Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Democractic Public Intellectual: Overcoming Failures of the Government and Media


In times of turmoil and hardship, people need role models that function as change agents to inspire hope. A history of corrupt decision making has led many Americans to be skeptical and cynical of the once honorable institutions of government service and journalism, so leadership must come elsewhere. Gone are the days when Walter Kronkite and John F. Kennedy gave our nation something to believe. They have been replaced by headlines profiling Tiger Woods’s newest mistress, the drug and/or alcohol abuse of Hollywood socialites, collateral damage and car bombings in the Middle East, natural disasters, or the literal and figurative infidelities of Washington. America needs heroes with clean records that connect on a human level with Americans through empathy, leaders who are willing to make the tough choices and give people what they need even if it’s not what they want, and scholars who relay their education and experience to their fellow citizens. America needs public intellectuals, one’s like Dr. Drew Pinsky, who are ready and able to serve the public’s interest, picking up where the mainstream media and politicians have utterly failed.

The survival of the human race has been dependent on our ability as individuals to come together and work within formal and informal organizations. The success of these social groups and networks rely upon each member’s willingness to trust one another in order to work towards a common good. This interdependence of humanity is ingrained into the psyche of the human mind from the time we are born as our mothers nurture and raise up their young. These social qualities remain and actually blossom throughout our lifetimes as our social networks expand to different spheres made up of extended family, friends, members of informal groups, co-workers, fellow citizens, and even a greater global network as the current information and communication revolution helps us form intercontinental connections. However, today’s western societies focus so much on promoting the interest of one’s self and immediate friends and family that the benefits of working towards the public interest have forgotten. Furthermore the greater good is often considered an impediment stifling personal development. The resulting nation of individuals only trusts that others will act according to their own, short-term interest. Without unity, though, are we really the United States?

Along with the political polarization of our nation, this has created a complicated conundrum for our society at large. A democracy founded under the principle of popular sovereignty mandates the participation of active and informed citizens in running the government. While much can be said about the divided nature of our government and media, there’s no doubt that the tabloid-esque story lines of Washington have raised the public’s interest in politics. While the public’s political activity is peaking on the national level with the highest voter turnout in forty years resulting in Barack Obama’s presidency, this still does not address the issue of an adequate way of providing reliable information to the public. As Americans’ trust in the government on the federal and state levels reaches new lows despite Obama’s uplifting message of hope, and a similar lack of trust toward is shown toward the media, the responsibility of enlightening the American people falls upon a third group: the public intellectuals.

As a service to the public good, these outstanding individuals are classically defined as trained academics and professionals who provide objective and critical analysis free of bias stemming from personal agendas. It is up to these men and women to restore balance to the country by juxtaposing subjective and sensationalizing pundits with objective critiques aimed at aiding the understanding of the American people. Public intellectuals like Dr. Drew Pinsky, known as the ”national face of addiction medicine,” hold the opportunity to restore order to the nation by providing credible information to advance the public interest.

Dr. Drew Pinsky exemplifies the characteristics necessary of today’s public intellectuals and amplifies his area of influence by consistently going above and beyond the call of duty on a daily basis. His credentials are impressive both in quantity and quality. Professionally, Dr. Pinsky graduated from USC’s Keck School of Medicine where he now teaches psychiatry. He is a board-certified physician, addiction medicine specialist, and also runs the chemical-dependency department at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena.

Dr. Drew was first introduced to the public back in 1983 when he was asked to contribute to a new radio show called Loveline on Los Angeles’s contemporary rock station. Dr. Drew answered all sorts of questions from listeners calling in with an assortment of diverse questions ranging from issues with relationships, sexuality, drugs, and anything else that might be thought of as uncomfortable but necessary. With an easy tone and understanding to even the most taboo and vulgar of questions, Dr. Drew andLoveline became a safe haven for the youth of Los Angeles to get much needed advice from a reliable, nonjudgmental source. By 1995, the show was nationally syndicated and still airs from 10pm-midnight PST five days every week across the entire nation. With an audience primarily made up of adolescents, Dr. Drew has earned the trust of his listeners by providing an outlet for the most relevant questions pertaining to America’s youth with an honest exchange of medically sound answer. His empathy allowed for introverted youth to let down their walls and barriers and pose very person and pertinent questions, and everyone listening benefited.

