I loved listening to a late night clip I’d felt drawn to recently in which music legend Billy Joel talked about having felt right about taking a pause from publishing albums, having considered himself to have had his “say.” While I love Billy Joel and his music, this humility and responsiveness to what was presumably an inner sense of direction was almost more inspiring to me.

Very often, these days, it seems people and organizations do practically everything in their power to maximize attention, and, while sometimes that may absolutely be the right thing to do, I do not know it always is. More and more, I am appreciating where there is more of a focus on purpose rather than only on person as it seems so many of our world’s visibles who have recognized it may be their duty to change gears and uplift others seem to have recoiled and resorted to practically anything – including holding back culture and country – in order to remain in the spotlight and keep spotlights in working order.

While I know not everyone has, I’ve enjoyed being reminded over the past several days of the qualities expressed by former Vice President Al Gore when so boldly speaking about climate change concerns when almost no one else was doing so so publicly, presumably also in obedience to some inward pull. How would many scientists have been able to be heard otherwise?

Not long ago a world leader I respect a great deal asserted that power is not usually given, but taken. And while there is no doubt this frequently does seem to be the case, increasingly, I’m not so sure it always will be.

On Rangers

As readers of this blog already know, I founded an organization in 2016 in order to help fix the ratings-based television news system that seemed to be destroying so very many valuable lives – not to mention societies – with practically no end in sight. And in 2019, I wrote Paper Parks to explain some of the main reasons I felt this system needed to be redesigned, inspired in part by news stories I’d read about men and women around the world who’d taken up the work of patrolling wildlife parks as protectors. Just as these reserves, once used for hunting, could be made places of refuge and productivity instead, I felt news – with all of its immense potential – could be turned around.

About once per year, I have the privilege of serving as a wildlife film festival judge; and, this year, I have found the process more emotional than before. In learning about the plights of precious individual animals, ecosystems, and environmental guardians, I have found myself feeling first a wave of sadness over the state of conservation, poaching, and trafficking, and then a second, not knowing what to do about it, so separate I feel from the journalism world, my world, most of the time.

This week, I felt heartened to learn about the work of a particular cohort of rangers, and especially touched after listening to one man who very movingly described his work as a call of God but who mourned the loss of many moments he would have preferred to spend with his family, which included a little baby boy. Only minutes after the conclusion of the film, however, I read in an update from a colleague on social media that this hero, Anton Mzimba, had tragically been murdered.

So many primers on the forces compromising progress toward interrelated social and environmental justice goals today acknowledge macroeconomic ones without delving into where these themselves originate. But we were not always in this situation. While many media organizations have improved markedly in recent months (Was this because their ability to issue or trade stock was questioned; and is this progress only temporary?), even as they seem to have become more and more conglomerated, I continue to believe more needs to be said about the responsibility media corporations bear for many of our world’s most pressing global-scale unsolved problems. And I believe dialogues centered on media business models are long overdue.

Reminders have abounded in recent days about the dangers all our protectors face. And, for years, I and many others have written about how much better it seems our world would be if we only supported these people more and encouraged others to do their work. But our world needs to be made safer for protectors and the large-scale causes for the dangers they face neutralized to the degree possible long before they are encountered in person.

This is why I believe constructive critiques of forces that incent the corruption against which protectors serve as our last stand are essential. It is also one reason I believe the women’s movement in media has been so extraordinary, as I believe there is a case to be made that it has been a stand, not primarily in self-defense, nor against men, but, rather, for the world against the machine of the stock market-turbocharged media business model.

While the dangers many women have faced in media corporations are not comparable in terms of severity to some of those encountered by others in environments lacking in the sort of accountability journalism once provided, they are arguably worth mentioning in the same breath due to the nested nature of their effects.

On Enough

“Three pieces. I can do that.”

I don’t know if I’m the only one, but, for me, one aspect of emergence from the past couple of years of spending so much time indoors that has felt persistently difficult is the jarring sight of litter encountered seemingly everywhere.

While I often try to do something about this by being prepared to grab what I can, particularly having seen so much footage of what just a few pieces of strewn plastic can do to an animal (and particularly to birds), this is such an enormous problem in some places that I have had to pray about it. A lot.

