Trump, Postman, Orwell and Huxley

In the introduction to Neil Postman’s classic “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” the author draws several distinctions between the dystopia of George Orwell in “1984” and that of Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World.”

As Postman described it, Orwell’s vision was of an oppressive dictatorial mind control that “flipped” human values. Vis. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”

Huxley, on the other hand, described a world in which we ourselves choose to escape through drug-induced fantasies. “…most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.”

On the status of truth, Postman wrote: “Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

There’s more that Postman contrasted and it’s well worth reading, but at the end of his introduction, he concluded: “This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”

Looking at the 2016 election and the on-going Trumpian transition to power, I conclude that both Huxley and Orwell were right…but there is much, much more going on.

Certainly Orwell’s fear of truth being concealed from us is true and has been throughout our history. But, likewise, as Huxley predicted, truth has become “drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

Indeed truth itself seems irrelevant, not because it is concealed, but because what passes as truth is fabricated and, even after being unmasked, still manages to retain its power.

So we have “fake news.” We are dizzily forced to tease reality from “reality.” Fact from fiction. If we have the time or inclination for it….

The consequences are clear and dangerous beyond the results of the election.

Yesterday’s news of the armed “self-investigator” set upon threatening a pizza parlor is a case in point. The pizza establishment had been falsely portrayed by trolls as being at the center of child sex ring operated by none other than Hillary Clinton. The gunman bought the lie.

Such rampant lies result from financial as well as political incentives.

Witness the entertainment business. Entertainment, much of it violent and outlandish, is richly rewarding. That has been true for decades, but, amplified by new technologies, it has escalated in brutality.

Society and civility are far the worse for it.

And so we have the president of CBS, Les Moonves, confessing during Trump’s profane, violence-prompting, news cycle-grabbing campaign. "It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

Solitary trolls have made small fortunes concocting “fake news” (ie. lies) to attract internet “clicks” and hence money on Facebook and other sites.

In such an amoral environment, lying overwhelms truth in the marketplace of “ideas.”

Just as “truth will set us free,” today’s rewards for lying have doomed us to enslavement.

So who was right? Huxley or Orwell?

While I wouldn’t wish our predicament upon Postman (who died in 2003), Orwell or Huxley, I yearn to put the question to them.

'Pathway' campaign metaphor blinds us

The media’s coverage of the 2016  presidential nominating campaigns is wedded to the “pathway” metaphor. Like all metaphors, this one locks us into unchallenged and misleading assumptions.

Pathways are “narrow,” “wide,” “closed” or “clear of obstacles.” They promise inevitability.

Oh really?

Has Bernie Sander’s “pathway” now disappeared? End of story?

Are the anti-Trump candidates on the Republican side also left with no path to nomination? Or a very, very “narrow” path?

Beware the metaphorical story line; reality has its own narrative.

For instance, there’s just enough vitriol and talk of violence in this campaign, that some insane act could alter events. In these United States, it has been known to happen. Think Bobby Kennedy. For that matter, think JFK.

Then, as a friend pointed out, the whole course of the campaigns could be upended by an act of terrorism here. What would a 9-ll, or worse, heaven forbid, do to the campaigns and voter sentiment?

Nor is mayhem all that could change the story line.

Consider that the Democratic Convention will be held in late July, three months from now. What might happen if the intervening polls show Trump actually beating Clinton in November? Suppose that with each new poll the gap between the two widens?

Frankly, it’s not hard to imagine. Clinton has all the charisma of an Oregon slug. Her surrogates are nearly as offensive as Trump. In an anti-establishment year, her ties to the political elites (financial and otherwise) become more and more suspect. What DID she tell those folks at Goldman-Sachs?

Meanwhile Trump, for all his ignorance and bigotry, seems impervious to criticism largely because he is the darling of frustrated, irrational and angry hordes who are weary of political elites of all stripes.

And then there is Trump’s media-savvy theatrics. Who draws the bigger audience and the largest media profits? Clinton or Trump? No contest. Schedule him!

Meanwhile disaffected, despairing Sanders’ supporters might support Trump (a "new Trump"). Any appeals for their votes by a distrusted Clinton could be seen as insincere pandering.

Trump is at least sincere, foremost about himself.

And so Democratic Party super-delegates may witness a widening polling spread between a tanking “weak” Clinton and ascendant “strong” Trump. Couple that with polls continuing to show Sanders clobbering Trump in November.
That scenario could well inspire some serious rethinking at the Philadelphia Democratic convention.

How do any of these narratives fit with the “pathway” metaphor? They don’t.

Trump's Narcissism and the Suspension of Disbelief

If you search “Trump” and “narcissist” on the web you get dozens of hits linking the two words. Many posts are from therapists.

(Vanity Fair recently posted an overview story on the subject.)

But a therapist I know says dismissively, “Every politician is a narcissist.” It comes with the turf, she maintains.

