The New Journalism

With the collapse of the trademark Seattle newspaper last week, and the fall of similar ones throughout the country, the ushering in of the next generation of journalism has begun. The days of the huge story breaking after an overeager writer spends 10 months verifying hunches are a thing of the past, replaced by the quick headline that has become the trademark of the 24-hour news cycle. In the past, a journalist would raise a question, spend the time in legitimate research to answer the question, and then had a completed account that lived up to, not only his own personal standards, but often multiple editors that held the key to it actually being published. Not so much anymore.

The idea alone that there might be a story has become the story. Headlines are filled with what might be the case, the possibility of wrongdoing, the actual hunch. Once the headline is released, the reaction will determine whether the research and costs that would need to be expended to confirm the sources or delve deeper into the issue are warranted. The AIG mess is a perfect example of this "shoot from the hip" journalism. Release the story with few, if any, facts. “AIG to give 170 million in bonuses.” Great. Just enough information for the conspiracy starved, teetering on the edge of all out revolt audience really needs to jet right past inquisitive to flat-out pissed off. The hours’ worth of research needed to find out that it was government lawyers that signed off on these payments months ago with completely valid reasons, and that this decision to allow them more than likely saved millions in additional legal fees, just was not worth it until the reaction was determined. Additionally, can these payments even be called bonuses? Isn’t a bonus something paid beyond what the company is contractually obligated to pay? Since these payments were detailed in a contract, they cannot even be considered bonuses.

What makes this story an example of new journalism is that it is simply an extention of what the general public already knows. If some small bank out in West Bumblefuck accepted government bailout funds and then gave out a bonus, would anyone really care? There is no need or desire to go find the new story, the one that does not already have a place in the public consciousness. Everyone has already heard of AIG, making it a perfect target. Need a headline? Go to what is commonly known, and put it in a new light. If you’re really good, you don’t have to wait for the reaction, you simply tell the public what to feel. Introduce the story with words like anger, outrage, and greed. And just watch as everything falls in line. It is the easiest and least expensive way to manufacture ratings.

After succumbing to this manufactured rage, a group of enraged citizens filled a bus and went on a nice tour of the homes of the AIG executives to drop off a few letters. Surrounded by media that outnumbered them 2-1, they read the letter aloud for the camera before putting it in the mailbox in front of one particular mansion. Which outraged member of society was selected to read this letter? A part time high school coach earning $9,000 a year.

I wonder how many of his tax dollars went toward the bailout.

The AIG Debacle

This is getting to be a bit much.

How far can this AIG mess go? It’s bad enough that the taxpayers handed over in excess of 180 billion to the financial giant, but nothing compares to what just happened. Not the fact that 200 million went out in bonuses. That’s an ethical issue to be debated in bars and living rooms throughout the country. That our congress insists on yet another inane kneejerk reaction to it is what we really should be upset about. Americans are protesting outside the homes of AIG executives, when it should be on the mall in Washington. It is simply another example of horrifically misguided anger on all sides of this mess, and serves as a blind diversion to the real issues at hand.

Why do we suddenly care about 200 million, hardly 1.5 percent of the amount given to AIG? These were contractual bonuses, and the inclusion in the original bailout of the provision that allowed them saved a small fortune in potential legal fees. Who in the world would not sue for their bonuses when it was clearly written into an employment contract? Lawyers would have a field day with this. Now, Chris Dodd must fight for his political life for doing exactly what some rather intelligent lawyer told him to (I am leaving out the little flop-flop of denial, however).

Isn’t the real issue, considering the global nature of AIG, the amount of the bailout that has been siphoned overseas? Not to mix the bailout with any stimulus package, but Americans have the right to believe that cash handed to a corporation in the U. S. should, at the very least, stay here. Since transparency has not yet (ever?) hit AIG, we have no idea. Whether the bailout was necessary is a debate left for those far more intelligent than I, but a high I.Q. is not necessary to realize that a politician handing out taxpayer dough has a responsibility to know exactly where it is going.

And I.Q. is the primary reason we should not have such a huge issue with these legally-mandated bonus payments. Economists all over the globe cannot fully understand, never mind explain, the AIG mess. Many of the executives responsible have since left the company, some not so voluntarily. It would be a very prudent move to keep as many of those involved, those that actually understand this disaster, in the rolodex. Concern needs to be paid on the return of the 180 billion, and if 200 million in bonus payments is the best shot we have at keeping the ones that can make that happen onboard, and also avoids the millions in additional legal fees we would have faced should Mr. Dodd left that one line out, then why would we fight this? If the employees can be coerced into voluntarily returning the cash, as some already have, great. Short of that, we need to just let this one go.

The Curious Case of A-theism v. Atheism.

At the beginning of April, The atheist alliance will host their annual convention, featuring keynote speaker Richard Dawkins. While it is no secret that I am an atheist, and am a fan of Professor Dawkins, the logic of such a convention is puzzling. Atheists, in their fervor, have essentially created a new religion, with a unique theology and respected leaders. And it can be no wonder that in many circles, they are developing a very negative name for themselves.

I do not believe in god. I also do not believe in Zeus, Horus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although I find each of them extremely entertaining. This is simply a logical conclusion I have come to after a careful consideration of the current available evidence. There is certainly a chance I am wrong, and I would be pleasantly surprised at my death to find myself at a rather large, pearly gate (although I doubt I would be there long. I am sure a quick and permanent trip south would be in my future.) This conclusion makes me an “a-theist”, as in the opposite of a “theist”, or one that believes in a deity. And here is where a differentiation must be made.

