Another run, another bit of food for thought.

As an author and illustrator, I always love reading and learning from the rotating, park-wide children’s book displays set up along one running path on my way to the trails. And this season’s is all about aquatic birds’ preening strategies for living on (and sometimes in) water without ever, actually, getting wet.

So often, it’s hard for me not to stop and stand for long periods, awe-struck, at flocks of geese and the ways their flight patterns are orchestrated; and having this opportunity to consider yet another dimension of the intelligence these beautiful creatures express has been so helpful in recent days.

As someone currently living in what, due to ongoing renovations, has essentially become an active constructive site (a couple of floors down, at least), I’ve been careful always to have tight-fitting earplugs at the ready, sometimes to complement the black-out eye mask I wear to bed; and, while the buffer this helps provide against intrusive noises and bright lights when I’m still sleeping, learning more about birds is encouraging me to remember the advantages of deeper concepts of sanctuary. Just this week, I was encouraged by a family member to remember how Noah succeeded in preparing his ark by pitching it “within and without.” Doing so, of course, enabled him any many others to survive a deadly flood.

I’ve loved pondering recently the significance of the so-called closet of prayer and ways in which qualities of this type of ark can be portable and applied throughout the day. For so long, I’ve identified more with the typology of the turtle (one of my favorite animals), but it’s been inspiring to consider that, like a goose who spends hours daily preening her wings with oil, rendering them waterproof, the person who maintains her ark need not continually be in any sort of seclusion mode nor weighted down by cumbersome armor but can be free to be more than just mobile, but agile, visible, and actually equipped to coordinate with others more effectively.

This has been particularly inspiring to consider in light of the theme of this blog, because, as mentioned before, the more power media corporations seem to appropriate in the realm of governance, the more it sometimes seems difficult not to feel practically like a refugee in my own country, and certainly not a citizen. But, by working to cultivate a sense of centeredness inwardly by addressing triggers on an ongoing basis even while focusing a much as possible on the ways and places in which I do feel like I belong, I’m finding it possible to maintain a sense of hope and fulfillment even while waiting on further outward progress. It felt like a victory in a grocery store, yesterday, when I noted on a new magazine cover the persistence of a hyper-sexualized aesthetic being perpetuated by big Hollywood women even today and, rather than feeling offended, I felt glad not to be in the midst of such culture and know we’ll all be lifted out of it eventually. Who wouldn’t much prefer to aspire to be a Jonathan Livingston Seagull today, anyway, and, perhaps more importantly, how can the qualities of individuality and independence be encouraged and protected in the current environment?

If the purpose of the more preposterous dimensions of media corporations’ stay-inside-and-watch-us-all-day pandemic coverage was to quicken a transformation of the role of citizen to viewer, they will not succeed, ultimately. But pressure to be passive must, arguably, be met actively.

As media corporations take on more and more of a governance role over the country, I feel it important to ask where their uniquely unaccountable reach does not extend. What, it may be worth considering, are the differences between a modern news anchor and a legislator or member of the executive branch? Even though these professional roles, obviously, work together, it still seems striking to me that, whereas government officials sometimes, temporarily, hold more power, this is changing; and whereas a government official may make $100,000 or $200,000 per year (before transitioning to cable news), a CNN or MSNBC anchor may make tens of millions of dollars annually; whereas government officials are still, at least occasionally, subject to at least a small amount of accountability, corporate media is now, essentially, answerable to no one; and as the corporate media and government sectors further merge, it sometimes seems that, as a result, there may be no one to do the job of either.

While I recognize the question does not seem to be asked very often, I still wonder, what is to be done? Beyond the ideas I have put forward already, what if corporate media figures could be described using more accurate language moving forward? It seems to me that that one reason the current state of affairs has been allowed to unfold has been the permitted misuse of the term journalist itself, even though a media corporation public figure is, arguably, something else entirely, even if not yet named. Not that these are impossible to spot, of course. Everything about these roles seems to get more and more caricature-like. Still, for clarity’s sake, what about if, from here on out, should a television news personality who wears Garth Algar glasses frames (they all seem to have a pair) on air at least ten days per year, we’ll say s/he is a “journalist,” just always with quotes.

It simply still seems to me that, regardless of whether structural change is ever actually sought, or if a readier, more informed citizenry is all that is needed, an open dialogue about corporate journalism business models continues to be necessary. And insisting on it feels important.

Preening may be a solitary activity. But perhaps the greatest benefit it confers is the freedom to participate.