In high school, when a friend described first driving after getting her learner’s permit, I was eager to hear a preview of what awaited me the following year. But I had to stifle my worries when listening to the details of her experience accidentally driving into the curb on one side of the road, over-correcting and doing the same on the other, and then repeating the process before finally stopping her car to regroup. My friend, a perfectly-capable and now highly-educated professional hadn’t erred so dramatically out of any problem relating to ability, but readiness.

On Navigation

Legitimate critique has undoubtedly been stifled for too long, given an age-old tradition of recognizing only the correlation of a universal, but narrow, set of qualities – like an often relatively unhindered industry, creativity, and perseverance – with success, while de-emphasizing a frequently hard-won boldness, empathy, and forthrightness required to talk about race- and gender-based barriers historically put in place to prevent equality of opportunity. Progress, of course, originates in the expression of both sets of attributes; and, while a re-balancing is needed, an entirely new order based on nothing but criticism would arguably be wrong, rooted in little substance but, rather, a bullying unwillingness to articulate nuance.

It having been such a long time that only a portion of the story has been told, of course it is tempting to over-correct and devalue all the good already at work. But I believe that would be wrong.

In a recent moment of both national instability and opportunity, one reason I worried about sharing a new theory of journalistic engagement in a blurb, without explanation, was that there seemed to be such a vacuum of expressed nuance – and a desperation for alternatives – in public dialogue that the instant a shared idea was rolled out there was a risk of it being accepted unquestioningly at face value and with any flaws – rather than being discussed and resolved – simply being baked in permanently. But it also felt like an urgent time to act – and to express ideas in full – given that the country seemed so vulnerable to unscrupulous attempts to fill the vacuum.

Because I personally felt my proposed theory was built on a desire to empower others, and because I believe it addressed the fundamental problem undergirding a breakdown in trust in and effectiveness of mainstream journalism – a lack of centering checks, balances, and outside accountability – it felt terrible not to be heard when expressing myself.

I believe one attribute of the modern debate that deserves further consideration is the concept of unity as it is undoubtedly a quality that is both desirable and, at times, needed for a society to function. Paul says “there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope,” and I do believe there is a relevance to this notion even to politics. But how can we keep conversations going about internal injustices that do need to be addressed, and urgently, while keeping in mind continually that we are one body? (Because, as Americans, we are.)

I believe the answer at this time, beyond an obvious need to handle intentional wrongdoing quickly and soberly, is moderation in striking a balance between the expression of dissent and an emphasis on unity, as well as an acknowledgement that finding complete, authentic unison takes time. Our government was literally designed to accommodate this process by defining and permanently counterbalancing locuses of power. I continue to believe that the absence of any counterbalance either to stock market forces or media forces – especially given a dearth of any counterbalance to an increasingly large conglomerate of doubly-problematic publicly-traded media companies – is worth considering and that very recent calls for unity, while beautiful-sounding, ring hollow absent correlate action.

Total and borderless unity across sectors in our country would require more evolved, more just, and more trustworthy actors; and, while I do believe we are, in general, becoming more virtuous as a population, it is arguable that a rush toward borderless cooperation between the financial, media, and even government sectors could open the door to corruption. To design a system featuring checks and balances is not to assume people are bad; it is just to acknowledge that, should corruption take hold, a way to handle it is required. The more that organizations make high-profile dei hires without being held accountable to any form of structural checks or balances, possibly exacerbating appearance/reality differentials, the greater the potential there arguably is for internal abuse.

This is a moment to pause and acknowledge that agency matters. People are not machines, and are in any situation capable of making decisions based on their own consciences. But organizations are machines, and the more that large corporate operations are scaled up and automated, the more difficult it can seem to become for those inside to obey conscience when doing so requires dissent. In the tradition of the logic guiding the design of our government, and its intended goals, I believe there is simply a need for balance with regard to the ever-increasing influence of publicly-traded media. (Why would we want to drive a vehicle whose parts were wildly out of proportion or malfunctioning anyway?)

