I could hardly believe it, today, driving to the gym and realizing I was exactly on time. Post–snack. Normally, on my way to work out I cost-benefit-analyze a last-minute drive-thru croissant run (sweets always win) and just barely make it to my scheduled class on time. Full and happy. But today felt like a miracle.

I decided to look at my eta, illustrated, almost like a sonogram of a new on-time-for-the-gym me and memorialized it for the sense of accomplishment it inspired.

While I’m grateful for the constraints that characterize the pace of my gym runs (there’s a reason half of Baltimore revs up and then slows back down again along camera-trapped Roland Avenue like the principal in Ferris Bueller practically every single day), I’ve felt reminded recently how much freedom matters too.

Increasingly, especially in building on this blog, it has felt difficult not only to consider pressures that would dictate not how fast one goes today (I believe Democrats and Republicans would agree we need both gas pedals and brakes), but where.

On Channels

Briefly during graduate school, even though our paths crossed infrequently, I got to observe the television habits of a retired, very talkative landlord who seemed to believe everyone with literally anything to offer in this world “really needs to go on America’s Got Talent.”

While it’s true that light and energy need to be focused on undiscovered creativity (without doubt), it’s also arguable that this resource is much more abundant than can be accommodated within the limits of our existing communications infrastructure. And laser beams can be glaring.

More problematically, a wealth of information with which creatives should be able to formulate solutions to numerous world problems continues to appear similarly stifled. And for all the wrong reasons.

If I Were a Raindrop

Studying architecture, one may learn about sealing buildings by imagining being a water particle acted upon by gravity.

When endeavoring to determine what design flaw seems to be causing our media sector to falter, I believe it may be worth asking where corruption tends to gravitate. And it’s logical to reason that these may be places where there are concentrations of power but dearths of accountability. Whereas, historically, corruption in institutions featuring such overlap has been difficult to expose, often with the determination and support of journalists, doing so has eventually become possible.

But, as media organizations appear to have recognized a pooled benefit to be gained by overlooking corruption within one another’s ranks, there seems to have accumulated a concentration of this element.

While I once believed firmly that the solution to corruption accumulation within corporations in general was to back away from public trading, I do not know for sure. (I still do wonder, however, whether stock market economies are ecosystems in which only the brashest predators and most bashful prey presently tend to persist.) Regardless, I continue to believe that, among publicly-traded organizations, journalism corporations are unlike others in that there exist virtually no sectors to hold them accountable.

When I, and whomever else did so, attempted again to be heard about women’s rights in media last year, it was discouraging to see that all that appeared to result was a hostility toward the topic, culminating, it seemed, in a hit piece on a particular journalist.

Observing a sudden end put to such story-sharing and a transition in recent months back to more ratings-first coverage (although I believe the period spent in between focusing on African American rights has done tremendous good) was jarring.

Follow the … Power?

As more people have recognized during a period of word inflation a need not just to “follow the money,” but rather, the power, in decoding media company cronyism, I believe an awakening has begun to an incompatibility between a formerly public service-oriented sector’s and the country’s best interests. And this incompatibility seems to have grown. It was a profound paradigm shift for me to consider how it is that, through association and toadiehood, even non-profit news organizations’ missions seem to have become corroded. It appears many, if not all, of these organizations are making the calculation that dividends from abuse are so high for them (regardless of their costs to the world) that systems allowing it may as well go unaddressed.

This is the reason I believe that, in the absence of an accountable journalism sector, over time, brand value and actual value can come to share an inverse relationship.

It is often said that power corrupts, and it is because of this simple truism that organizations like police & journalism departments require scrutiny. An this is obvious; but the duration of time during which the journalism sector has gone without has been problematic and, arguably, enabled it to do the unthinkable and, in embracing outwardly-focused activism, take whom could almost be considered hostages. But what is to be done?

Both the insecure and the carnivorous flock naturally to big brands, which also tend, certainly, to be home to very many confident and kind people. The need, it seems, is to ensure this latter group gets & remains in charge & that it is defined by behavior, not tenure. (Wouldn’t the devolution of brands into realms in which only the abusive and the cowardly survive be the alternative?)