The difference is that Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist. He lies, he bullies, he is self-absorbed, he has little or no empathy…and he flaunts all of that in public. None of that “comes with the political turf,” at least not publicly.

Clearly Trump is not fit for polite or political company, let alone the oval office.

But significant numbers of people don’t see it that way.

He has the backing of roughly 30 percent of polled Republicans. One poll has him winning 41 percent of the vote in a match-up with either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.  Thankfully, Democrats “win” over Trump in the poll. (Interestingly, Sanders draws more votes that Clinton against nearly every other Republican hopeful…but that’s another story)

So what’s the deal?  Why doesn’t Trump’s extreme public narcissism sink his candidacy? Indeed why does it seem to have contributed to his being the Republican front-runner.

The list of reasons is long, but right up near the top I’d put our media-manipulated culture.

Much of the public “understands reality” from what it gleans from TV and radio. A media fantasy world becomes “reality.” "The News" is a distorting mirror of politics (and crime, and success, and war, and health....)

Celebrities (and Trump has made himself one) are unquestioningly worshipped. For the media, they attract audiences and that attraction translates into advertising dollars.

What Trump and other celebrities say is taken as a priori truth, often because of their perceived “success.” Fans relish celebrity errors…and forgive them: “My celebrity, right of wrong.”

Deception becomes the stuff of plot lines, humor and scripts. When Trump demeans others he seems serious. But then he answers criticism by insisting he was “joking” or “acting” or “misunderstood.”

The public is willingly being gamed, largely to be entertained. (The absurdly popular Rush Limbaugh exhibits much of the same narcissistic public profile. He too is entertaining, particularly if you harbor prejudice and tolerate lies. Like Trump, he is self-obsessed, dangerous and panders to and feeds hatreds.)

When we enter the world of entertainment and fantasy we sometimes knowingly, but more often unknowingly, “suspend disbelief.” In other words, we let down our guard. We make ourselves vulnerable. And that’s what a sizable portion of the American public has done with Donald Trump…to everyone's peril.

The world of politics and governance is no fantasy and no game. It should be no place for celebrity worship and game-playing. Frankly, governing is not much fun, but it is important, vitally important.

Think global warming, war and peace, terrorism, poverty, inequity and injustice.

Now think of Donald J. Trump and his pathological, posturing, psychological state.

Lessons from the 2014 election

Random and opposing thoughts regarding the mid-term election:

Our political system will continue to be corrupted by and in the grip of those obsessed with money and power.

We will rely on the leadings of the spirit and the spiritual.

Gross inequality will continue.

We will distill our lives, or our lives will be distilled for us.

The militarism will continue.

We will learn by the riveting experience of suffering…and forgiveness.

Secrecy in government will increase. Our privacy will continue to be invaded and diminished.

We will be clearly shown that we are one, that we depend on each other, not as "The other" but as "The one.” We ARE the enemy and the enemy is us. (Pogo was right, sort of....)

Purveyors of fear (still the great motivator) will continue to shape our culture and attitudes toward our neighbors, be they on our street or in the rest of the world.

The Great Unraveling will teach us compassion and humility.

Global warming will continue. “Natural disasters” (Nature shaking off our toxic species) will grow more and more severe.

The manifestations of environmental disintegration and the power of nature will force themselves upon us. They will require us to change.

Ignorance will spread…thanks to fundamentalism, corporate media, distorted values, amplified media demagoguery and impoverished schools and families.

We will discover truth through experience.

The homeless, many of them veterans, the mentally ill or both, will continue to find homes only in the streets. They will continue to be neglected, even scorned. Children will suffer in growing numbers. Homeless, hungry and abandoned.

We will learn that change begins with us acting as individuals and as communities (including ‘communities of interest’). Change begins in “small places” within the "oneness."

Technology will grow with little or no consideration given to unintended consequences. Escapist sports, games, consumerist values and other fantasies will define our culture. We live in a drop-out, fabricated, media-manipulated world of distorted and corrupted values.

We will withdraw from corporate media, consumerism and their contrived values. There will be a growing suspicion of technological change masquerading as “progress."

Crime will increase, including that committed by our “system of justice.”

We will be forced to examine and re-examine deeply, and then reshape, our values and our actions. Restorative justice, compassionate listening and non-violent communication are manifestations.

The good (love) in religions will be muted; the bad (prejudice, anti-intellectualism, self-righteousness and judging) amplified. Religions will grow as a problem, not a solution.

We will turn to spiritual “leadings” and reject religious dogma and dictates.

Government and politics will grow as a source of our fear and despair.

We will focus on and do what is possible. We will live and act more closely to our communities and homes. We can not afford to be distracted by events (news?) we can do nothing about. We will govern ourselves.

Our infrastructure will continue to crumble. Private profit will reshape and then destroy “The Commons.”

We will be called upon to act together and independently in new, sustainable, cooperative, humane and creative ways.

We may not have “fallen far enough.”

We will evolve to new awareness and, then, a new consciousness.

Metaphors we die by....