Along with this civil service via the radio, Dr. Drew has also used television and cinema as mediums for his services. Along with a version of Loveline for MTV, he has also hosted Strictly Dr. Drew, Sex… With Mom and Dad, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew, and Sober House. With the exception of Strictly Dr. Drew, which airs Thursdays at 10pm on the Discovery Channel, some of his critics have attempted to discredit Dr. Drew for broadcasting his shows on MTV and VH1, channels whose reality shows reinforce the vary narcissistic tendencies that he warns against in his most recent book The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America.

In a rebuttal to his doubters, Drew showed the leadership necessary to make the hard decisions and replied that “the people that need what we have are watching VH1… Not the people watching educational TV, the NPR crowd. You gotta give ’em what they want so you can give ’em what they need.” His basic strategy encourages everyone to poke their head in the door to find out what all the excitements about, then serve them the chicken noodle soup they need. For years on Loveline, Drew’s sidekick, the colorful every man Adam Carola, juxtaposed the doctor with a raw and often outrageous comedian with a unique perspective, providing a truly unique entertainment experience that proved both captivating and incredibly informative. Drew, like everyone public intellectual should, takes advantage of this exposure to deliver the necessary treatment to the patients that need it the most. Providing analysis on the hypocrisy of conservative politicians for Keith Olbermann’s Countdown is simply redundant and does nothing to facilitate the public discourse, but providing a little conviction for the people who need it most is how we redirect a lost nation and make progress as individuals and as a united country.

In order to do ensure his message reaches as many as possible, he’s made numerous public appearances on many of America’s most well-known talk shows. In 2009 alone, he was on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Tonight Show with Conan O’brien, NBC’s Today Show, Howard Stern,Glenn Beck, and The View. If he does not seem like a busy enough man as is, he is an actor (often playing himself), medical magazine editor, has participated in many college talking tours, and also has authored five books including the aforementioned New York Times’ BestsellerThe Mirror Effect.

Oh, and did I mention he tries to run five miles a day, is a classically trained opera singer and has sixteen year old triplets? And I thought I was busy. This work ethic and his ability to balance these multiple responsibilities, while maintaining his passion for service, makes it even easier for outsiders to relate and connect with Dr. Drew.

While Dr. Drew has been able to establish a genuine rapport with his audiences, the same cannot be said about most politicians in America. In his first State of the Union address, even President Obama addressed the “deepening cynicism Americans feel toward their government and called for mending what he characterized as a ‘deficit of trust.’” People see our government as a distant entity hundreds or thousands of miles away that cannot possibly relate to their day-to-day experiences. These elected public servants are not perceived as representatives of their constituents or their needs, but are merely pawns following the protocol to remain in political culture. President Obama pleads for politicians and journalists (usually Fox News contributors) to abandon a status quo that emphasizes a fiscal bottom line and incorporate the interest of America into one’s goals and objectives.

With many politicians more interested in preserving their own careers, Americans have a hard time believing that they truly strive towards achieving the common good. When one considers the widespread corruption of government through lobbyists, citizens worry that politicians are being bought by corporations whose agendas may not coincide with those of the people. This fear has only been amplified by the recent Supreme Court decision to give corporations the same rights as a person, potentially opening the floodgates of corporate financing through campaign contributions.

Just like in this case where the long-term ramifications of this decision are unclear, much of the government is complex and confusing for the common man, fostering a fear of the unknown. Even with Obama increasing the transparency more than previous administrations, there is still a level of distrust since certain agencies (see “Secret Service”) are, by nature, necessarily cryptic. Additionally, our system of checks and balances, confusing jargon such as filibusters and reconciliation, numerous agencies and levels of the bureaucracy, create a slow and inefficient political process that the average American does not always understand.

Finally, since there is distrust for the government, citizens become more hesitant to participate in a system they do not understand. This undermines Jeffersonian theory which argues that participation is precisely the means by which people should learn about the government. This anti-government sentiment perpetuates the problem as citizens become reluctant to partake in governing their own land, turning our democracy into more of an aristocracy comprised of members who understand how to manipulate the system for their own good.