Based on the the aggressive silence with which structural solutions have been met in recent years, I’ve reasoned these have generally been received by media companies with disapproval; but, I wonder, why? While I feel it is important to argue that media organizations should perhaps be less powerful, wouldn’t this be a relief? I do not believe there is an incompatibility between believing that modern journalism is a wonderful, fulfilling field (it is a field I love) and that it is also a force in need not just of restraint from within but counterbalance.

While I by no means request that my ideas be accepted wholesale – or demand that they necessarily be accepted at all – based on my experience in media, I had hoped simply to be heard.

On Changing Course

Karl Marx’s most fundamental premise was material determinism. While this is widely known, of course, I do not feel it is emphasized enough in common discourse as the foundation on which deductions many seem to consider to be very logical-sounding, rest. But what if this one assumption were removed? Wouldn’t a considerable portion of the remainder of his theory naturally follow? Perhaps even when logic, and good intentions, are applied to a wrong premise, wrong deductions simply follow. It seems to me that, in formulating news broadcasts and publications today, many outlets seem to be basing numerous decisions on the assumption that they should, essentially, rule. Truths are told and advocacy for justice is often performed – both invaluable and immensely important services (and services that, during human rights movements, are indispensable); but it seems these cease when an increasingly obvious limiting principle – the supremacy of media companies as rulers – is approached. (“If media companies are meant to rule, we will need to accentuate this storyline,” one might reason; “If media companies are meant to rule, we will need to silence these important facts;” etc.) But was our government designed to be steered by media companies, or by engaged citizens? I believe that this could be the central question of our time and that, in answering it, we may find ourselves, gradually, moving in a new direction.

In a moment when people, who are certainly responsible for their own behaviors – and sometimes entire groups of innocents – are being blamed for the world’s problems with comparatively little regard paid to highly relevant macroeconomic forces also at play, perhaps it is time for a refocusing bringing systems under scrutiny.

By ruling out ideas as a source of individual supply, Marx basically implied that any upward mobility observed anywhere evidenced the commission of some form of theft, requiring the imagination of a sort of theory of the law of the conservation of energy, except as applied to prosperity. To be sure, many forms of organization and government – including, very notably, the confederate south – have indeed been based explicitly on an evil exploitation, and others – including many communal systems of dividend-sharing lacking in accountability – have been based, at least to a degree, implicitly on exploitation.

But, just as a system that would blindly give every member of a group only a predetermined amount of credit for the sum of its collective material output would encourage corruption, a theoretical framework that would imply all progress or invention is attributable to theft rather than individual initiative, creativity or elbow grease is wrong too.

Not all progress derives from a static kit of parts that is simply rearranged, although starting points matter a great deal. Real progress arguably derives from the presence of met needs, undoubtedly, but also from the expression of qualities such as courage, hard work, artistry, perseverance, and caring. (To believe otherwise would be to bend toward material determinism and Marxism itself.)

On Locating

This is why traditional news organizations can be so invaluable in helping keep a country on course – by introducing a measure of accountability into public discourse. Such expressions of accountability would be compassionate, representative and proportional, not symbolic or performative; and they would certainly not be a modern-day spectacle akin to ancient Rome’s Colosseum.

One indication that modern news organizations at least seem to not be performing this service is a conspicuous tendency to curate newscasts – accentuating some stories and obscuring others – seemingly for no other primary reason than to further their news organizations’ own business interests. There should be another name for such power-accumulating organizations that are transitioning away from news without announcement: PAOs.

It is arguably a perversion of social justice journalism to abuse it for the purpose of power accumulation, but it does appear that is what sometimes happens. Break-through social justice warriors must be recognized less as sages than pawns if modern-day wokeness – to the degree it is deployed unevenly and according to a business-centered litmus test – is not about human rights primarily but, rather, power-accumulation. Both bullying and forming relationships with bullies are arguably activities about power. Social justice, in order to be social justice, must apply to more than only celebrities; and nobody buys the theory of trickle-down social justice currently being peddled.