I sent a shorter version of my "Speaking of offensive names, drop 'The Civil War'" post to The Oregonian as a letter to the editor after the paper editorialized in favor of the recent State Board of Education decision to force high schools do drop stereotyping names for sports teams.

Much to my surprise the editorial page editors printed my 150-word letter on Thursday. And to my equal surprise only one friend and my mother-in-law (who is, I should be quick to note, is also a friend) mentioned seeing it.

I think this speaks to the demise of the print medium. Or to my demise in reaching out to friends.

I actually addressed my comments to The Oregonian editors. I noted the media's role in perpetuating the use of "Civil War" to describe a mere collegiate rivalry. Sure, I wanted the paper's readers to mull over my modest proposal, but I really, REALLY, did want The Oregonian editors to consider dropping the term, just as they took the lead 20 years ago in dropping the use of Native-American names that describe sports teams.

Perhaps the most notable example is the "Washington Red Skins." Sports fans here have managed somehow with having Washington's NFL team referred to simply as "Washington" on the Oregonian's sports page.

So, in the few years left in which The Oregonian still clings to relevance as a means of communication, it could once again lead us to stop equating athletic rivalries with war.

While its editors are at it, they might look at the use of war terminology to describe political campaigns (war rooms, attack ads, war chests etc.) and government programs (War on Drugs, War on Poverty etc.)

Sadly metaphors have a way of unrealistically defining our expectations. Wars, government programs and political campaigns are won or lost...or so we are led to believe. There is no in-between. But were the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars won or lost? What of Afghanistan two years from now? And do wars ever really end for those who fight in them or are victims of them? Consider the rate of suicides among returning Iraq veterans....just for starters. Wars kill long after they "end" or are "won" or "lost."

And because of the flood of war imagery in our discourse is it wonder that compromise becomes increasingly difficult in our impressionable, emotional society?

The Oregonian, and the media in general, need to choose metaphors far more carefully. Who knows, it might even help them survive....

P.S. in today's Oregonian (5/28) is a letter supporting my letter. It is from William C. Woodcock of McMinnville.

Follow the money after Rush's apology

Strange, is it not, that Rush Limbaugh would actually apologize for smearing Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law school student, by calling her a "prostitute" and "slut"?

This is reportedly the first time that Limbaugh, a  serial smearer, has ever apologized.

Odd. Does Rush's half-hearted apology actually signal a change?

Not really. Rush is entirely consistent.

Rush is in it for the money.

When his advertisers started dropping his program in the wake of the Fluke attack (Thank you, President Obama, for shedding light on it by calling to console Fluke), the advertisers were using the only language that Rush understands — money.

How does he win back the lost revenue?

Apologize.

The real test will be whether the apology will work to win back the ad revenues. Will his advertisers finally own up to paying for Rush's poisonous language each and everyday broadcast day? Indeed, aren't THEY the ones who should be apologizing?

Who knows how many deranged listeners are actually persuaded by Limbaugh's extravagantly-rewarded verbal smears.

Let's see whether the advertising money returns to pay for the poison.

PS Ron Paul makes the same analysis HERE.

The Guest in the Tree

Some of you may know that I hold the position of clerk of our Quaker meeting. It’s a two-year term, the job gets passed around, and in our egalitarian spiritual community, no one makes much of it.

But on occasion I’m reminded that, whether I like it or not, I’m the go-to guy.

Like last night when I got the phone call from Officer Gilbert of the Portland Police department.

“Mr. Seifert, I understand you are the person responsible for the Quaker meeting house here on Stark Street? Is that right?”

“Yes, I am the person responsible,” I conceded with a hint of hesitation and foreboding. “Tell me what this is about, officer,” I invited as visions of disaster bubbled up in my brain.

“Well, is the name Tre Arrow familiar to you?”

“Vaguely, isn’t he that environmental activist who camped up on a downtown building’s ledge for a few days several years ago?”

“That’s the one. Now he’s here in the fir tree in the backyard of your Quaker building. He’s yelling from up there. There’s a crowd here, some Occupy folks are shouting encouragement and the fire department has a ladder truck in place. We have the street blocked off.”

I could hear distant hollering in the background. A group chanted “Occupy the Tree! Occupy the tree!”

I heard myself say, “I’ll be right over, officer.”

It takes about 20 minutes to get from my house to the meetinghouse. That was enough time to gather my thoughts and run scenarios through my mind.

What if we have this guy in our tree for days? What if the crowd grows and “Occupies” our backyard? What if the chanting and yelling continue disturbing the neighbors in what the media would call a “normally quiet residential neighborhood.”

When I arrived I found pretty much what I imagined. It was a vision from the evening news. Flashing police lights. Squawk box commands. Barricades.

It was also an arcade for a media carnival complete with earnest correspondents and trucks equipped to broadcast “LIVE on the scene!” “Up-to-the-minute Action News.”