And speaking of individuals and groups focused more on achieving their personal agendas, our attention is now turned away from the government and towards the American institution of “journalism” whose calling is to connect individuals with the events of the outside world and to act as watchdogs and protect the people from government abuse.

First, it is essential to understand that our 24 hour news organizations are for profit businesses that honor their stock payers and CEOs more than their journalistic code of integrity. This means their ultimate objective is to make money and not to serve Americans the information they need to be productive citizens.

Due to the expansion of the Internet, additional competition of news sources has been created and companies have been forced to turn to cost-saving measures to survive. Because of all these threats that was did not exist when the people got their news from the paper in the mornings and the network news hours at nights, general news groups been forced into specialization to create a unique product to entice an audience. For example, Fox News has chosen to present a conservative perspective, MSNBC covers the liberal basis, and CNN has attempted to take the route of BBC and fulfill the objective void in between the other two networks.

Unfortunately for CNN, they have suffered due to attempts at providing objective, critical analysis while engaging in the other prevalent trend in today’s media, sensationalism. News groups have been providing the public with what they want, resulting in multiple groups covering the same ‘important’ stories. This means that in order to steal the audience from the other competitors, they try and make the stories as entertaining as possible, and obviously, entertainment does not necessarily translate into a productive information exchange. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love his music and everything he’s contributed but personally and threw his many philanthropies, but how many months of Michael Jackson coverage following his death did we really need? I hope this question to be rhetorical requiring no further discussion along this line of thinking.

The third major consequence of competition in journalism is the downsizing staffs, especially during the 24 hour news cycle, sparking the decline of investigative journalism. It is a lot cheaper for corporations to stick in front of a camera entertaining, opinionated talking heads surrounding by pretty flat-screen, high-definition panels and let them rant for an hour than to send a crew of reporters, translators, cameramen, producers, etc. to a foreign country to get a story. From this, we get the Keith Olbermann’s and the Glenn Beck’s of the industry that provide us with a high entertainment value and an equally high degree of bias. This has left the public to do one of the two things, reject the subjective reporting and search for other means of informing themselves or embrace these puppeteering pundits parading around like politicians superimposing their opinions upon their cult-like follower. Ergo, those that choose the former will be hesitant to trust any media source, while the latter will follow every whim of their leaders and distrust all dissenting opinions without a single critical thought. Either way, it is a failure in the establishment of journalism to fulfill its essential purpose.

This is where Dr. Drew and other public intellectuals have the responsibility to overcome these obstacles and provide the public with the sort of analysis they need to become better citizens of this global community. They must present clear, jargon-free reporting based on credible evidence to ensure all laymen can absorb the necessary information needed for civic engagement. Additionally, a willingness to present their body of knowledge on any show, regardless of its place on the political spectrum, will ensure that their useful information reaches those who need to hear it the most. In order to retain credibility while discussing and debating with these pundits, a public intellectual must refrain from muddling quality analysis maintaining a professional position in the face of partisan pandemonium.

After failures by the government and the media to contribute to the personal development of American citizens, it is up to the public intellectuals, whatever their background may be, to stimulate the American people who are equally important as the intellectuals themselves in running a democracy by the people and for the people. According to Dr. Stephen Mack in his essay questioning the supposed decline of the public intellectual, as they create and enrich the public discourse, they fulfill their function of criticism, an obligation shared by every citizen regardless of their training or background. So, while the last great generation of the classically defined public intellectuals may have been those born during the roaring twenties, a new generation spawning from unorthodox sources has the potential to rise up and return America to a true democracy. As Americans discuss these issues, they reforge the social ties and connection with their community that were destroyed by years of lies and isolation. This also reinstates the importance of trust and encourages politicians and journalists to embrace a culture that values integrity. By stimulating this networking, we can unite a polarized nation of red states and blue states into one United States of America.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Too Scared to Compete: China Suppresses Avatar's Success to Protect the Domestic Film Industry




It looks like even though Axl Rose's Chinese Democracy was finally released, the Communist Party is still totally in charge in China. By their government's decision to end the distribution of the 2d version of Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time will only be shown in a third of the 2,500 theaters it was initially released in. Granted, Cameron's 3d eye candy has already been in Chinese theaters ten days longer than the average foreign film, there still remains a market for the film as it has been become a cultural phenomena. The wildly popular epic, which has shattered Chinese box office records, even inspired a city to rename the Southern Sky Column in Zhangjiajie after the Hallelujah Mountains featured in the film.