Because feelings of worry about animals who may encounter trash that is simply left on the ground can be both helpfully mobilizing but, also, heavy-feeling in what can feel like an unhelpful way, I learned the other day to just take a moment and pray when driving past what seemed like more than I should tackle. (While I am glad to do it, several times when spending long periods trying to take on this problem, I feel I may have been able to do more by producing or reporting. But where?) So clearly, the thought came to me to pick up three pieces and, having done that, I was able to go along feeling peaceful.

On Fracture

Recently, when pondering the problem of an almost endless-seeming stream of litter, it felt less to me, as it has before, simply about silent protest by people who feel unheard in general, but perhaps when considered alongside the problem of paltry response, just as much about silent protest by people who know they are heard too much and need to be held accountable.

I have taken pause in recent days at stories about a political strategy whereby a person’s – or a team’s – most radical opponent is artificially propped up in order to create an embarrassing spectacle and dramatic win for the perpetrator; and I have felt reminded of the television ratings-garnering strategy of relentlessly showcasing the most flamboyant personality in a political contest, regardless of merit, in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the well-being of the nation.

Even though, in what has been a dramatic, but, considered in-context, still rather anemic response to valid critique in recent years, at least one news corporation seems to have tempered this approach to a degree in recent months, I do believe the why behind such decisions eventually will matter.

Today, when I see people taking mainstream media stories practically as gospel, it is hard not to think you are missing it. The dominance of media sector companies itself is the story of our day.

Even so, I still believe increasingly ubiquitous references to our “ruling class” are absurdly defeatist. Media companies are our ruling class like a class of high school seniors decides when tie-dye is back. Many times, such groups are powered by nothing but their followers’ insecurity. Simon Says is a sophomoric strategy; and the antidote is self-esteem.

Like our modern-day musical conquistadors debuting all their latest earworms while doing what are certainly challenging dance moves in what seem to be more and more impressively sequined underpants every year, I don’t always feel enriched listening to them. Sometimes, I feel as distracted from my own inner navigational system doing so as my phone seems to whenever I accidentally drive past a coffee shop’s wifi-shed with my map app running.

On Reconciliation

This week’s news that Democrats are aligning behind the Inflation Reduction Act – a more restrained version of last year’s Build Back Better bill – may well be good. But, as I wrote in November, I still do believe a broader transition for our nation away from consumption and toward problem-solving as primary purpose will require more than just taxes and incentives but the reconciliation of the logic behind our attention-based and financial economies with that of our values by rethinking whether news corporations should issue and trade stock.

Several years ago now in reading about the story of David and, in particular, all his upset over the amount of time he was required to spend out in the fields protecting sheep, I noted how clear it at least seemed, the lengths God was going to protect him from himself. (Even though he didn’t know why, David was arguably not ready for his calling.) Then, I prayed to know what weaknesses I had that I did not know about that I could work on ahead of whatever God had in my future and it felt right to try to guard against making decisions based on money considerations. I guess we are all going through this process in one form or another. But I am reminded that there are other times when action is needed.

More recently, I have pondered the cautionary tale of Esau and how his unwillingness to look beyond the pre-packaged option so uncharitably laid out for him and make an effort when necessary to protect his potential (particularly given the resourcefulness he had already demonstrated earlier in life) was likened to despising his birthright. I know that, even if it requires a lot of work, I hope to be able to make meaningful contributions in my life regardless of what is required; and I believe we all do.

As I have written before, this is arguably a moment when our country’s ingenuity and engagement are needed most by the world. But, in many ways, we seem to be more divided and gridlocked – if not paralyzed – than ever; and I often wonder, is the behavior of a populace inundated with senseless rage and hyper-sensationalism but, too often, starved of needed information more of an indictment of human nature or of a for-profit and for-power communications infrastructure whose advent and proliferation arguably tracks remarkably well, when one thinks about it, with the rise of hyper-partisanship?

On Camouflage

“Our viewers don’t read the New York Times!,” I was once told, almost mockingly, when trying to propose what I thought would be an intelligent show idea partly inspired by newspapers then.

Another time in media, I noted what seemed an expedient belittling of American literacy and character in the process of modifying programming written for an international audience for domestic consumption instead – line by line – as I felt the end result was required to be so much less substantive.