Before going to the backyard to assess the situation, I huddled with the police sergeant in charge. As we stood on the center line of the barricaded street, he calmly suggested that his officers and the fire department leave. There was really nothing they could do except attract unwanted attention. Wrestling Tre Arrow from his sylvan perch 60 feet above ground could lead to disaster.

I readily accepted the sergeant’s assessment and advice, and thanked him. The police and firefighters departed.

I was left to whatever might happen next, yet somehow a calmness descended on me.

As I went through the gate to our backyard, I had already decided to treat Tre not as a trespasser or intruder but as some kind of “guest.”

An uninvited guest, but a guest none-the-less. “Unexpected,” someone suggested later.

Precisely, an unexpected guest.

But who were these other folks standing around staring into the boughs above? I set about introducing myself, inquiring to whom we Quakers had the pleasure.

Peering up into the tree were the reporters with accompanying camera crews. Their lights sought out a shadowy figure who was heard far more clearly than he was seen. The silhouetted figure filled the evening with righteous ranting about the "rape of Mother Earth."

Also at the base of the tree was a small, surprisingly somber contingent from Occupy Portland.

I decided to invite the media to leave our backyard. As a journalist, I know that such requests are honored. Tre might be a “guest” but unwanted reporters and crews with cameras to be “played to” can be construed as trespassers. So the media quietly, and professionally, retreated.

As for the Occupy folks, I told them that our meeting had formally supported the Occupy movement and that I, in fact, was a member of Occupy's “Faith/Spirit” Spoke (or committee) They seemed duly impressed.

They were also impressed, and probably surprised, that I told them it was fine for them to stay. Perhaps they saw the absurdity of the “Occupy” movement's occupying part of itself.

And then there was a young woman who came up to me and quietly introduced herself as “Tre’s friend.” A friend concerned about Tre’s clearly agitated state. We quietly introduced ourselves and talked. She filled me in. She thought that once people left, her friend would come down. Indeed after the camera crews and reporters established a public safe haven on the distant sidewalk, Tre began to work his way down the tree to the ground.

I greeted him as he lowered himself from the fence at the base of the tree. I shared with him that Multnomah Friends Meeting considered him a guest.

“Thank you, thank you. You Quakers are so great,” he said as we shook hands.

I guess that was a bonding of sorts. Barefooted and a little worse for wear from his climb up and down the tree, he made his way to the media waiting at our gate. There, from our side of the fence, he proceeded to lecture the reporters on the state of the planet. It went on and on...such is the state of the planet.

Finally his quiet companion whispered in my ear, “You are going to have to stop him or he will just keep going.”

“How is he with people placing limits on him?” I asked

“Not so good.”

Great, I thought. “Let me see what I can do,” I whispered back.

When it was clear to everyone (perhaps even to Tre) that Tre’s lecture was looping back on itself, I put my hand on his shoulder and said, “I think it’s time to wind down.”

He seemed almost grateful for my interruption. He turned and we shook hands. “You’ve been very understanding,” he said. “Thank you.”

Then he led the media gaggle across the street where he resumed his sermon until, at last, everyone lost interest and wandered off into the cloudless winter night.

As more than one person noted, the moon was full.

I later joked with other Friends that there is nothing about dealing with tree protests in the clerk’s job description. But, I was reminded, there are references to being “open to the spirit” and “finding one’s center.” If not exactly a job description, the Quakerly words provided the guidance I needed Sunday night — that we all needed in this little tableau from our times.

For a news clip of what happened go HERE. Yes, that’s me in the baseball cap with our “guest.”

Why the media miss the story

Jeff Cohen’s Common Dreams column, “Mainstream Reporters: Too Close to the Field and Teams to get the Debt Story,” uses sports' play-by-play coverage as an analogy for why the Press is missing (and the Public isn’t getting) the real story about the country’s economic and fiscal crisis.

He blames the Press’s “cult of balance” and “impartiality” for its woeful short comings.

The analogy to game coverage, while helpful, misses the point.

The real failing of the media is that underlying causes aren’t “news” to a Press corps working the 24-hour news cycle. A cause doesn’t “develop” or change each and every day. Causes are “old news” and hence unreported.

And so we, the public, forget or ignore the causes of our problems.

It is hardly breaking news that this country has a shameful disparity of income between the wealthy and the poor, that the rich own the political system, and that the tax code is shot through with loopholes benefiting the wealthy and corporations.

It isn’t news that the military accounts for nearly half our budget and shovels money (and retired generals) at corporate America.

Meanwhile our infrastructure, our health system and our schools crumble. No “news” there, either.

Instead, the “news” of the day, and hence the public’s focus, is play-by-play coverage between the 10-yard markers on the field, as Cohen notes. Such coverage results in headlines like, “Boehner gets debt plan through House.” Big deal.

Imagine a front-page story with this headline: “The richest 10 percent account for 80 percent of Republican campaign coffers” or “Tea Party: bought by, beholden to Billionaires” or “The Richest Americans scapegoat the Poorest.”