So why would the Chinese government require cinemas to stop showing such a successful movie? They feared the American film would hinder the sales of the state-backed production Confucius, which was hoped to have the largest grossing release in the nation's history. However, the consumers responded with mediocre reviews and underwhelming box office numbers.

Whether this was an act of protest by the people or simply a testament to a sub par film, the Chinese film industry, even if they want to protect their domestic films, should have taken some notes in their Economics classes and possibly even take a look at the success of the film industry of capitalist nations. Quite simply, your 800 theaters with 3d capacity won't support your population of one billion, and when a movie is in high demand, you're only hurting the smaller theaters owners by forcing them to show your average government financed film. By ignoring the market's preference, a lot of money was lost for the hard working theater owners that drive your film industry. Maybe even more important to consider, is how this decision affects the morale of your citizens.

Sparked by globalization and the spread of ideas through the Internet (despite China's efforts to censor the web), it seems like just a matter of time before the one billion man revolution begins as the Chinese people get a taste for democracy and decide to over through their government in favor on one a state by the people for the people that echoes the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For more information on Avatar's success, check out projections.

Reconciliation for a Fallen Soldier

In my most previous post, I reported on my recent frustrations with Keith Olbermann, and it seems like I was not alone in my dissatisfaction. Jon Stewart echoed a similar opinion on The Daily Show Thursday night, but unlike my post, Keith responded right away…



It takes a big man to admit that he’s wrong, but an even bigger one to actually make a lasting behavioral change. Yes, in a moment of respect for Stewart - or maybe it was his desperate attempt to reestablish a rapport with the large portion of his own audience that worship the ground Stewart walks on – Keith appears to have humbled himself in an apology. “You know what? You’re right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

While I am not a social psychologist trained in discerning whether someone is speaking the truth, this response felt a bit insincere. It is entirely possible for Keith to have realized that without the support of Stewart’s fan base, his own rating would suffer dramatically, but everyone deserves a second chance ,and I am willing to give Keith the benefit of the doubt in this case. Now, it becomes a waiting game to see how genuinely Keith took this critique to heart. Anyone can make a short term adjustment in order to please those around them, but Stewart was calling KO to make a permanent transformation to reconcile for his actions. I have no doubt that we will see a better behaved Keith for the next week, or even month, but I only hope when we reevaluate Mr. Oblermann’s job performance in six months that we won’t be witnessing Keith’s second regression.

Good luck, Keith, and I hope that your rehabilitation will be enduring to prevent another relapse, for there is no telling how forgiving the public will be a second time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, don’t.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Special Comment: O’Really Mr. Olbermann? It’s Nothing But the Dog in You

For years, Comedy Central's entertainers have fed the college-age demographic their news in the form of The Daily Show and more recently The Colbert Report. These shows have always been intended to make light of the world’s heaviest burdens and provide political commentary through the lens of satire and comedy. While neither of these shows ever claimed to be news programs, a recent Internet poll for Time showed that not Katie Couric, not Charlie Gibson, not Brian Williams, but The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart was the nation’s most trusted name in news . While I’m not stating that this poll has any statistic validity or is representative of the nation’s opinion whatsoever, it’s a sad statement about the level of trust between the public and the media. For a show that makes more poop jokes than Comedy Central’s other most popular program, South Park, to be considered the most trusted name in news, it points out the failures of news reporters to build a rapport with the people.

The twenty-four hour cable news networks have taken notes on Comedy Central’s success, and have attempted to emulate the formula of entertainment news. In order to do this, networks through their journalistic integrity out the door by injecting an unhealthy dose of subjectivity and bias into their presentation of the news. Although it is understood that a certain degree of bias inevitably exist, this radical disregard for objectivity is thrown out the window in favor of opinionated talking heads who supply a great deal of entertainment yet very little investigative journalism.

