A Fragile World Order

"War is a substitute for courts...because courts are the original substitutes for war." Months after I read The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, I'll find myself thinking back to that quote summarizing Hugo Grotius, a foundational force for today's international law. The book paints a case for the fragility of today's modern international order and provides interesting insight into how we got here. The paint on the borders of some eastern-europeans countries is so wet they seem to be moving. Trump is forcing America to break an international accord whose creation was spearheaded by none other than America. Even the head of a NATO member was nearly deposed in a coup attempt. Multilateral diplomacy and judicial arbitration seem to be on the decline. 

We were a lot more excited about the UN when we last tasted a world war

I can recall my history books from elementary school and the impression of "news", "war" and "turmoil" effectively ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It seemed like we went to war until we could all agree on a new way to fight: through the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. Yet these international institutions seem helpless in stemming the erosion of norms and respect for sovereignty. They're the best tools we have to prevent global bloodshed. Fatal flaws aside, I really wish both entities would increase their marketing budgets and social awareness. It can be pretty easy to directly target important figures as well. Maybe start with a few ads on Fox & Friends?

Banana Banana Banana

CNN received a lot of attention recently when they introduced their 'facts first' ad campaign. Presenting CNN as the bastion of truth telling, the ads are memorable, but misrepresentative of CNN in the same way Fox News gets lambasted for being 'fair' and 'balanced'. When CNN is reporting on facts, it can be fantastic; it's a shame it happens so rarely on their airtime.

It's a banana more often than CNN would care to admit

Anytime I sample the big three cable news entities, the same questions keep repeating in my head: how many people are part of the discussion, what is the main topic being discussed, and to what extent is the chyron being used. When cable news is at its very best, there is less than 3 people covering events that have already occurred where the chyron summarizes and reinforces the journalism. I can find this rare unicorn configuration consistently once on each channel: at the top of the hour with Jake Tapper and The Lead, and peppered throughout the hours under Shepard Smith and Chuck Todd's supervision. 

Conjecture about what Robert Mueller is thinking, who Trump might fire next or when Micheal Avenatti finds time to take his one blue suit to the dry cleaners isn't helpful to public discourse. If CNN was hellbent on making sure a more informed electorate never repeated the mistakes of 2016, they sure have a funny way of going about it. In the prime time hours, the CNN chyron exists solely to troll the president. When I try to engage with family that rarely turns the TV away from Fox News, the first line of defense is always the hypocrisy of CNN: that they, or MSNBC, commit the same sins as Fox News. It leaves me with the impression that they can see what's wrong with their offering, but are not willing to lose the culture war. I wish there was a strong neutral future-forward option for all of us.

This isn't helping

I want a news source that is constantly questioning their intent and strive to have clear and transparent goals. Trump mentions that the Iran deal is the worst deal the U.S. has ever signed. Rather than six talking heads screaming about what happens next, why not have a retrospective that analyzes the complicated deals we've done in the past. How do they compare to this one? CNN's projecting an image of self-righteousness that rings a little too close to Hillary Clinton's campaign image. We already know how this story ends. We need something new. 

Fragmented Public Consensus

     As we enter a period of peak TV and social media saturation, there is a growing amount of content being made and shared in an ever expanding number of ways. This content surge also applies to what would be classically known as the news industry, as well as a variety of budding blog spaces and internet sites that self identify as distributors of news. A common confirmation bias towards people's own beliefs leads many to very selective and isolated areas of exposure and perspective to the outside world. It can be all too easy to fall complacent in one's own bubble of reinforcing sources. 

     Confounding the problem is the way entertainment value, sensationalism and viral potential greatly influence the content going into people's streams of information. A sensationalist headline or cynical image is more likely to be shared and seen in front of more sets of eyeballs. The cover of TIME magazine this week asks "Is Truth Dead?" with a focus on President Trump and his penchant for deflection and obfuscation. While President Trump may be quantitatively leading the pack in cherry picking objective facts he likes and ignoring all others, he's following in well established foot prints of most politicians. What makes this period of time for American civil society more fraught and perilous than nearly any other in modern history is the personalization and fragmentation of the news market. Historically, newspapers served as the clearing house for what happened in the day and its possible significance for its readers. Select editors of well regarded newspapers played an enormous role in setting the public tone and expectations of its readers. Newspapers were an agreed upon platform between citizens and their polticians wherein ideological and political battles could be waged and public sentiment could be measured to dictate the direction our democracy grew. 

     With the advent of radio, news was more readily spread to people across all socio economic levels, but the new technology and limited number of companies powerful enough to amass empires of airwaves did not fragment the big tent public consensus achieved through print. Radio bought into the existing dynamic of newspapers and became additional guardians of content. The first Gulf War and CNN's 24/7 coverage was the first real disruption to the news industry status quo. Seeing the ratings success CNN garnered, others saw a financial vehicle to reap profits: that they were to operate in the news industry was often irrelevant in the drive to create new media empires. The spread of modern cable, cable channel options, and Internet availability lead to a significant number of entities competing against each other for eyeballs. The competition lead many companies to curate their worldview and the personalities they put on screen to spread them in the hopes of targeting particular demographics. This strategy worked a little too well.