The problem is that each of these stories did not "break" in the “news cycle.” In short, it doesn’t fit the definition of "the news." No, to find out about these mega-causal issues, you have to read books.

Who in this knee-jerk, instant analysis, Twitter world has time for that?

Finally, Cohen knows, but doesn’t mention, that the Press is beholden to its advertisers, stockholders, interlocking corporate boards and financial chiefs. And just who might they be? (think Rupert Murdoch...) And to what extent do they define the news and determine the information the public receives?

"Live music" and other ponderables

Consider for a moment the term “live music.”

As opposed to what? “Dead music?” otherwise known as, what? .... “music”?

“We listened to ‘dead music.’” Really?

We listened to “live music.” Great!

We listened to “music.” Okay, but was it “live” or “dead”?

Ever notice how new media technology changes our language? The way in which we refer to our new media experiences (“recorded music” becomes “music”) insulates the “old” direct experience in bubble-wrapped verbal insulation (“live music”).

Here are some other examples.

“I watched the Superbowl” versus “I went to the Superbowl.” The assumption in the first instance is that you “watched” the game on TV, not that you watched it in person ("live football"?). Ironically, if you simply "watched it," you likely had a better view of the game than someone who actually was present. That may be why “going” to the Superbowl seems more descriptive than actually “seeing” it.

How about “I watched the news”? That one is even trickier. It assumes there is something called “the news” that exists in a pure form. In fact it is selected, constructed and “assembled.” To call it “the news” implies that it is something “new” to you. Whatever lies beyond “the news,” presumably, is “not news” and hence known. Oh really? Consider what you don’t know....

And then there’s Facebook’s co-option of the word “friend”? It puts the question: “What is a friend?” Someone willing to share bits and pieces of his or her life with you and a few dozen others on-line? What is the difference between the new verb "to friend" and the old one "to befriend"? What were “friends” before there was a Facebook? Has the medium changed the definition?

I’ll venture that it has, ever so slightly or ever so much, to the extent Facebook becomes part of your life.

What are the consequences of these changes? To the extent that words help us understand reality, the changes alter how we relate to the real, unmediated world.

Ultimately, the language of media description leads us to distrust our own direct perceptions and wraps mediated image (as opposed to reality) in the appearance of verbal credibility.

Of course this happened long ago with travel, which also was a form of communication. Remember the Pony Express? The telegraph ended all that.

Today, the statement “I went downtown” implies you did something. That’s a holdover from the “pedestrian era.” In fact, a car or bus took you downtown. You sat impassively. Your body was conveyed downtown.

The bigger question behind all this is: How accurately are we describing our actions and our world? Are technology and the language it generates making us more, or less, accurate? More or less aware?

"Information wars" in Washington DC

Our political culture has a “combat mentality.” It doesn’t exactly fit with our naive civics-class indoctrination from the 8th grade.

How bad are things in the world of politics?

Sometimes the “war” seeps out around the edges, as it did on Tuesday in a seemingly innocuous article about young Washington, D.C. aides hired to digest the news and present it to their bosses.

While news readers in technocratic departments seem to approach their jobs relatively dispassionately, Bobby Maldonado, 26, brings a different mentality to his job working for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He's up at 4 a.m. to get a jump on events so that he can strategically analyze, arrange and present them to his big-business bosses at the Chamber.

You get a flavor for his, and the Chamber’s, perspective when you read how young Maldonado describes his job.

“The information wars are won before work....Our executives walk into meetings and they’re doing battles, whether it’s on health care or cap and trade, and information is power, and my job is to make sure they’re armed with the most powerful information.”

“Wars,” “battles,” “armed.”

Reading the story, you don’t get the feeling that Maldonado is some Glock-toting kook. But he's just another soldier — and aide to battlefield generals. His words fit the political culture of victors and vanquished. These folks are out for blood.

And the media amplify it. Of all the headlines that the Times could have put on a tepid story, the one they chose came from Maldonado’s quote. “Where News is Power, A Fight to be Well-armed.”

The corrosive drip of violent media metaphors

There’s a lot of talk in the news these days about politicians toning down their rhetoric following the Tucson shootings. Some of the talk was on page 2 of today’s Oregonian in a story headlined “Lawmakers take steps toward civility.”

The new speaker of the house, John Boehner, is reported as substituting “job-destroying” for “job-killing” in describing the Democrats’ health reforms. Never mind that there’s no evidence that the reforms either kill or destroy jobs.

This all sounds like just another contrivance of the Republican word-twisting consultant Frank Luntz, infamous for his “death panels (they were never proposed but they sound scary as hell),” “death taxes (aka inheritance taxes),” and “climate change (aka global warming).”

(Oregonians will remember “job killing” from the “Job-killing Taxes” campaign against measures 66 and 67 a year ago. The business-funded organization opposing the taxes even called itself “Oregonians against Job-Killing Taxes.”)

