Why does it seem that, sometimes, the hardest thing to do of all is, simply, to be still, even if only for long enough to gain a sense of peace about next steps?

During a period of attempting to speak up about safety within media corporations and when I was not sure what to do next, I found it most helpful to center my days on doing what I could. So, when not handling regular duties, I found that if I wove athletics, time with animals, and art-making into my days, they felt well-spent. Specifically, in getting to work with a particularly gifted and kind group of coaches at a local gym, I loved learning about striking a balance between the disciplines of endurance, sprinting, and strength training. Since, however, and especially during lock down, I’ve felt reminded to add flexibility to this repertoire.

On Waiting

More and more frequently, just as I’ve noted when giving my all to setting a new personal record mile time or workout routine, it is also possible to make progress in moments of stillness.

Each time, I’ve been reminded recently, I feel I’ve erred in recent years, it has either seemed to be because I hesitated when feeling impelled to take a particular action or, without feeling impelled, acted in response to a problem after reasoning that someone needs to do something.

But movements are only fulfilling when inspired and, while waiting for new inspiration – especially when facing pressure either to cede ground gained or yield to another person, there does seem to be great value in holding still a moment, no matter how much it hurts. And, I believe, this includes maintaining focus.

On Focus

Part of the purpose of this blog has been to explore the simple question of whether, as media corporations attain country-like levels of power and influence, their relationship to the stock market should be considered constitutional and whether it may be necessary to take one of two steps in order to ensure the survival of our democracy: either (1) prohibit journalism organizations from being involved in the stock market (and this could very well be best) or (2) counterbalance these organizations, which have arguably strengthened their chokehold on power by investing in – rather than aiming to solve – problems, by the federalization (and by this I mean separation) of journalistic powers through the federalization (and, by this, I, again, mean a sort of differentiation) of currency.

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

While I am by no means fully knowledgeable about the topic, I continue to be concerned that, because they currently moderate public dialogue, journalism organizations’ own effects on the world are not fully considered enough in problem-identification and problem-solving today. As individual culpability, while important, certainly, has been addressed without considering context throughout the women’s movement, it seems that what is termed “cancel culture” has emerged in place of meaningful and informed structural change. Allowing media corporations to continue in this vein would arguably be like hiring them to cultivate a garden but, rather than caring for it properly, poisoning it instead and, without removing the poison, deducing that the garden’s flowers are somehow defective. And still calling such a practice gardening.

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.

Such an observation should be as obvious as would be the need for a fire department, which decides to shut down operations and replace its station with a cardboard cutout to comfort local residents, to alert town authorities to their decision. This is as, in this sort of scenario, a town could then take appropriate measures to replace the fire department, this organization type’s services being deemed essential for public well-being.

On Diversion

Although it certainly does seem some social media organizations’ censoriousness has required reform in recent years, it feels to me as though journalism corporations’ own need for review is, again, being offloaded disproportionately.

Even some of the public health sector’s seeming irrationality during the pandemic could arguably be traced to the media industry’s insistence on maximizing fear and panic, rather than problem-solving.

In both cases, even though it is true accountability may well be warranted, I still wonder whether journalism organizations’ relationship to the stock market may be the common root of many only apparently disparate problems in public affairs today; and, in the case of social media companies, I wonder whether these may be analogous to the car wire removal scene in the film Sound of Music given the treacherousness of an environment in which so many journalism organizations had, arguably, abdicated so much of their responsibilities to the world in the name of profit-making and elevating entertainment figures to positions of political power that other sectors may have felt they had little choice but to go beyond the boundaries of their normal responsibilities to counter the, arguably, essentially foreign influence of corporate media before it could be contained.

And Doubt

I was reminded recently of an experience several years after leaving the media industry during which voicing concern to CNN about observations made during my latter years there felt extremely important. Of course, there was no response.

But what I hadn’t realized was that taking this step, even in the face of radio silence, was still meaningful and that the absence of a response from CNN did not mean I needed to delve into self-doubt.

On Reasons

As then, speaking up about problems seeming to grow out of ratings-based corporate media business models matters; and I wonder whether the upcoming rebalancing of the Nasdaq-100 could prove a good moment for collective reflection. Especially given the persistence of both so-called cancel culture and conspiratorial thinking, is it not time to discuss the one massive macroeconomic force in American public life that has gone without meaningful scrutiny in public dialogues? Stock market-traded corporate journalism business models, which elevate shock value over actual value, have arguably done untold damage to the world in recent years; and the world needs to deal with them.

While our ratings-based communications infrastructure seems to have given rise to a sort of new royal class, made up principally of our most outrageous celebrities, this need not be so; and de facto rule-by-celebrity is arguably, by definition, an un-American concept.

Of course, it seems that practically every time an attempt is made to constructively critique rule-by-celebrity as a parody of our democracy, another television personality produces a program or podcast about his or her personal life – not to help mankind, it would seem, but, rather, to perpetuate personal influence by encouraging the unseen, who are often grappling with concerns about meeting basic needs, to feel pity for the ultra-wealthy. But this is another kind of false responsibility.

Given the wealth of ideas and innovative contributions that have been silenced in recent years to accommodate the whims of would-be corporate celebrity rulers, may it not be worth releasing their grip on the country’s collective attention and taking at least a brief pause from bestowing one another awards, stop, at least for a moment, waxing at such length about the impact of Hollywood interpretations of real Americans’ contributions, and keep these to more minimal acknowledgements that “it was the least we could do.”?

So long as these entities wish to stave off progress and experienced – rather than observed – well-being for Americans, that is, after all, the whole point.