural shaker if not exactly a mover. He probably destroyed CNN's Crossfire by eviscerating the 4 panelist on their own show. Stewart was also first out of the gate to state that it was "okay to laugh at Obama".

Still the public castration of Jim Cramer on The Daily Show last Thursday leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Cramer, without a doubt, invited it. He would have been wise not to appear at all. His ridiculous show on CNBC, Mad Money, is so ripe for mocking satire that it appears to be a satire itself most of the time. It is asinine.

What is distressing about this is the idea that anyone would take Cramer seriously in the first place. His show's set evokes Pee Wee's Playhouse - not sturdy seriousness about investing.



CNBC and MSNBC are particularly, but not uniquely, responsible for the rampant dumbing down of information. The priorities of the cable news channels are inverted. Ratings come first, information such as it is, always works in service of the higher goal of higher ratings. Stewart's take down of Cramer is more like a family feud than a pubic service. Both men traffic in the same currency: entertainment packaged as information. Stewart is just more upfront about it.

I feel no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who lost money because of a stock pick Cramer made. If you invest based on a loud clown's advice...well then you get what you deserve. (Cramer may have some bonifides in reality. Still his show presents him as a crack addled ferret with A.D.D.)

The public lashing of Cramer has the whiff of the mob with a bucket of tar and a pile of feathers looking for a culprit - any culprit.

Citizens need to ask themselves an overarching question: Why is almost all television news so untrustworthy in this country? Not just financial information - but all information. Why are we continually presented with huge story arcs about needing to go to war, or the amazing skills of junior Senators and then told after that fact that maybe, just maybe, the media did not tell the whole story. Oops. The arc is straightforward enough: No balance in reporting an issue or topic for months, followed by the issue playing out badly for most, but beneficially for a few, followed by recriminations in the media when the war has begun or the election is over. It is a manageable, compact, 3 act structure that has nothing to do with "news".

As fictional anchorman Howard Beale intones in Network "We'll tell you any shit you want to hear." I'd only add with 30 years of hindsight that first they'll tell us why we want to hear it.

So now the infotainment network called CNBC is in the docket for missing the financial meltdown. The infotainment network called CNN is gleeful. Giving the openly infotainment based Daily Show a good rating and some free P.R.

Someone needs to break up the circle jerk.

What is not spoken about is real responsibility. This would implicate you and me - and you and me might turn off the TV - the final catastrophe for all network executives. Real criminals and real greedy, amoral, bastards brought us to this point. They must pay in the courts and with their reputations. Nevertheless a profound and troubling disconnect in the general population allowed all this to occur. Being consumers of everything from burgers to religion to news instead of being citizens of a society with responsibilities must end. We are a nation identified with consumption. It is put to us as our duty and highest calling. Of course, CNBC and CNN feeds us any shit they think we want. It is profitable.

Beale tells us to "get up and go to the window and scream 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.' " What we are not "to take" is not stated. I'll tell you what I think it is in 2009: Stop allowing yourself to be treated as a "consumer" first, last and always. Cows need to be herded, not citizens. Beale again - you've got to say: I'm a human being goddamit and my life has value.

And when that is done - remember the media will try to monetize your humanity as well. That is what they do. We must stop allowing everything to be an entertainment for our consumption and distraction.

Cramer entertained, he was then taken down by another entertainer, for our entertainment. Are we any closer to finding out how we got here?


P.S. for anyone who finds a contradiction in my use of two clips from a movie to make a point about corrosive infotainment I say this: Network is entertainment. It is also art.

Lunch Break - Just Network

I am in a mood. Network was released in 1976. That fact is astounding.The speech in the first clip below should be forced viewing for anyone under thirty. A sort of RE reeducation camp. Howard Beale could be talking about the 2008 election.

Is there anything that Paddy Chayefsky wrote in 1975 in the first 2 minutes of Beale's speech in this clip that is not specifically about 2009? Not generally. Specifically.

Finally, just because Beatrice Straight is perfect in the 4 minute clip below. She won an Oscar for it - an Oscar she more than earns in 4 minutes.

Obama's control of the media.

It is all true. Obama has controlled the media in a way that would make Papa Stalin proud. Or, at the very least, Joe McCarthy. Roy Cohn is probably so impressed he'd is no doubt screaming "Yes, We Can!" in the deepest basement of hell.

Newsvine lays it out brutally here. Read it. But do so with the lights on as it is an American horror story. Everything from the absorption of the left wing blogs to the seizure of CNN is touched on. Not to mention the planned attacks on any one who voiced opposition - or even concern - about Obama. And, yes, the race card was played by Obama early, often and with abandon. I stated here months ago that Obama was running the most vicious Presidential campaign since Adams/Jefferson in 1800. It is clear now, I was wrong. Obama's primary campaign of 2008 is the most negative and mean spirited campaign in our history.

Thoughtful people who watch or read "news" in this country must come to terms with a simple fact sooner or later: There is no "news" media in the United States. There is a 24 hour show that feeds on the blogs - then itself - in cycles that last 36-74 hours. Like Phil Spectors Wall of Sound the media creates a Wall of Chatter. The only exceptions here are local stories and natural disasters but even in those cases the story is quickly molded into an event that avoids solid information. The financial model for reality TV is applicable here. Reality TV is, of course, not reality at all. If the perfunctory patterns of our day to day lives were put on television - no one would watch. Solid information costs money to gather. Journalists have to be journalists, go places, ask discerning questions, demand answers. 100 monkeys typing could have reported with more depth on Obama during the past 6 months. Sound bites and people chatting about the sound bites is much cheaper. This environment is just as conducive to P.R. agents and fads as Entertainment Tonight. Obama has proven both George Orwell and Paddy Chayefsky right.

For all that - the latest Gallup 3 day tracking poll has McCain and Obama tied. Who knows what will happen? I do know reality is often immune to P.R. Katrina taught us that. Reality may strike Obama from an odd angle no one sees coming. (Example: Israel is signalling there will be an attack on Iran - will security moms vote Hope/Change with the Middle East in flames?) Since BHO's campaign is based on FORCE not POWER it has inherent weaknesses and could collapse in an instant.

Regardless, most people can still discern the difference between an ad campaign for Love Guru and a Presidential campaign. The protection and promotion of Obama by the media may last past the election. But CNN is not in the business of news - it is in the business of weaving a narrative that keeps you and I tuned in. There will come a point with Obama, just like it did with Bush, when the media sees that the story has changed - the new narrative being "Who is this guy and can we trust him with the job?" It may happen after he has the job - but I pray it does not.