Back when the media landscape was more exclusively the territory of a few sizeable companies, large amounts of money were easily made by toggling between legitimate journalism and sensational, ratings-grabbing filler – a bit like investing and liquidating brand equity at will as the market for attention fluctuated. What is different now is that, in the current climate, and thank God, as brand equity is liquidated by speculators, it can, at least in theory, be evaporated as media outlets’ decisions are evaluated critically by dutiful and independent watchdogs.

On Wayfinding

As I have written before, I believe one of the most pressing problems that, together, we as Americans must, and absolutely can, face, is that of uncreativity. The foundation of the American Union is the pursuit of happiness. But what constitutes this pursuit, but creativity?

While one of modern America’s greatest strengths is its provision of practical safety nets and infrastructural pathways to education and employment, we are not at heart a menu-oriented or multiple-choice people. As explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs, and inventors, American innovators imagine and forge paths forward that have, often, been previously unexplored or unseen.

As a practical matter, reliable information – not just about where we are but about our surroundings – is essential to navigators of all kinds. (Imagine if public street signs were all produced by urban developers with a vested interest in the decisions of drivers and, even if sometimes well-intentioned, no information whatsoever about drivers’ needs? They would, in all likelihood, produce signage advocating for movement in a particular direction and, perhaps, refrain from providing information about alternative, and maybe more helpful, routes.)

Those desiring to help and those desiring only to appear to help are different types of actors; and only one is trustworthy enough to assist in navigation.

On Lanes

It is a wonder that, in a time of unprecedented connectivity, individual voice seems increasingly muffled and speech on important matters limited to seemingly arbitrary groupings of already-defined positions. What does one’s opinion about health insurance policy necessarily have to do with her opinion on environmental protection? What if a person cares deeply about environmental protections but also recognizes that the endangered apparatus of American democracy is also incredibly valuable and that a baseline litmus test of all of its leaders going forward must arguably be a willingness to take a stand – not against a cohort of publicly-traded, for-profit, and for-power media companies necessarily, but against the supremacy of a cohort of publicly-traded, for-profit, and for-power media companies?

What does a person’s decision to seek apology for harms sustained at work have to do with a company’s desire to pay to silence her, and shouldn’t the latter be restrained? Shouldn’t these notions be considered separately? Is a proposition like the latter not worse than paying to appear offset threshold-tipping emissions rather than simply reducing them?

What is the difference, I have wondered, between the silencing of a population of people who have tried to speak in and about the media landscape, by NDA or otherwise, and the blankness of a storied but quiet Tiananmen Square?

My first years after leaving my home and job to work for the Larry King Live team were difficult largely for the disconnect between my life before after. Driving past my home or looking over my old workspace, I would feel like blurting out, “I used to live here. I know I did; I remember. I used to work here. I know I did; I remember.”

On Bottlenecks

It is notable that, in China, where nuance in debate is almost certainly more limited than it is in the US, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate a tendency to favor communications requiring almost discussion-less engagement for consensus-building not unlike analogous, although darker, phenomena here.

Is passive audience engagement with media elements to which there is only one logical response a worrying indication of a draw to the simplistic or is it, rather, more like an expression of a desire to connect and agree to the degree allowed in increasingly constrictive public squares? (Let me rephrase: an Instagram picture of two-week-old pomeranian puppies looking at you adoringly just waiting to be picked up and snuggled, sitting in teacups – pretty or ugly?)

Denizens can still choose to interact with and trust in one another – and trust in ourselves – more than in a media industry that engaged in human rights abuses knowingly for decades and then only decided to so much as pretend to address the problem 20 minutes after getting caught.

In the vehicle that is our collective democracy, media outlets are the windows. They are essential and appreciated. But, unlike my friend, who – with a little bit more information, focus, and practice – eventually learned to exercise her civic right to drive, no matter how hard they try, they will never be navigators.