For numerous reasons, I believe it is plausible that Americans’ attention may be the most undervalued resource in the world. (And I still believe too many of our organizations and institutions – and far too many of our securities – are powered by insecurity, rather than a faith in what an educated, informed, and free populace can do.) But the more this commodity is traded and degraded like shorted stock, the more I feel there are benefits to consider.

I was researching beets the other day for reasons I won’t get into. But, in the course of my research, I happened across an article about daylillies; and, perhaps because I have noticed them practically everywhere recently, I was heartened and encouraged by their characterization as a flower that thrives despite neglect.

I believe that what seem to be news networks’ principal, convenient assumptions – that Americans are almost incalculably unintelligent and, as media consumers, deserve to be made prey – are wrong; and that it is time to disengage from what is degrading and engage instead in activities that grow self-esteem.

Sometimes, to be ignored, when there is no other choice, is at least one way to be invisible to predators; and – just as women have set aside prey-dom-for-survival in the form of foot binding, corsets, sought-after low-level job titles, and heroin chic diets over the years – news consumers can undergo an inward self esteem renovation.

For many, this process of self-confidence-building, like take-off along a runway, doesn’t actually require that much time away from predatory forces. But that time does need to be uninterrupted.

On Dormancy

I heard, and then read, recently that in the early 1900s New York City had a very large number of electric car charging stations. While the analogy is far from perfect, it still felt noteworthy to me in light of what have seemed to be changes in the effects emitted by our news organizations depending on how they are fueled. Regardless of how long the concept of electric vehicle power (and I know this has historically ultimately been powered by fossil fuels) has been around, it needed to be developed and advanced by creative and well-intentioned advocates in order to be implemented meaningfully.

Moving forward, news companies that encounter more passive and apathetic audiences should arguably not automatically deduce “I’ve struck oil!” but, rather, be incented to try and imagine ways to activate citizens’ gifts and talents. Because, to progress efficiently, we need everyone to fulfill their unique roles.

On Targets

For months, I have been pondering the notion of optimization, as opposed to maximization, and feel it is inspiring to imagine that there is an optimal position and course to take in a given situation, and that it does not necessarily mean becoming maximally powerful, maximally rich, maximally popular, etc., but that the optimal way involves only doing one’s best to do what’s right.

While I know I have a great deal to learn in this regard, I love also knowing that, whatever this is, it is always something I can do. Even when very difficult.

In looking back over roughly the past five and a half years, I am grateful in a way to see critiques that I, and many others, have articulated – that a growing and conglomerating media sector beginning to rival, if not overpower, the United States in influence needed to better center ideas of equal opportunity – seem to have been heard to a degree; but it has felt terribly frustrating that the other half of my request, at least – that corporate media be structurally counterbalanced or restrained in some way in order to ensure that such change will be effected both inwardly and outwardly, and that it will be long-lasting – seems to have been so hurriedly muffled.

One reason I do not feel what has been termed “wokeism” is an acceptable answer to critiques of journalism corporations’ business models is that it can be distorting, capricious, tenuous, and dangerous. Whatever your opinion about trans sports policy, cheering on a (certainly brave and barrier-breaking) trans woman’s victory in a traditional event, however loudly, does nothing to help a girl secretly trapped in an abusive situation in a cable news company.

Another problem I felt there was with an unannounced transition from journalism to advocacy for media outlets, I believe in order to guard against perceived threats to their hegemony over the country, is that, while it is true that not all news stories need national attention, and a move toward compassionate storytelling is absolutely necessary, it’s arguable this move needs to be away from sensationalism, not journalism itself.

I certainly am not (and am far from) the only person to have imagined what the financial system would look like should investment returns be optimized, rather than maximized, in the future. But I wonder to what degree modern ESG targets have come about as responses to recent critiques of journalism companies’ involvement in the stock market, rather than from a place of sincerity.

While they can be wonderful, and needed, some solely KPI-driven parameters for policymaking can also exacerbate problems by suppressing, rather than surfacing, underlying causes.

