Even a broken clock is right two times per day, they say.

Although there does seem to be a great deal of helpful – even transformational – change underway in our country despite significant ongoing challenges, it still at least feels important to articulate drawbacks to our current system of journalism funding – particularly where this overlaps with stock market trading – as these remain largely unresolved. 

As mass media outlets arguably become more and more self-referential as bully pulpits rather than reflective as informers about the world, it bears repeating that a major problem in one-way systems of mass communication is a lack of breadth and nuance. While these outlets have praised one another – and, many times, rightly – for standing up to politicians in recent months, it is worth remembering that this system of attention-grabbing news communication, too, seems to have sometimes played a problematic role.

As a person who served in the mass media industry – and, notably, loved a lot about it – I feel responsible for also talking about what it sometimes feels like to contribute to coverage about which one does not always feel good. 

While I believe my trajectory to be at least somewhat unique, largely because I was all but required (and certainly felt required) to rent a cripplingly expensive and relatively remote apartment during a time when I was experiencing these kinds of pressures, I did not always feel I could very easily walk away. I do not know how many other people are experiencing similar problems today.

It also feels important to continue to acknowledge the significance of the 2016 election in the same way it feels important to acknowledge various expressions of trauma response in large populations of people who feel unheard. While the #MeToo and BlackLivesMatter movements arguably have forged major change in American life, I question whether the role mass media played in originating some feelings of disenfranchisement in the first place has been adequately considered and addressed. 

It seems to me that the inference that the polarization of media outlets correlates with an antecedent polarization of the American citizenry is wrong. (If anything it might have been the other way around.) Even more notable than the polarization of the machinery of media channel rhetoric is arguably the balance rendered by much more measured and reasonable voters. When a mosaic artist with only primary color elements at her disposal needs to render purple, she makes decisions accordingly. I believe one reason we require forums permitting more nuanced communication is that binary philosophies which would pressure one to choose between a default assumption that either everything that happens to a person is her fault, or that nothing that happens to a person is her fault, are too limiting.

I believe that when many tune in to an international broadcast it is largely in order to feel connected to the world. There are times when listening to the opinions of an anchor can feel more like being required to hear the opinions of a telephone operator when all anyone wants is to be patched through. Americans’ perspectives matter also. 

Given that everyone’s focus at this time is on preserving, stewarding, and cultivating dearly-held ideas and beliefs, it may be worth pondering different ways in which preservation, stewardship, and cultivation are approached in nature. Specifically, it may be worth it to spend some time considering the difference between sanctuaries and monuments – modern stewardship strategies involving more and less inclusive approaches to community engagement. (It may be even more helpful to consider traditional modes.) While one could make the case that there are situations (usually emergencies) in which the only reasonable approach is to designate an important place a monument via executive action, these are arguably not the norm. Sanctuary designations are, on the other hand, made through much more inclusive processes and generally take more time.

While discussion goes on about normalizing making decisions of national significance by bypassing public input more frequently, it may be important to remember that the heart of the monument-sanctuary debate has been considered in the design of the American Constitution. And, while executive authorities are broad and feature considerable flexibility, one could at least argue that the American system of government, as designed, leans toward endorsing more sanctuary-like processes. This is because America’s government is designed to be a vehicle for engagement, not a destination for observation. It is not designed to be a reality TV set.

I believe that justifications that have been increasingly made for a monument-style approach to decision-making have been flawed. While long-standing and systemic injustices toward the vulnerable have been called out, and rightly, their relatedness to corporate system design has arguably not been talked about thoroughly.

Rather than being at least partially attributable to contexts (and corporate, brand-focused environments in particular) in which some people have been virtually exempt from acknowledging and honoring the humanity of large groups of fellow human beings, their subsequent behaviors seem to be increasingly attributed to inherent flaws. But, what if it is possible these individuals could learn to respect and honor others’ humanity simply by being held to a normal standard?

Corporate environments require further consideration, particularly as it is arguable that those individuals who have historically – and certainly wrongly – exploited their permissiveness have, at least to a degree, been scapegoated in order to preserve even more problematic actors. It is hard to know what a hunter will do once he is no longer allowed to hunt without giving him an opportunity to prove his resourcefulness.

I frequently vote progressively and will certainly consider continuing to do so. And, while I certainly understand why many believe the current election cycle to be unique for an imperative to vote Democrats in office, I still believe that, based on the past many years of experience, if we are making a decision as a nation to consent to a norm moving forward in which presidential administrations are always and only permitted to serve at the pleasure of a cartel of, largely publicly-traded, media organizations, the current lockdown on any meaningful response to problems in their human rights records needs a reasonable endpoint. (In what other legitimate competitive setting do umpires moonlight as bookies?) I believe a strategy to more consistently peg these organizations’ interests to those of human beings is needed. When I came forward about my experience in one media company, as I recall, its representative simply asked me to tell them what I wanted, saying they would see if they could get it for me. But when I requested policy changes, they did not respond. Being excluded from media narrative timelines, even in private communications, does not need to permanently invalidate nor make broken any person or group.

As we continue to rely on a publicly-traded brand model, isn’t the door is open to a devolution from democracy to a more oligarchical system?

For many years I have been trying to figure out a way to help peg the interests of media companies to the interests of mankind and, as said but bears repeating, it seems to me at least one of the industry’s central mandates must be to protect human rights. (Ever since I left the media organization mentioned earlier I have been trying to communicate that, based on my experience, corporate media can seem to put shareholder interest above the mandate to protect human rights; and, in 2016, I proposed an infrastructure update that would introduce a system of checks for the journalism sector involving a, reformed, education sector. But I never found an environment where I felt able to find meaningful feedback.)

One advantage the education sector has over corporations is that, in the form of equal opportunity offices, if they are reformed, they at least have what could be re-conceived of as a sort of American embassy. The problem, of course, is that these offices are susceptible to corruption. But maybe this could be journalism’s new frontier.

The business interests of corporate media companies undeniably are sometimes aligned with the interests of people, including Americans, as as defined by the country’s priority of preserving human rights, which is the yardstick with which we are responsible for measuring progress.

Still, the only approach to dealing with a broken clock is arguably not to simply throw a party the two times per day it is right.