An Atheist however, with a capital a, is a member of a religion that does not believe in a deity. It is very different. They will meet at conventions, hold weekly meetings, and make daily visits to websites to discuss something they do not believe in. They will march, plaster billboards and buses with their message, and welcome an all out argument. And they have, and look up to, leaders that give them clear direction on how to clarify their message to the public. In short, they have become what they so vehemently detest, an organized religion, based solely on something they do not believe in.

The fact is belief in god is not a real issue. There is nothing wrong with belief in any deity, or imaginary character. If believing in god helps you through a difficult time, or even just through the day, great. As children, many of us had imaginary friends that we swore by, often as an antidote for abuse or loneliness. There is no harm in this, and in many cases, it is encouraged. The issue is not belief in god; the real issue is the belief that god is using some of us to tell the others what to do. If all those that believed in god just stayed home on Sunday and read the bible, the world would be just fine. But go to church, and you learn to hate homosexuals and basically anyone that does not share your beliefs. Every religion feels strongly that theirs is the one god is using on this earth to spread his message, and thus all the others are false. Playing well with others takes on a whole new meaning when you are sure “the others” will all be spending eternity burning in hell.

Turning a-theism into the religion of Atheism it has become is disheartening to say the least, not to mention counter-productive. The logical, scientific approach that leads many to question the existence of god becomes buried beneath a new dogma created by the natural need of a leader to lead, and the individual thought that led one to become an atheist will quickly be replaced with the talking points provided by a what has become a new religion. It truly is an amazing phenomenon. The feeling of enlightenment and uniqueness in the great sea of humanity that one feels when finally finding a religion that speaks to them dissipates quickly, revealing the real need to be a part of something, a society, a community, a religion. That a religion could be based on non-belief should come as no surprise. Maybe Jesus was right. We are all just “sheep without a shepherd”, desperate to find one. Any one.

An Ode to Robin Hood

One of the more common assaults by Republicans is the party-line chant of socialism. “Obama is taking from hard working Americans and giving it to those that don’t want to work.” I’ve even heard him referred to as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Yes, that same horrible Robin Hood, known by generations of children as one of the more evil characters throughout literature. But what is most obvious is that so few have any real idea what Obama’s policies truly are, and even worse, don’t want to.

Obama has not proposed any new taxes on anyone. He will simply allow the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. So taxes they would have paid 7 years ago would start up again. These will affect those making approximately $250,000.00 and over, and those would see rates grow from 35% to 38% on only the amount over the $250,000. For the slow among us, taxes do not affect what you already have. And it is entirely reasonable to believe that anyone making above a quarter million a year might have a few bucks in the bank; there are very few entry level jobs starting at that level. So the rich will pay a slightly higher percentage on the money that they do not yet have, after taking huge advantage the last few decades of the numerous tax breaks and loopholes afforded them to grow their fortunes.

Since the population in this tax bracket is miniscule, what are the majority of Republicans up in arms about? In her recent documentary “Right America, Wronged America”, Alexandra Pelosi (yes, you-know-who’s daughter) followed the McCain campaign bus from rally to rally, interviewing attendees. At one point, there is a plumber in an on-its-last-legs truck, with a sign on the side calling Obama a socialist. Near tears, he explains how he does not want his money taken from him and given to the man that only wants to work 2 or 3 days a week. Even after it was explained to him that was not the case, and that he would be in the group benefiting most, he remained in denial, not wanting to hear more.

Since the Reagan administration, we have been saddled with the “trickle-down” economic belief that the rich would somehow use that wealth to create jobs and grow the middle class. In the past, I would have referred to it as a theory, but it no longer deserves even that status. Expecting the rich to “spread the wealth around” is like asking Rush Limbaugh to turn down a cheeseburger. (By the way Rush, dieting is slimming. Wearing black isn’t). We have put our future in the welcoming arms of the upper class, and now have nothing to show for it. Brainwashed Republicans can cry out for smaller government all they want, but an intelligent White House is needed now more than ever.

America is not, and never has been, the land of equal rights. We were drastically behind many developed countries when it came to legal equality for women and African Americans. What we have been is the land of equal opportunity to get rich. No matter your color, creed or gender, if you could act, run fast or hit a baseball, we made you rich. If you could guess right in the stock market or lottery, we made you rich. It didn’t even matter if what you were good at was illegal. Hell, we made Jesse James a folk hero.

But work hard for a living, and we can make no promises. Be a great teacher, and we’ll let you pay bills, but no more. History is littered with accounts of the real labor that went into the building of our nation, and those workers were often left with little or nothing to show for it, while the Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s had far more than they would need in a hundred lifetimes. Certainly they had admirable business ability, and are worthy of the recognition they have received, but is it more warranted than the very labor those fortunes were built on?

It should be easier in this country to make a living, and harder to make a fortune. And with the massive transfer of wealth this country has seen over recent decades, it will take a Robin Hood to get it done. For those not wanting their money to go to those not working, it is time to realize that 1. More than likely, no one is taking your money, and 2. There’s a good chance you will be getting some of it. And considering that most fortunes are passed down from previous generations, when was the last time you saw a rich person work? Do you really have an issue taking an extra 3% from Paris Hilton?