As I wrote about in Paper Parks, I believe the inalienable rights asserted by our Declaration of Independence are perhaps the most helpful places to start as they require us to balance concepts of safety, freedom, and the development of creative resources. (It is worth noting here how much of our constitutional framework, and its intellectual lineage, is owed to Native American tradition and the generations of Haudenosaunee women – who alone held the power to appoint and dismiss leaders in their society – in particular who enabled it to be preserved. We talk a lot about how valuable a heritage we have received because of the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers; and this is true. But only partially. I believe America is strong, too, because the country has Founding Mothers.)

Is this not a moment when we must consider why so many organizations insist on problem management rather than problem solution?

Why only focus on limiting pollution permits rather than looking into why people pollute at all?

Why only focus on taxing the rich, rather than digging into the reasons there has arisen such an extreme wealth gap in the first place?

Why do news organizations advocate for such liberal attitudes toward abortion while systematically suppressing women’s rights in the areas of freedom and safety in the workplace? Why not simply support the equal rights amendment? Or better, why not engage meaningfully in a dialogue about the ways in which a publicly-traded journalism sector arguably undermines the intent of our government’s design?

We are in a moment when it may be required of us all to consider this question. Do we want to allow the status quo, in which our still growing, and largely publicly-traded, media sector wields practically untold power over our government and citizenry with little to no accountability to either, to go on? Do we, in other words, want kings? Maybe, for those tempted to say yes, perhaps we should at least consider disentangling our media business models from the stock market, just to make sure that’s not the problem underlying so much of the gridlock and unrest plaguing our nation, before deciding.

I still believe this dialogue is badly overdue. After the past more than five years of turmoil, can’t we just get to the main question that started all this already?

A Declaration

In learning about land use law, students are generally taught to consider land rights in problem-solving and negotiation less as a monolith and more like what tends to be termed a bundle of sticks that need to be considered one by one.

Lately I have wondered, what if what is holding America back is not some hopeless combination of ineptitude, indifference, or inherent unworthiness, but only the decisions of a small group of for-profit and for-power news executives, too deeply invested in a defective business model, who wish it were so? What if there is just one stick in the fourth estate’s bundle, so to speak, that, unchecked, is hurting everyone?

A purpose of this blog is to express my belief that a doctrine whereby an unaccountable, stock market-trading journalism sector serves as the operating system of our country is not only unsustainable but, because of this malware, may be to blame for much of the acrimony that seems to be hurting practically everyone today and to express, out loud, that I do not believe the news industry really took the lead in advancing progressive ideas with regard to equal opportunity but was arguably, instead, trying to get ahead of potential reforms to its prevailing business model by responding outwardly – sometimes in helpful ways and other times in puzzling exaggerated ways – to silenced critiques of internal practices.

Media organizations arguably must serve to do more than advertise opinion and suppress news unless they make unmistakably clear public announcements that they are leaving journalism and redefining themselves as lobbying firms – assuming this is the most accurate descriptor – whose goal is to maximize the power, wealth, and influence of former journalists. Continuing in this vein would arguably be like cultivating a garden but, rather than caring for it properly, poisoning it instead and, without removing the poison, deducing that its flowers are somehow defective. And still calling oneself a gardener.

Based on the thesis that the malware corrupting our system of governance today is not progressivism or conservatism, nor is it even journalism organizations themselves but, instead, these entities’ collective relationship to the stock market, I wonder whether a pubic debate about this problem – even where there is no consensus on its solution – is needed.

While I disagreed with almost everything Donald Trump said about almost every political topic, when he won, beside a sense of dismay over what I felt would be several challenging short term effects, I also felt an immense sense of relief, because I felt instantly there would be a chance for women to be heard and a possible opportunity to reform the media sector. My worry, though, was that the media sector would transform its mode of operation to a more subtle form of domination before it could be meaningfully changed, an outcome which does appear to be in danger of occurring.

Still, I believe even now there exists a chance to eject what is arguably Americans’ collective enemy – not media companies, but media companies’ business model – and come together.

If the assertion of media corporation personhood, and its reticence to incriminate itself over the past several years, coupled with what is beginning to look more and more like monopoly-hood, can be proven to systemically conflict with individuals’ rights not to be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, I believe it may be helpful to explore making a declaration, not of separation from our media sector, but of independence from its relationship to the stock market.

Although I realize it may be an optimistic view, I also believe there are those within news organizations who may be willing to help at least broach the topic.