     These days, how each person relates to the world is greatly influenced by the sources and platforms through which they get their news. Fundamental objective descriptions of what is possible and not possible, or what has happened or not happened become warped and twisted to serve the marketing purposes of a given platform and their community. Nuance, grey, and uncertainty fade away in this highly competitive and highly polarized environment. It makes it hard to remain clear eyed when the news is coming in slow, let alone when it rains important information

     Take this past week. Just some of the important things that happened this week could be summarized as follows:

• FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the existence of a criminal investigation into Trump associates that may have colluded with Russia.
• House of Representatives made their final push for AHCA, their ACA repeal and replace plan, only to pull the bill from the floor minutes before the vote was set to begin. 
• House Intelligence Chair David Nunes on Wednesday canceled a scheduled open hearing with former Directors of National Intelligence and CIA, as well as former deputy Attorney General
• California Air Resources Board on Friday voted on Friday to reconfirm existing emission standards for cars made in 2022-2025. This follows a decision last week by the EPA that signaled their intent to change existing regulations for 2022-2025, making them more lenient in a bow to car manufacturers.

     These sentences were written with the intention of only listing events that happened with no commentary. What do these events mean for the country? How do we best contextualize the choices made by the parties listed? Every person is going to form a unique viewpoint that is reinforced by the news media platform they consume and were most likely ideologically aligned with to begin with. While this diversity might be praised in another situation, it can be extremely destructive to baseline assumptions made in a functioning democracy. Public consensus, once shared by a handful of news and radio entities, has morphed into unique and distinct media company filters on reality. The spin a media company could apply to news stories may be applied for nefarious reasons to disinform citizens, or it may be applied in the proven track record of elevating rhetoric and polarization to increase ratings and profits. The media companies can operate with no responsibility to server a larger purpose of an informed citizenry, in effect crippling a fundamental, albeit assumed role the media plays in keeping a democracy transparent.

   Truth lay in the eye of the beholder. In the past, the esteem and limited number of outlets provided no where for politicians to hide from the facts as seen by all journalists. Today, if you don't like the set of "facts" being reported by an outlet, you can easily find a competitor who relays information in a way that lines up with your world view. The media companies contort themselves to feed the entertainment of select groups, sometimes by completely eschewing whole sections of the population. What President Trump does is not too different. There's no longer a group consensus as to what happened. Targeted "truths" to a targeted audience is the new norm. It is too easy for people to fall into a very narrow echo chamber. There has to be a better way to aggregate consensus and return a sense of universal accountability to our public officials. If it's to come anytime soon, it had better have a very profitable business model to encourage investment. Until then, platforms that strive for journalistic integrity should be lauded and supported. I'm looking at you, NewsHour.

With freedom from profit seeking comes great responsibility in journalism.

The Social Sharing Economic Meltdown

In 1960 the debate between Nixon and Kennedy was simulcast on radio and television, Americans had to choose how they consumed the debate and then decide which candidate came off the victor. The consensus held that television viewers favored Kennedy, while radio listeners leaned towards Nixon. Kennedy proved more adept and handsome enough to spread his campaign message to voters newly exposed to an audio-visual medium. Television became the primary battleground to reach the largest number of potential voters. The attention of voters shifts with time and technological advancements. The Internet, blogs, social media, and Citizens United have all done their part in changing the frontier of modern politics. The largest shift since 1960 has come from the fight for higher ratings by media companies hosting an ever increasing number of debates and town halls.

Distraction is in large supply today. Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and television all openly compete with each other for eyeballs and attention. More often than not, no true victor emerges and two screen viewing becomes the norm. The best chance for something resonating and sticking with someone is repeated and/or unique appearances in his or her social media stream. For candidates competing for the presidency, this status quo is unbreakable through conventional political means. To push their message forward and gain traction in the polls, candidates need to stand out. Many have chosen this election cycle to aim for spectacle and shock. The most likes, shares and follows come from the nastiest barrages or entertaining soundbites. It's hard to fault the candidates for playing to the house crowd. They are doing what they feel is necessary to convert attention into votes. The same cannot be said for the media companies who provide the brunt of the audio-visual content being repurposed on social media.

There was a time when media companies maintained a certain level of civility and respect toward men and women in public office. Journalists not only cared about job security and increasing viewership or circulation, but also about respecting decorum. Cynicism's growth in pop culture may be responsible for this erosion and disintegration of journalistic integrity. Media companies have leveraged this opportunity to act like unshackled genies, free to conjure any content to drive eyeballs and advertising revenue. In theory, more presidential debates would give more time to voice policy views and lead to a more informed populous voting at large. This holds only if the hosts of these debates feel compelled to be a part of the voting process, aiding in the process of getting voters to make the most informed decision. What we have seen this election cycle is that these companies are acting primarily (if not solely) to exploit and manipulate the candidates for their own ratings. It is in the best interest of a company holding a debate to make the stakes seem high and the race close. The lax enforcement of debate rules and lines of questioning by moderators can be seen as prodding candidates to come out slinging against each other or say something lurid. The heated moments will gain traction on social media, and hopefully better ratings and future ad buys on the network. The march for high ratings and viral social media content has poisoned the quality of the political conversation and skewed reality.

View fullsize

Voting With Incomplete Information

Informed voters are the only means in a democracy to make meaningful progress. We should try to ensure that candidates have reasonable and fair vetting in the public eye. It's easy to find an argument towards publicly sponsored debates that air simulcast across all network broadcasters and any other mediums who wish to participate. Questions could be vetted by journalists and experts in relevant fields to better yield an answer that would better help inform a voter about a candidate's position. The goal of debates and town halls should be to inform the voter and push the conversation forward on policy positions. Candidates shouldn't be coddled with pre-screened questions or gerrymandered audience members. Someone has to hold the line for civil political discourse. Ad-free debates simulcast across competing networks would be a good first step towards improving the political conversation. 

Kayla Webley, "How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World", Time, September 23, 2010

SCOTUS blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Christopher Zara, "Broadcast And Cable TV Ratings Keep Declining", International Business Times, June 16, 2015