• The Fourth Estate – R.I.P.?

For generations we have accepted the “press,” as a vital element of democracy. It has been known as The Fourth Estate because it came to represent a counterbalance to the executive, legislature and judiciary. This fourth leg providing balance in our society was given birth through a network of independent single page papers distributed by hand that evolved over two centuries to include radio and television. Its current manifestation, however, no longer plays the role of independent pillar supporting the social triumph that is democracy.

The Fourth Estate brought us news, presented opinions and often played the role of guardian, even becoming an attack dog, when it found abuse of power in one of the three branches of government. We did not assume complete objectivity, which would have been too much to ask of fellow human beings, but we expected truth, and at the very least we demanded a dearth of ideological paddling of particular political creeds.

The past twenty years saw enormous consolidations occur at alarming rates throughout the corporate landscape, to an extent that the term, “too big to fail,” became acceptable, terminology. Through repetition, the phrase evolved into an affirmation, and the insanity of its meaning escaped inquisitive common sense.

These consolidations inevitably affected all areas of media and resulted in the formation of gigantic entertainment and culture empires with some subsidiaries masquerading as news companies. In today’s media sovereignties, the term, “journalism,” no longer applies to any performance or occupation preoccupying their employees. Their commissions have dissolved into endeavors that would more appropriately be called, “celebrity reporting.” The writers and talking heads have themselves become celebrities, and the objects of their reports are celebrities created by the media conglomerates. The “star” making machines are profitable cogs for their masters.

Whether the celebrities are the Hollywood version, the corporate executive edition or the latest political rendition, the pandering dialogue is neither inquisitive nor analytical. Whether addressing business or politics our media has become boringly consistent and vacuous as if every news program or publication was its own adaptation of People magazine. Pretty pictures passing by, saying nothing, providing no insight or truth, but shouting, “look at me, I am a trademark.”

We witnessed in dismay as not a single member of the media questioned the irrational invasion of Iraq. We watched interviews adoringly pander to too many business leaders of corporate America as they abused their positions, and in some cases personally took hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, from their corporate coffers. More than a few committed acts that should have been considered fraudulent, but were acceptable because everybody else was doing it. The business media simply looked on approvingly as ethics evaporated. They would not dare question celebrity, or inquire uncomfortably of those who had the power to terminate advertising and therefore affect their paychecks. What else can we expect when there is greater concern for the interviewer’s sex appeal or status, than for the quality of the interview. It is not that the interviewers are airheads, far from it. It is simply not their job to delve, probe or question, plowing for truth, while well armed with information. The objective is to attract audience and advertising.

It may be some time before we recover from the lack of analysis into the ideological games that were played by politicians manipulating the levers of influence that created the housing bubble. Not one member of the Administration, present or previous, nor any member of Congress, has been purposefully brought to task by anyone in the mainstream media. We have not benefitted from any vigorous investigate reporting on the creation of the financial fiasco currently being endured and creating stress for all taxpayers. Where are our 21st Century versions of Woodward and Bernstein? The few who attempt such efforts are independent, and considered marginal. Their labors bear little fruit. If the mainstream media doesn’t pick up the story, its likelihood of gaining traction is minimal at best.

It is fortunate that the internet’s pervasive presence provides ample sources for those who wish to research. While there are stimulating ideas coming out of the blogosphere, expecting great things from the net now appears to be misguided. The influential web sites also need advertisers. They rush to attract more eyes than the next, and in so doing, only join the ranks of the irrelevant, ratings obsessed, mainstream media.

And so, we remain passively entertained, perched on the sidelines, as our lives become altered by special interests. We wish we had the time to become energetic participants, but we have jobs, sometimes 2 or 3, the rent is due, and just around the corner tax payments will demand attention. We can’t understand it all and wish some elected official would tell us the truth, for once. We yearn for that unusual political candidate that will once elected, keep promises made on the campaign trail. We wish members of the media would be more objective, and occasionally root out some of the schemes siphoning off our tax dollars for purposes no-one understands or cares enough to follow-up on.

The time has come for the phrase, “too big to succeed,” to take effect, and become entrenched in our vocabulary, particularly as it relates to members of The Fourth Estate. We need to clamor for a refurbishing of the fourth pillar so necessary in the sustenance of a healthy democracy. The accelerating polarization being perpetrated on society by the entertainment and culture industry posing as, “news,” must be reversed, before we return to a state similar to pre-revolutionary France where the Three Estates considered were the Aristocracy, the Clergy, and the People, however, the People had no say in the allocation of their tax money once it was collected.

.... Read more!

• OBAMA – THE FIRST “TELL”

Throughout the election process, image is everything. Now, post-election, the Electorate looks for signals of capacities beyond the ability to get elected. We peer in, looking for tells of what an Obama Presidency will mean. Has there been a tell? … Did we miss it?