Back to Boehner. In fact, a reversal of the health care reforms, as advocated by Boehner and fellow Republicans could be literally “people-killing” for those without health insurance.

Ooooops. Make that “people-destroying.”

Come to think of it, what’s worse?

But I digress because this is a post about media rhetoric not about politicians defanging (softening?) their pronouncements.

When I say “media” I’m not “taking aim at” (see how easy this is?) FOX commentators exclusively. I’m talking about the likes of the Oregonian sub-editor who wrote the largest headline on today’s front page.

“Battle over Bioswales and Bikes” was clearly written by some over-reaching desk jockey unwilling or unable to take a lesson from Boehner and the suddenly civil. If you read the story bearing this over-blown headline, you will discover it has nothing whatsoever to do with a “battle” over bioswales and bikes.

The operative word in the story is “bungling,” as in Mayor Sam Adams’ bungling his promotion and financing of bioswales and bikeways (not "bikes," as stated in the headline).

Any high school journalism student could find the obvious headline: “Adams bungles bioswales and bikeways.”

But oh no, we need to wage war here (readers love conflict, even if it doesn’t exist, right?), so let’s up the ante to “Battle over Bioswales and Bikes.”

Headlines like this are just one more example of media exaggeration reliant on fabricated, violent metaphors. It is part of the slow, daily drip of “information” and "news" eroding civility in our culture.

Rhetoric of violence corrodes entire political culture

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson, a lot has been inevitably been written about the vitriolic rhetoric of politics.

Blame has been laid on prominent Right-wing commentators such as Sarah Palin and her gun analogies, Rush Limbaugh and his demeaning smears, and Glenn Beck and his rants.

The political Right, of course, points accusingly at commentators on the Left.

The problem is much greater than either side would have us believe. The whole political establishment and the mainstream media are equally culpable for their own day-to-day rhetorical choices.

And we, the people, have become inured to them.

Without blinking, all political campaigns, Right, Left and everything in between, refer to (and the media blindly accept and transmit) “targeted audiences,” “war chests,” “the air wars” (TV ad campaigns), “sabotaging,” “counter-attacking,” “burying,” “sniping,” “war rooms,” “political bombshells,” "political cross hairs," and “ground troops.”

The list goes on and on.

Face it, much of American politics is defined by words of violence and war.

The unquestioning use and acceptance of such terms corrode our political culture.

Worse, the use of such words only increases the likelihood of terrible deeds like the shootings in Tucson.

Poll this! Investigate that!

Among the many troubling aspects of this election have been the over-the-top negative ads and the news analyses that transform polling results into reality.

If these ads are so effective, why isn’t Coors running negative ads about Bud? Or Cherrios slamming Wheaties?

Maybe corporations know that tearing down the competition only turns off consumers. Do I really need to drink beer? Especially since they started the beer-belly wars?

And given a choice between “The Breakfast of Steroid-Using ‘Chumpions’” and “the Little Round Nothings,” I’ll opt for eggs.

The corporations obviously see this as destructive of the marketplace. So why don’t the geniuses running the political campaigns see negative ads as destructive of democrary?

Then there are the pundits who pontificate on the results of elections that haven’t been held. If they can do that, why don’t they tell us about what’s going to happen after the election of 2012? Why weren’t they telling us about the “rise” of the Tea Party on election eve in 2008?

I suppose that last one is an honest question. The folks who brought us this recession (and are profiting mightily from it) must have known that the lumpen would be pissed. An obvious strategy was to capture the anger and put it to work to keep shifting the money to the rich.

Tell me again: what does extending tax breaks for the wealthy have to do with cutting the deficit?

And remind me: why should insurance companies NOT be required to cover folks with pre-existing conditions?

The media need to stop spending money on talking heads and hire (or rehire) investigative reporters.

The sleuths might start with this timely query: Just who is really financing the Tea Party? And why? And how about the sequel: what do they have up their sleeves for 2012? Whatever it is, you can bet it is in the works NOW!

My Mom offers advice on negative political ads

With local TV following every nanosecond of the President's visit to Portland, and the Giants and the Phillies locked in a tight playoff game on the screen, tonight I found myself logging an inordinate amount of tube time.

It's pretty scary because in between the president and the boys of October, the screen space was papered with wall-to-wall political ads, nearly all of them mean-spirited and toxic.

The impression these negative ads leave is that no matter whom you vote for, you are playing a fool's game. The result is certain disaster. Congress will be inhabited by miserable, thieving degenerate louts — be they Republicans or Democrats.

The message: the situation is utterly hopeless.

I wonder whether anyone has ever stood back and looked at the media mud slinging and realized that the effect is to tear down our system of governance.

No wonder folks are angry. From the looks of things, they should be. The ads are almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps we deserve this. Something is seriously wrong when political mud-wrestling passes as civic discourse. And of course the media, which sell ad space at grossly inflated prices (thereby creating political dependency on big-money interests), are laughing all the way to the bank.

Ask yourself, who are the winners here?

