Are any historical eras more interesting than the first centuries BC and AD?

For some reason, I have recently felt so drawn to learning more about this period, and particularly about Rome’s transition from republic to empire, that I’ve been struck by the intersectionality of storylines I’d before considered more separately.

While, at first, I felt inspired simply to spend time appreciating not only the beauty but the ingenuity of so-called ancient Roman architecture, this period of inquiry left me feeling practically unable to consider “ancient” Rome anything but modern and, in a way (particularly in light of Collosseum programming), almost America-like.

Rome’s history, and this inflection point in particular, was by no means a symphony of complementary forces culminating in an automatic or even a natural conversion away from what could be termed a form of government approaching democracy but, rather, more of a combination of shuddering and indifference, perhaps stemming from Rome’s appropriation of many democratic concepts from the Athenians without sufficient understanding of their purposes.

And the first century BC was went it all happened.

Centuries before, Rome had already rejected monarchy, having seen the morals of despots who’d accumulated immense power deteriorate; and there was certainly a recognition by many of the oligarchical republic’s backsliding along the scale of equal representation further away from egalitarianism than where it started. (Julius Caesar began as a populist!)

But the first Caesar was a complex human being. For all of his excesses, the story of Octavian’s adoption, for example, was almost touching. (Roman adoption was fascinating for its bestowal of honor and privilege that far surpassed the rights of born children.) Still, I’ve wondered in learning about the reigns of leaders of this era, who seem to have tended to see people, and not faulty systems, as their enemies, how often their decisions truly rose above self-interest.

While such emperors, for example, offered people protection and safety, which was certainly noteworthy, didn’t they only put themselves in positions to do so by denying masses of people their inherent rights to protection and safety?

Modern journalism corporations, likewise, do inform people on many topics, without doubt; but didn’t many attain their hegemony by denying people’s basic rights to be informed in the first place?

I would argue CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are arguably a new kind of Triumvirate and, while they do symbolize debate in American public affairs, they arguably do not really represent it.

Unlike the press outlets imagined by our country’s founders, modern journalism corporations are comparative behemoths, buttressed by stock market forces practically unimagined a quarter of a millennium ago and benefiting from the ability to immerse audiences in multi-sensory experiences. For 24 hours per day. But the world cannot afford to forever cede this kind of mental territory.

As I type I listen to the ever-comforting Saint-Saëns and it is a relative balm.

On Complacency

Elected officials no longer hold appropriate levels of power, one could argue, but may at times be called more like corporate media’s (often cronyistic) modern-day client kings and queens. Kind of like Cleopatra was after Julius Caesar installed her in Egypt. (I still believe the main, although generally unspoken, reason so many people voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was that he was not a client king of media corporations’.)

Even within these organizations, power dynamics unconducive to ethical decision-making too often proliferate unchecked. And, outside of them, Hollywood storytellers who support corporate media narratives are arguably no better.

There may well be a case to be made that holding subservient roles based on what could be called a form of bribery, even if unnamed, is harmful.

In first century Rome, what could have stopped a tendency for such a hierarchy from forming in the first place, I wonder. Either some subset of plebeians would need to transcend self-interest by speaking truth or a member of the oligarchy would need to do.

Recently, I have given a great deal of thought to the ancient figures Jacob’s and Esau’s relationship and how, despite Jacob’s deceitfulness in tricking Esau into selling Jacob his birthright in a moment of hunger, the Bible says God hated Esau. Hated. Why?

There is evidence to support an assumption that Esau was a gifted problem-solver. And Jacob may have been considered disadvantaged, in a way, after having been encouraged by a parent to behave unethically earlier in life by taking what belonged to another person rather than developing his own resourcefulness.

So, while Esau knew how to get himself out of a bind creatively, theft may have felt like the only route to prosperity Jacob knew. Of course, every situation is different and, generally speaking, it seems logical to deduce that the perpetrator of exploits as seemingly unkind as Jacob’s should be the one held most accountable. Still, that doesn’t seem to have been the case in this unique instance.

There seem to be times when the macro-level effects of a population’s collective laziness, fear, and insecurity create an environment where power becomes so concentrated that corruption is, arguably, almost inevitable. But we do not need to let that happen today.

On Bulwarks

More than anything, considering parallels between so-called ancient Rome and today has given me a clearer mental picture of time.

I’ve marveled at the mixed feelings the photograph featured above, which I took of an airplane in northern Italy, evokes as, despite how much I love Venice, it underscores how, regardless of whether a civilization like Rome reforms, the world does go on.

I listened also tonight to a preacher who talked at length about the pains to which Paul went during the first century to urge Roman subjects (and especially those in Galatia) to resist co-optation of their new religion and not to lose their chance to fix and keep their gaze on true progress, above man-pleasing, ease, wealth, or merely personal satisfaction, as their ultimate goal.

