Last night I was put to the test as a writer. While preparing some risotto that, no matter what I added, seemed to need more flavor, it occurred to me to add some Parmesan cheese. But, when I glanced at an ingredients list to confirm this was rennet-free, the ambiguity of its label felt important to note.

I could tell myself, of course, that “enzymes” were probably vegetarian and that it wasn’t my responsibility to research this but it, of course, was. So I put the cheese away, added way more garlic than I’d imagined might be needed, and enjoyed a delicious meal. And I got to thinking about the relationship between words and actions.

Recently, I’ve been surprised by how helpful I’ve sometimes found it to listen to a podcaster I would have otherwise imagined to stand for practically everything I do not. Not only has this former network news anchor spoken directly about a mistrust of corporate media (which was more comforting than I feel able to adequately describe in words), but she has raised topics to which I’m not sure I would have otherwise had my eyes opened. But, particularly at the beginning of pandemic lockdowns, I still marveled at how refreshing this voice – one with which I am by no means always in agreement – was and how many times I felt right listening to a clip or episode of her work until it dawned on me why: she actually meant what she said. In the world of mass media, this felt like a miracle. It was also tremendously helpful that this host talked honestly about gender-based abuse and discrimination in news.

Especially given journalism organizations’ tendency to suppress matters of women’s safety and equality, so long as such suppression can remain hidden, I’ve begun wondering whether the public at large would ever be interested in an ingredients list accounting for the process by which they products they consume – daily and for many years at a time – are produced. Would it matter if gender-based abuse had occurred? I believe it would.

Still, what feels more important, to me, to identify are the practices of abuse and cover-up themselves, and not only by the people by whom they are perpetrated, especially given that, as time goes on, it appears that while these practices remain as harmful as ever, they’ve become increasingly diffuse among people and organizations. It’s therefore systems, not people, by which abuse is often facilitated, which I believe are most important to address. What seems most needed, I believe, is for us to come together, actually, and to set our sights on carnivorousness itself in social, political, and economic life – not carnivores.

Increasingly, so-called culture wars seem more like proxy wars prosecuted by corrupt boards of directors against the world by elevating the “useful” who, naturally and out of insecurity, tend to enact terrible discrimination and abuse against the vulnerable in order to maintain their positions.

Perhaps one reason it is more comforting to listen to, and to talk with, honest people with whom I disagree than corporate pundits who, often, parrot what many times do seem to be the right talking points but for the wrong reasons, is that the former permit productive dialogue in which insight can be gained and problems solved. And, while I never imagined myself siding with conservatives on very many issues at all, I’ve begun to view at least a few of the party’s advocates as making the case for sustainably-paced, rather than clownishly-parodied progress.

This week, I was grateful to be inspired to watch several World War I documentaries; and it struck me how little stated reasons for war had to do with the underlying macroeconomic forces underpinning many aristocrats’ decisions to sacrifice the massively under-valued lives of literally millions of men for almost nothing. And while the world challenges we face today are, gratefully, much less grave, I still feel there is relevance to the degree to which ratings-based corporate media, and those with whom it sometimes seems allied, still influences international decision-making – only largely behind closed doors.

The means by which popular journalism is produced is a matter for serious consideration by the world’s citizens, and it should matter to us how broadcast news is curated by powerful entities – and why, especially when innocent social justice movements appear held hostage and traded on for cash and prestige. But I still don’t believe we should care about narratives put forward publicly any more than they do.

On Precision

Of course, the modern and perennial question arises, does it matter? So long as media organizations feel pressured to pretend to support intelligent or ethical concepts, is this enough? Should the world operate like a high school in which all of the jocks beat up all of the smart kids, steal their homework, and present portions of others’ ideas as their own while all the nerds of the world languish stuffed in lockers?

While I realize it is not a popular sentiment to articulate in corporate media, I believe it does matter and survivors of trauma do not want to be media corporations’ Cyrano de Bergeracs.

Several years ago, somehow, I came across a song published by a group of young women from a demographic with which I was largely unfamiliar. Devastatingly, they wrote and sang about feelings of intense worthlessness and dispensability. Almost immediately, however, one of the most popular music stars in the world produced a different song in a very similar way – only without any of the content. And, as catchy and unique as this new one was, it was difficult to appreciate fully without wondering whether its stratospheric rise obscured the other, more meaningful, music’s ability to be heard uncompromised.

On Journeys

While he is not a figure I had, before, tended to consider at length, I thought again today about Vincent Van Gogh and a peculiar habit he evidently had of going for absurdly long, solitary walks while living in England. And I recalled an especially lengthy journey on foot I took, albeit with a group of friends, several years ago from Cambridge to Ely, UK, where evensong was made immensely richer by our mode of travel.

It seems that, for thinkers like this historical figure – but many others as well – who clearly seem to prioritize route over destination, there is a recognition that the real journeys they are embarking on are more inward than any particularly prestigious prize or worldly accomplishment and that this is what makes their contributions resonate.

Van Gogh’s work was hardly recognized during his lifetime, but he never compromised. This, I believe, is part of what has given it such staying power. But what of the contributions of other world-changers? I must admit, I believe one reason so many World War I documentaries caught my attention recently is the aforementioned podcaster’s history week, which also featured Thomas Jefferson, and it’s been hard not to look again at the complexity of his legacy in the context of a need for redemption in the field of journalism.

I by no means imagine that to liken modern organizational abuse to Thomas Jefferson is a perfectly good analogy. Gender-based abuse in organizations is a lot different than enslaved servitude in the 19th century south, obviously. And I don’t know whether Thomas Jefferson ever intimidated those deemed underlings, and even slaves, to cover-up the designation; on the other hand, there may have been no perceived need to do so, the practice having been legal, not to mention so openly accepted. Jefferson also crafted world-changing rhetorical content. So some of his intellectual contributions were arguably far better than many media corporations’, and his behavior, far worse. While there is disagreement on the matter, and while his human rights abuses were absolutely severe, requiring continued consideration, there is still a strong case to be made that some of Thomas Jefferson’s contributions continue to benefit the world today; and I have long wondered why this is so.

While he may never have removed a body part like Van Gogh so famously did, presumably to punish himself for having considered committing a crime against another person, Jefferson did refuse a third presidential term, indicating at least a measure of willingness to put what he felt was right for the country ahead of short-term personal self-interest.

This, one may argue, is one quality that may explain the staying power of Jefferson’s words and the protective power with which they seem to have embraced us all. Both art and craft, after all, can present significant value to the world, and there is room for appreciation of them both. Still, it is worth remembering, and reminding ourselves often, that art is better.

^{(Thumbnail image from David Iliff, License: CC BY-SA 3.0)}