Certainly not the public.

My Mother, bless her soul, used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." If only the politicians and their media advisers would listen to Mom's quaint advice.

As for those of us on the receiving end of this sludge, we might follow the corollary: "If you can't hear or see anything nice in the media, turn it off."

The war that isn’t

In the July 31st issue of the New York Times on the Op-Ed page, is a column headlined, “Obama’s Race War.”

Its lead sentence reads: “Americans are engaged in a war over a word: racism.” A prominent “pull quote” is “The fight is really about the president.”

The words have been chosen to put you in a bellicose frame of mind. The writer is (did you notice?) talking about WAR.

The column goes on to track the president’s support, or lack of it, among racial groups. Blacks give the Obama presidency a 91 percent favorability rating, Whites put it at 37 percent, and Hispanics come in at 49 percent.

As troubling as the figures are, they are NOT war statistics. They are not body counts. They do not detail the costs of war.

Why must the media rely on the image of war to describe simple differences?

To get our attention?

Will the truth not suffice?

Used repeatedly, such hyperbole doesn’t work but it does deaden. The war metaphor has become a cliché. It gets rolled out every campaign season. In Oregon, we use it to describe a sports rivalry, “The Civil War.”

Each time a writer trivializes war by using the word "war" metaphorically to describe relatively harmless activity, "war's" true meaning is cheapened. Such metaphors portray war as something far less horrific than it is. By degrees, war — real war — becomes correspondingly more palatable to readers.

We should rebel at the misuse and trivializing of the word. War is war. As those who have suffered from war say it is "hell.”

That's the veterans' and the victims' metaphor — "hell." It is a very long way from poll results, nasty political campaigns, football rivalries, product competition and mere games.

Reframed news blames the messenger

The Obama Administration is reacting exactly the way the last Bush Administration would to WikiLeak's revelations, ("Afghan War Diaries, 2004-2010,").

What's happening in the current news cycle is "reframing" the news. The Administration's spinmeisters are shifting the media focus from message to messengers.

That's to be expected in a political, bureaucratic culture of deceit. Both administrations have been publicly embarrassed by the disasters they have created — Obama in Afghanistan and Bush in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan).

The indignation of the White House and the Pentagon ("How dare the media tell the truth?") only underscores our problem. When our leaders wrap themselves in the flag of "national security," they only make us less secure.

Generals, politicians, pundits, think-tank defense "analysts" and administration "security officials" who describe the disclosures as a threat to the nation and the troops have it exactly upside down. These disclosures clearly show that the White House and the Pentagon are the real threats to our security.

Our government, to whom the military is supposed to answer (one wonders. . .), needs to be reminded that it is acting in our name. That's "we" as in "We, the people."

And "We, the people," are paying a heavy price for tragic, futile attempts at nation building far away.

In these troublesome times, the nation we should be building is our own.

So we should be grateful for the WikiLeaks disclosures. Particularly grateful should be the soldiers who suffer and die because of our failed policies.

Thank you to WikiLeaks and the media that amplified these revelations.

And shame on those who vilify the messengers of truth.

Reality Check at Wilson High

A recent student-administered study at our local Wilson High School revealed that teens think their student peers are using more drugs and alcohol than they actually are.

The organization Positive Action Concerning Teens (PACT) is using the study’s results to give teens a reality check and to counter peer pressure.

The results show that Wilson students believe that more than nine out of 10 of their peers consume or have consumed alcohol. The actual number is six out of 10. The results also show that those who do drink, do so far less than is believed.

The study also revealed similar misperceptions about marijuana use.

The June issue of the Southwest Community Connection describes the results in a front page story.

One study's conclusion is that teen social norms — and sense of reality — are askew as it relates to drugs and alcohol. What kids THINK is happening, isn’t.

One thing is missing from the story — and presumably the Wilson study: The answer to the question “Why?”

Why the disconnect between perception and reality?

The question begs for an answer.

Here’s one: The media. How is teen behavior portrayed in the media, which consume roughly eight hours of the average teen’s day?

More exactly, how are teens themselves portrayed in the media? Screens are distorting mirrors. What do teens see when they become immersed in a screen world.

The late George Gerbner conducted a classic study of what heavy TV watchers thought the crime rate was and compared that to what “light” consumers of TV thought the rate was. He called the result “The Mean World Syndrome.” Heavy consumers of TV fare thought the world was a much more dangerous place than it in fact is. Those who used less TV, had a better sense of the crime rate.

I imagine that the same is true with perceptions of drug and alcohol use among teens.

One final point: Why didn’t the study include tobacco “drug” usage. Nicotine is as dangerous, or more so, than marijuana and alcohol.

Clearly peer attitudes and perceptions regarding tobacco usage are important at Wilson.

My own perceptions of teen tobacco use are likely distorted as well. I tend to not pay attention when I see teens NOT smoking, but when I do see teen smokers, I find that my reaction varies from anger to depression. It makes a distinct and influencing impression.