At what other time in the world have the forces of true progress and complacency been contrasted so bluntly? It’s no wonder Paul believed the world was right at the door of all anyone could ever want, because it was.

But isn’t it still? It is hard, after having immersed myself even just a little bit, in learning more about ancient Rome not to feel a great connectedness to its people and the questions they faced. They had every opportunity in the world to succeed in true ways available to them. Aren’t we all, now, just circling around these same opportunities?

At the time, Paul directed believers to dress themselves in a spiritual sense to fight an inward battle. I suppose that continues to be what we all need to do every day. But Paul took action, too, in talking about what he believed was not right, and I wonder whether doing so is also needed today.

And Stakes

It still does seem to me that very many, if not very many tens of thousands of, people have either been killed in war or experienced so-called “deaths of despair” who otherwise would not have in recent years had anyone in media been willing to stand up to news corporations that have arguably pressured political administrations to seek quick and simple (made-for-TV), rather than smart, resolutions to many matters of national and international significance, such as America’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Three of the most consistently predictable behaviors that seem to be relied upon by people and organizations making efforts to maximize power while minimizing responsibility – whether attempting to reap the benefits of a particular job title or outwardly-advocated mission while minimizing any need for actually doing the work required – is that they, (1), go to extreme lengths to avoid verbal acknowledgement of what they are clearly doing (they tend strongly to express a preference for attempting to resolve conflict via wordless bribe); they, (2), go to equally great lengths to avoid the simultaneous consideration of any two or more dimensions of their behavior; and they, (3), go extreme lengths to prevent observers to their behavior, which is generally conducted in as much secrecy as possible, from having anywhere to report it.

These are several of the reasons I believe the difference-maker between democracy and cronyism is arguably journalism, because, when a populus is confronted collectively with the truth of how power is accumulated and maintained, conscience tends to kick in.

No adequately informed and interconnected population would allow a coup by a group of self-serving and self-interested factions. That’s why, in order for it to be maintained, whether aspiring conquerors are a Triumvirate of individuals or cartel of corporations, targeted peoples must be dominated and cannot be allowed to be informed.

While, in Julius Caesar’s and Augustus Caesar’s days, brute force was employed to establish, or protect against, domination; but on idea battlefronts, words matter most. This is the reason it is not good enough for media corporations, who arguably tend to falsely claim to support concepts of human rights and democracy, to respond to concerns on these topics with offers to pay survivors to be quiet or cancel anyone they want canceled. While restoration and individual justice are both good ideas, acknowledgment of corporate media’s role is necessary.

Does anyone in the world honestly believe all this lip service in recent months and, now, years is human progress playing itself out and not unaccountable, material power simply being attracted to unaccountable, material power?

We are all, hopefully, in favor of doing away with systems, including racial aparthieds, in which fixed characteristics are made the basis for mobility within any system. Given this, might it be worth asking, in light of all of the recent attention given to royals in America: aren’t we, as a people, devoted to democracy?

On Stamina

Media corporations, today, are certainly only able to hold onto power by giving lip service to the idea of democracy and they may do everything in their power to protect appearances, which do correlate, to a degree, with functional governance.

But are quietude and appearances enough? Peace and orderliness, as in Roman times, are essential to maintain, of course. But is a degree of democracy, once lost, forever so? Does a transition from a representative to a symbolic democracy need to be permanent? No, and I firmly believe the work journalism orgs have done to advance racial justice, even though I still consider this to have largely been for the wrong reason of delaying, if not preventing, discussion of their business models, can be further advanced if the topics of social justice and corporate media’s relationship to the stock market are disentangled as soon as is practical. I also believe this may have simply needed to be the order in which these topics were addressed.

The co-optation of opportunity for the purpose of concentrating, rather than equitably distributing, power via mimicry and lip-service is nothing new. (Whether he meant it at the time I do not know, but it is worth noting that Julius Caesar started out as a populist!)

But the Pax Romana was arguably a false peace – quiet, yes, but built, arguably, and at least to a degree, on lip service and deference paid to a fragile system of dead-end domination rather than creative empowerment. And, even if no one said anything about it, the truth hung in the air just the same, hovering over their territory as it does today.

So many media corporations, having outwardly appropriated the critiques of human rights advocates who have pointed out some of their business models’ harms to the world – without understanding them fully enough to implement them within their own borders – have imposed a sort of calm in recent months. We are experiencing what may be considered a version of what is termed the Pax Romana, a period was perceived by some to be a sort of golden age for the Roman Empire.

One of my greatest concerns about talking about my latter-years experience in television news was that the entire industry – which, as I have written before, is capable of good work and employs good people – could crumble when what is needed, I believe, is a more simple reform of its business model. But I also believe it is past time for this model to be addressed.