There was little satisfaction in The Pacific Gate Post having predicted back in early July that Obama would become the next President. The conditions and road signs were easy to read. The population’s unrest was conspicuous. The discontent gaining momentum rendered Hillary’s bid for the White House, and then John McCain’s charge, little more than valiant but submerged free-style strokes against a powerful current. Obama was a refreshing embodiment of eloquence which the self proclaimed intelligentsia believed accurately reflected America’s image. In contrast to George Bush’s endless public verbal faux-pas echoed with flourish by CNN, and late-night talk show hosts, Democrats agreed, and many across the political middle acquiesced, with fingers crossed.

Since the election, the mainstream media has presented us what it believes are satisfactory analyses on the transitioning process. We have been provided examinations of moment-by-moment cameos in the life of a history making President Elect, from his visit to the White House, to the pasting of fresh faces on titles fashioning the top of the new administration’s food chain. Endless Op Eds have given us “much ado about nothing” over the Rahm Emanuel pick for Chief of Staff. Will it annoy the Israel’s neighbors? Will it make this a too pro-Israel administration? Will Emanuel’s tantrums impede or frustrate relations with some Democrats in Congress? We are not getting much reporting of the fact that he failed dismally in his fiduciary duties as a Director of Freddie Mac through a time when the books were getting massaged in that institution. But then, no one seems to be held accountable for any of that corrupted abuse of the taxpayer’s cash by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

No, the Emanuel decision, although momentous, is not a tell. Neither are any of Obama’s other likely announcements on his Cabinet. How could they be? Just as George W. Bush was a product of his father’s political machine, it cannot be a surprise to anyone that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine that produces Senators, Congressmen, or Mayors. It cannot bewilder anyone that a lawyer by training, and Senator by oratory, would surround himself with powerful members of the Democratic system that funded him into the Oval Office, or with former members of the Clinton inner circle. We expect that a couple of Republican faces will take a chair around his table in deference to campaign promises of bipartisan politics from his administration. None of this will bring change. And so, we look for signs that some may come, and we await a sign that Obama will establish a sense of history for his Presidency beyond the obvious.

We will strive to decipher the reveals on the Obama economic front, and gage his engagements to resolve the Nation’s greatest crisis. In the meantime, here is the first sign of a tell on the international relations, and foreign affairs negotiating front…

He “supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable."

Such sentiment, on the surface, appears an innocuous and even benign proclamation. Not so. Not in a time of so much international tension, or fear of nuclear proliferation. Let’s take a page from the most central and dominant figure in the end game of the Cold War. Let’s glean from a master negotiator, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s most sobering moment may have been his realization of the devastation that would define a nuclear war. His awakening to the outcome of a nuclear attack on America by the Soviet regime sharpened his mind to the protection of his country. To buttress against the potential of such a holocaust, Reagan threw himself behind the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). As many of you will recall, on March 23, 1983, he committed to the creation of an elaborate umbrella of space-based missile destroying long-range strategic nuclear ballistic missiles in flight, deployed from satellites, and X-ray lasers also shot from satellites. The brain center of this program may have been the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, East of San Francisco, California, but its heart was Ronald Reagan. His strategy was a dramatic shift from the long assumed doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), and it sought a leap in weapons systems unlike any ever conceived in military history.

Far from being an “intellectual”, or ever pretending to be one, Reagan’s genius was his knowing what he didn’t know, and embracing a deep seeded conviction that American ingenuity could achieve the near impossible. His Lawrence Livermore Labs would deliver. He did not question whether SDI would be "workable". The very fact that he set Lawrence Livermore Labs on track to realize his dream, would make it so. He convinced America of it, but more importantly, he convinced the world of it, particularly the Soviets and Gorbachev.

At summits held in Geneva and Reykjavik, Mikhail Gorbachev offered concessions, including nuclear armament concessions, in exchange for abandonment of the SDI program. With power of rhetorical persuasion and confidence, coupled with his fervent distrust of communism, or communists, Reagan prevailed, undaunted, in the shaping of his audacious foreign policy. He backed the Soviet bear into a corner. The already cracking Soviet economy could not support the escalating costs of competing with such exotic technological deployments as SDI. The advantage would provide America with overwhelming dominance. An initial result of the Reagan strategy was the Intermediate Nuclear Force treaty of 1987, followed a few years later with the disintegration of the Soviet empire, and the destruction of the Berlin wall.

Some of us close to the technological capacities resting in the state of the art during this period knew that the Reagan “Star Wars” system would not be achievable for at least the coming decade, and possibly far beyond. And yet, we marveled at the brilliance, the audacity, and the execution of the Reagan strategy. Even his closest aids believed that he believed. His enthusiasm was infectious. He was never in doubt.

So, back to Obama. Where was the tell? Where was the reveal? It was too painfully, and obviously obvious.

We await the next tell.

.... Read more!