There’s a larger point to be made too. Just how well do our perceptions ABOUT ANYTHING, coincide with reality. And if there’s a disconnect, how do we explain it?

BIG topic alert.

Without getting into a philosophical discussion about the nature of “reality” and “knowledge,” the question is worth pursuing — if only to ward off delusion, distrust, paranoia and — peer pressure, whether among teens or adults.

On starting the day: Good faith or a dancer's lost limb?

I’ve often wondered about how I start my days. Today was pretty typical.

I put the water on for the coffee then retrieved the newspapers from the stoop. I’m an old-fashioned guy, but I could have easily clicked in to the computer. Later I did just that.

As usual, the headlines set the tone for my Wheaties and Grapenuts.

“Employers’ health care maze” read the Oregonian’s main headline.

Another read, ambiguously, “Vatican reveals its procedures for abuse.”

The front of the New York Times offered:

“Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Hit Afghan Bus”

“Leg Lost, Dancer Is Caught Between Caregivers.”

All this before my first cup of coffee. Bitter stuff.

It took Thomas Jefferson to bring me around.

Today is Jefferson’s birthday, a matter of singular note in Garrison Keillor’s Writer’s Almanac. The Almanac’s extended entry quoted Jefferson, writing John Adams, on the very topic of how to start my day.

"I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus (“A desire to resist oppression is implanted in the nature of man”) and Thucydides (“Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured”), for Newton and Euclid; and I find myself much the happier."

As substitutes for The Times and The Oregonian, I’ve considered Marcus Aurelius and Lao Tzu, among others.

Imagine starting the day with one of these:

Here’s Aurelius: “Whenever you notice someone else going astray, immediately turn and examine how you yourself have gone astray” or “For each thing you do, stop and ask yourself if death is to be feared because it deprives you of this.”

Try Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: “Those who are of good faith I have faith in. Those who are lacking in good faith I also have faith in. In so doing I gain in good faith.” Or “Much speech leads inevitably to silence. Better to hold fast to the void.”

We can be grateful that Jefferson, born on this day in 1743, chose to live at great distance from “Leg Lost, Dancer Is Caught Between Caregivers.”

We should be equally grateful for following his path.

A Retro Recommendation

Portland Community College did a thoughtful thing as the spring term began. Sylvania Campus president Linda Gerber sent us copies of comments that students filled out when asked by advisers and counselors, “Do you have a GREAT TEACHER (sic) you’d like to recommend to other PCC students?”

The good news is that I had a student who recommended me.

“Savvy,” the student wrote. “Challenges students’ perceptions about media and gets them to utilize critical thinking more skillfully. I loved being in his class. Like I got smarter every day I showed up...”

Ah the joy of reading that!

Now the not-so-good news.

One: I retired at the end of last term. The recommendation is for naught.

Two: The student took my class in the winter of 2006. In media terms, that’s an eon ago, which is one of the reasons I retired.

The media rapids run so fast that this teacher had to pull hard just to keep from being swept under. Just when I'd learned to navigate blogging, I'd be swamped by Twitter or Facebook or “sexting.”

Students, on the other hand, ride media white water like seasoned rafters. They grew up on these rapids.

Look at me. I still read the newspaper (two actually). How 20th Century!

And unlike some of my students last term, I’m adamant that Oprah and Rush are NOT journalists.

Edward R. WHO?

So my former student’s recommendation is a curious artifact. I hope my admirer is still getting “smarter” about media. I always tried to teach my students how to learn without my gentle prodding and probing. I wanted them to prod and probe themselves.

Now I’m doing that with me.

I’m the one trying to “get smarter” — at least every day I show up.

A desperate Vatican attacks the messengers

Playing out in the international media today is a PR variation on the old story about killing the messenger of bad news.

In this case the media messengers are being lambasted in an effort to undercut and diffuse the continuing exposé of rampant pedophilia among Roman Catholic clergy and the Church's efforts to hide it.

A complicit, defensive Vatican is trying to redirect news coverage so that the focus is not on these horrific crimes and cover-ups. Instead, the Vatican's wants the story to be about a “Godless,” “secular” media, whose evil motive is to bring down the Roman Catholic Church.

Never mind that thousands of children have been victimized by priests. Never mind that their heinous acts have been covered up, forgiven (ah, the power of confession) only to be committed again. Never mind that the Church hierarchy, including the Pope himself, has been party to this outrage.

Now the Church leadership continues its implicit denial by creating a fabricated story about media motives.

The press should not be cowed. Its spotlight (and the world's) should remain fixed on the Roman Catholic Church and its insulated, arrogant, patently fallible, medieval, sexist, hypocritical hierarchy. (Did I miss anything?)

The story should progress to outraged Catholic laity and reformist priests and nuns who condemn this outrage and are determined to take over their church.

No, this story isn’t about secular media, as evil messengers of bad news; it’s about decency, equality and justice.

It’s about an archaic institution in dire need of sweeping, radical reform.