It’s easy to imagine that, once the Pax Romana began, and the empire’s citizenry was, arguably, lulled into a sort of complacency, there was no chance for a revival of the republic’s approach toward democracy. But is this so?

Augustus Caesar allowed many of the former government’s participatory mechanisms to proceed, at least in appearance, under his rule, after all; and, once he and his successors took charge complacency probably seemed citizens’ only viable path to a peaceable existence. And a peaceable existence was enjoyed. But if its cost were more widely, and more creatively, articulated, might the populace have held out hope for something better?

While I have not always been a fan of SNL, its relatively recent depiction of a mafia family focused on bettering its record on diversity was spot-on for its depiction of performative wokeness, while important, as being something still completely compatible with wrongdoing. As important as diversity – certainly – is, so long as we allow ourselves to be pressured into delaying also important, and as-needed, dialogues about the role of stock market-augmented corporate media power in America, I question how long it will be before we allow ourselves to be lulled into a semi-permanent Pax Corporate Media, or what could more placatingly be called a People’s Republic of America.

Although I do not know for sure, I still believe it possible that, if the world stops pressing for further progress, the journalism industry’s co-optation of the African American rights movement could be as harmful to the world as the Hollywood industry’s co-optation of the women’s movement in journalism – not because African American and women’s rights are not essential to recognize and buttress (they are obviously), but because these co-optations, I believe, have been motivated by a desire to prevent discussion of corporate media business models – a topic that, I believe, will be just as important to address on its own as are African American rights and women’s rights.

As the period’s traditional title suggests, there was obviously a lot of good associated with the Pax Romana, but it was arguably also responsible tragic religious persecution, barbarism, severe sensuality, domination and creative stagnation relative to the progress of which human beings are capable.

Rome did evolve and, eventually, some feel, even co-opted the Christian church. But to be co-opted is arguably not to win.

After this, many believe it took another thousand years before the church to be reformed.

There always seems to be a battle between predation and creativity where societal progress is concerned in which one side invests in domination, fear, and the insecurity of the targeted, while the other invests in creativity and empowerment. And where co-optation, which is really just a form of the former, occurs, real progress seems to slow markedly. But we need institutions that inform and empower. Not ones built on personal association and cronyism that would pander, bribe, divide, and conquer that tend, then to move quickly on to their speciality – pretending everything is fine.

While I realize I have written at length about lessons learned during my latter years in television news, and some may argue I have written too much about it, and perhaps far too much, I still feel compelled to speak about this matter, largely as I believe it not to be just about me. I continue to feel the decline in programming quality that seemed to correlate so strongly with a disregard for women’s rights in television news persists and that it is important to remember what is termed “trash television” is not limited to true crime, celebrity talk, and royal gossip, but that politically inflammatory coverage falls into this category as well.

I also believe it important to underscore this is not personal on behalf of news executives against viewers.It’s just the result of the machinery of a ratings-based, for-profit, and for-power media infrastructure.

But monumentally important military decisions are being made today, including about war and the protection of women and Afghanistan. Kids are being sterilized, hyper-sensuality is going unaddressed and crass craft is increasingly being described as art.

I personally do not believe this matter needs to be a partisan one or that the elephant in the room necessarily needs to be the elephant in the room. But corporate media business models are, arguably, as important a political matter as any and they need to be addressed directly.

It’s not that any one of these topics didn’t or doesn’t need to be addressed – they all do – but their oversimplification for a one-way and made-for-tv corporate media communications infrastructure may have, I believe, warped them.

The New York Times posted a headline today “The Police Cannot Be a Law Unto Themselves.” I agree. I would simply add, neither should the media.

As I have written before, I believe there to be a strong correlation between a stock market-augmented media sector and the widening gap between the so-called rich and poor; and, while this problem can be addressed, to a degree, by using tax and redistribute systems, wouldn’t greater fairness at the outset possibly make more sense? The more circuitous roundabout seems designed to do little more than build in room for as much sleight of hand and imprecision as possible.

This is one reason I believe we need a new form of vigilance with regard to corporate journalism business models. While I would advise strongly against broadening application of the term “wokeness,” words are needed. Perhaps, moving forward, those alert to the effects of corporate media business models on public affairs could simply be called non-in-a-coma. It flows.

That way, the next time the country considers the possibility of an adversary encroaching on what must currently look like an absurdly large blind spot on our part – a fixation with the worthless entertainment of predation – maybe we won’t need to worry, because they won’t even think about it.

I’ve returned over and over again in recent days to a gorgeous Washington Post visual story about Rome’s itinerant starling population and have wondered at its poignancy. Despite all the Roman empire accomplished, for some reason, imagery of the starlings feels to me like a symbolic view of what more Rome could have been and what America can still be. Like a community of Jonathan Livingston Seagulls, a family of free and independent thinkers, enjoying progressing. Together.