Surely, the answer lay not in the phenomenon observed in sectors where, in the perceived absence of a legitimate journalism industry, many of the world’s most important jobs appeared to have been deemed too thankless to do well. Powerful sectors, including journalism, require the support of large organizations and must share responsibility fairly. The most difficult aspects of such sectors’ work cannot always be taken on by unpaid, untrained and unprotected lone actors.

It would be one thing if another grouping of corporations seemed to be hedging performance of what is generally understood to be their jobs, but by jamming Americans’ normal lines of communication, journalistic malpractitioners arguably render enormous troves of material public information nonpublic, making their transformation arguably particularly problematic.

More Cooks, More Kitchens

Over the holidays I re-watched the still relevant, although much-parodied, film Titanic and remembered why I, and so many others, viewed it in-theater more than once when it was first released. The appeal, at least today, wasn’t an addictive emotional roller coaster ride I remembered. It was, rather, the comfort and catharsis inspired by observing the movie’s main characters courageously speak truth regardless of outward intimidation.

Today there is so much pressure to avoid saying anything that could even possibly be seized upon and misconstrued by bad faith arbiters that it felt wonderful to watch Titanic’s Jack stand up to a shipping company employee blocking passengers’ escape to at least a chance of safety. Although his language was strong, the gatekeeper had been denying others’ basic rights. (Where is Leonardo DiCaprio when one is trying to stand up to today’s media moguls?)

On Illusions

While I certainly may be wrong, it began to feel to me as if celebrities who founded the much-touted, and much-maligned, Time’s Up organization several years ago may as well have tried to sell womankind on a proverbial monorail as I never felt I fully understood this organization’s logic in the long term – rather than honoring the bravery of truth-tellers by seeking or supporting proposals for structural change, instead, it seemed to me, enshrining young women’s roles as foot soldiers whose gifts and talents could surely be better purposed in safety.

During my experience with a major news network’s talk/ratings-first unit, senior leaders from HR and production – the people who I would normally consider mentors – repeatedly reported wrongdoing to me as if to say ‘if you would like to go ahead and do something about this, be my guest, but I have private school bills to pay/a mortgage to consider/fill in the blank.’ But taking action without more active support felt difficult to say the least.

Before the #MeToo movement, believing I was alone, I was unaware of the larger media context within which my experience occurred. During the #MeToo movement, I reached out to one publication only because I thought it’s smearing by another after doing barrier-breaking work was an indication the former was a more legitimate standout. But I was left feeling, in a way, more alone than I’d felt before; and I soon began to wonder about changes seeming to affect every journalistic organization I’d previously admired.

It still seems to me that, in order for meaningful change within numerous facets of American life to take hold, both band aid bureaucracy and celebrity interference preventing reform in the media industry should be addressed.

Without such measures, passage of legislation like BBB (even if still advisable) would, I believe, risk the formation of, as observed in the field of medicine, a more bloated bureaucracy that would incent those who would otherwise direct their talent and determination to doctoring an ailing system to gravitate more toward higher pay than service, eventually focusing less on healing and more on cosmetic surgery.

One reason I believe the listening agency model already outlined may still be worth considering is that it would enable citizens (or, denizens) to follow topics rather than communications channels, helping prevent these from being jammed by corrupt executives, automatically funneling funds to legitimate journalists and removing funds from speculators inclined to short-change human rights so long as an appearance of legitimacy can be maintained by marketing.

On Bridging

Like the showcase mentioned at the beginning of this article, communication channels featuring different types of outputs have different requirements. Not all channels need dedicate themselves to journalism, obviously, particularly as more creative people require more privacy (the presence of an observer can arguably hinder creative processes), while others may need ample amounts of supervision. These environmental requirements, being non-negotiable, normally necessitate separation. Perhaps a reasonable divisor could be the privilege of issuing stock.

Our goal now, I believe, is not just to accommodate, but to encourage, an expansion of legitimate modes of transportation for information & ideas so that these might be brought together for our collective good. Not just in the right sequence and proportion, but, given the magnitude both of the challenges and the opportunities we face today, on time too.