John Alexander is an author and a PhD. Yet he was apologizing about talking too much during our recent lunch. The reason was my endless questions. After all, he has more letters after his name and his book has more footnotes than mine.

 

Needless to say, what a great lunch. It’s been nearly two weeks and our conversation still has me thinking.

 

One of my primary questions to someone like John is this: name two sources of information you’d recommend that balance each other. John’s choices: Aljazeera, the free website the Middle East television network; and Debka, a subscription website that has sources within the Israeli Mossad. I would concur. If there’s a tricky issue in the Middle East, hit both sites. Middle East Media Research Institute is another good one, too.

John kindly read my book. In an email, he told me to look at the chapter in his book on the American media. I already had read that chapter and I suggest you read his entire book, Winning the War, whether you’re in the military or not.

 

His book, despite the title, is not a treatise on using excessive military power. It’s just the opposite. It’s how to use our smarts – with non-lethal weapons — and make the world a better place. As I noted in a previous post, he also explores what the future world will look like while consulting for U.S. Special Forces. Among the changes, John sees the decline of the nation-state with people having more allegiance to religion or ideas and not geography.

For the most part, John and I see eye-to-eye on the media. However, his view of the media, from his military and academic background, forced me, at times, to defend the media, of which I am, in a cursory way, still a part.

 

Still, I followed my own advice: always understand the bias and experience of the person who is offering you opinions and findings. John’s experience and bias are far different – and deeper — than mine. He’s not only studied war, but he’s led troops in war in Vietnam. He writes, “The emotional rush, and later mental anguish that follows, when you look your adversary in the eye and kill him, cannot be conveyed by any medium of reporting.”

For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq, John contends that the media could be accused of treason by pre-empting the executive branch by leaking plans, or by getting the adversary to overreact, or just taking advantage of lack security.

 

For me, looking at this as a news purist, the government needs media scrutiny. After all, the media represents the people, too. However, it’s hard to defend the media when reporters and photographers are waiting on the shoreline as troops come ashore on a sneak attack and the reporting is more about creating TV and entertainment than educating or informing us. So much for news purity.

 

John also mentions that the media has an agenda. As an absolute, I disagree with him. I think he gives the media, overall, too much credit. To me, the media’s main goal is to get ratings by delivering big stories that people will talk about. Many reports are, in my opinion, misinterpreted as some form of conspiracy or media bias, but usually the offending words or phrases are unconscious or unthinking mistakes. In my years in the media, I don’t recall any reporter with an overt mission to deliberately undermine a government or government agency: to get a big story, yes, but not ruin government.

 

Still, some members of the media have an ax to grind. Was David Shuster of MSNBC showing disdain for the Clintons with his “pimp-out” remark about Chelsea? I don’t know. Frankly, a lot of candidates and their protective campaigns can piss off reporters in the field who just might want a quote or sound-bite to fill time or space. Related to that, most of us working in the media, particularly those of us in front of the camera, have an ego and a yearning to be lauded publicly.

 

This need for ratings and publicity has led to the media being manipulated by the government and the military, too. The media was gung-ho to go to war. Some would say too gung-ho. In fact, you could draw a conclusion that the war led to higher TV ratings and even sales for companies like GE which owns NBC News. Later, The New York Times held stories about alleged misuse of the surveillance laws until after the 2004 elections, allowing some to claim the Times helped in Mr. Bush’s re-election.

 

I’m not pointing a finger either way. You can look at suspicions in both directions. Frankly, there is so much chaos in the media to have a concerted effort to undermine the military or a war. The media, as my friend, Irish journalist Mark Little wrote, are like a bunch of school children begging for attention.

 

And let’s give kudos to both sides here. The imbedding of the media with troops during the invasion of Iraq was brilliant. John, based on his book, agrees. We saw war up-front in all of its glory and gore. Plus, let’s not forget the scores of media personnel killed in combat zones.

 

I look at the debates between the media and military in the same light we see most American conflicts: the battle of the common good versus the individual. Certainly freedom of the press has been a foundation for our country and we can see today how the lack of press freedom has deterred developing countries. Conversely our enemies, namely Islamic extremists, have used our freedoms against us.

 

So, with freedom comes responsibility. And the media has opted, instead, for profits. Don’t get me wrong: I understand. We live in a capitalistic society. Media capitalists have brought us many new technologies. (I also think the big media companies are trying to keep out the smaller and blogger media, but that’s another story.) Plus, these media companies have market research which says the majority of Americans want to be entertained. It makes no financial sense to educate the public when entertainment brings profits.

So in essence if you believe in the free-market, the problem lies with us. And this is where I agree with John without question. In his chapter on the media, he ties the problems in the media to education, or better yet, our diminishing education.  Here’s my take: the media fails to hire experts as reporters. It’s too expensive. 

 

John’s take: ”Gone are the days when reporters truly specialized in the issues that they covered.” He says it seems that the editors for our reporters when choosing credible sources of information are Lexus and Nexus and Google. “It is a matter of how an Internet search engine prioritizes information that determines what the investigator will see and in what order.”

 

He goes on to say that most Americans vote on “near-term solutions based on symptoms” and “do not comprehend the importance of history.” 

 

How does this trend in the media tie to education?  For too many years the education system refused to allow experts to teach unless they had a teaching degree.  That, fortunately, is changing.  I’m not blaming all teachers; there’s plenty of blame to go around with parents who don’t emphasize the importance of education and politicians who refuse to recognize education’s value years and decades after they leave office.

 

We see the results of this thinking too often. A recent story mentioned an American Idol finalist thought Europe was a country. Even worse, most Americans cannot find Iraq on a map. And think about the media coverage this week: it revolved around the Congressional hearings on baseball doping.

 

Susan Jacoby, the author of The American Age of Unreason, was spurred to write her book when she overheard two men speaking. One of them didn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor, while the other one explained it was where the Vietnamese attacked the United States.

 

Furthermore, numerous studies show how American kids are failing at math and science. As our society ages, there will be fewer workers with the skills to create new technologies. We will be beholden to the innovations of other countries – something we haven’t endured for more than a century.

 

There is no one in the presidential race that’s talking – loudly — about worker re-education. All we hear is how we need to protect American workers. That’s protectionism and a sure-fire way to have a much deeper recession. Mitt Romney, forgetting lessons from his MBA, won the GOP primary in Michigan by promising he would bring back the jobs. Give John McCain credit; he lost Michigan because he discussed education for workers who lose their jobs.

 

Here’s something to think about. Many Christian Right extremists will shudder at this since it comes from Darwin, who said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”  (Special thanks to John Ray’s Heritage Tidbits for pointing out this quote.)   Because of our education woes, we Americans are not as responsive to change in the world.

 

Remember this when you’re listening to the candidates who are trying to find minor distinguishing points between themselves. Make them talk about your future and your kids’ futures. Repeat this mantra. It’s all about the education.

 

And what you can do on a person level? Become intellectually curious.

 

First, read non-fiction books. I listen to books on tape in the car. Force yourself to read a book for at least a half-hour a day. A word of warning: avoid the cable-yakkers’ books. Find experts to read.

 

Second, seek and listen to smart people. I’m a smarter and a more interesting person because of my lunch with John Alexander.

 

Third, when you have a conversation with someone who is passionate about their topic, listen, ask questions, and learn as if they’re talking to you about the Clemens-McNamee hearings.

 

Fourth, travel and meet new people who are not like you.

 

Fifth, watch TV discriminately. TV News offers immediacy and emotion, but not the in-depth knowledge on important topics.

 

Posted February 13, 2008

 

---