Some argue that this sort of subjectivity in the media is actually beneficial and follows our judicial system of adversarial legalism, where attorneys on both sides prepare and present their respective cases to the best of their ability, regardless of their own personal opinion. They throw their own beliefs out the window because they are motivated to win their case for the money. This also ignores one of the biggest problems revolving adversarial legalism: the results are heavily influenced based on the resources available to the respective sides. Finally, this assumes that most Americans get their news from multiple sources that offer unique, opposing perspectives on issues, which is simply rarely the case in reality. Most Americans have their favorite, usually like-minded medium to connect them with the news and do not take the time to explore different sources either because they do not care or have no time. And for those American who do, I applaud you in hopes that you are doing so in order to come to your own partisan-free opinion, and not solely so you can better know your enemy. At this time, I will refrain from further ranting on blind partisanship and its effects since it’s a song sung so much that the choirs getting tired of it. While there’s a time and a place for it, this dying dog has been kicked enough for one day.

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on dogs, and maybe cats, and possibly the abuse of comas, grandiose verbatim, and multiple camera angles all in an attempt to stroke one’s own ego. Yes, indeed, Mr. Olbermann, sir, this comment, my comment, is undoubtedly aimed and directed at your humiliating fall from grace into the very darkest and most dismal depths which you yourself, sir, usually damn all disagreeing contemporaries to. You are walking on hollow ground previously traversed by the likes of Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and FRIENDS, and you are dangerously close to aiding and abetting these tyrants of terror in the murder of journalism, the murder of America, and worse, the murder of modern democracy. The plague that has become 24 hour American Journalism will spread faster and more rapidly than Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and is far, far more deadly and despicable. You have stooped, good sir, to a level of fear mongering through the pompous and bombastic verbal vomit that you spew out on Americans. While some may be impressed with your uncanny ability to abuse a thesaurus, I must ask if this is your attempt to appease academic intellectuals, inspire awe in Americans in order to coax them into following your own political agenda, or are you committing indecent exposure by masturbating in front of millions of Americans every night in an attempt to pleasure your already emphatically over-inflated ego? It is with great sorrow that I have to report that we have all been fooled, and that the year is not 2010, but indeed 1984.

Sigh… Ok, I can’t handle this anymore. Even while simply typing, I lack the natural improvisational abilities of greats like Stephen Colbert and Sacha Baron Cohen to stay in character. My abilities might be comparable to that of Ben Affleck, and while I cannot consider myself an aficionado on his career, one of his greatest moments may have come from his Saturday Night Live parody of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Please indulge yourselves by taking a few moments and enjoying this classic comedic commentary.



After Pearl Harbor, I never thought that the words Ben Affleck and masterful could be used in the same sentence, but it’s an apt description of his critique of Olbermann. The work speaks for itself by addressing many of the aforementioned problems. What really irks me about Keith is that he does so much right, but his delivery and presentation tend to be so radical that it ruins any of his credibility. Everything becomes a slippery slope for Mr. Olbermann that he takes to illogical extremes. For example, the potential ramifications of the recent Supreme Court case personally involving campaign financing scared me, but Olbermann compared the decision to the same Dred Scott case that sparked the Civil War. His scathing analysis of the decision perpetuates the growing distrust of government, and is entirely fatalistic without a presentation of the potential resolutions to his fears.

Keith claims he is simply fulfilling his role as a government watchdog for the sake of educating Americans on the affairs of their government and the world, a noble and necessary function of a journalist. But Mr. Olbermann needs to focus more on enlightening individuals with the information to make their own educated decisions instead of simply indoctrinating the public with his own philosophies and beliefs. Even though Keith clearly feels he is the preeminent human being whose intellect vastly exceeds his fellow citizens, that does not mean we are not worthy to critically think for ourselves and become engage in the political arena. Yes, the Right does have its attack dogs, but you don’t engage Goliath in hand to hand combat, regardless of how strong you are. It’s not only reckless but childish, and Olbermann should know better.

Whether he is a watch dog, or indeed the Left's attack dog, Olbermann has been acting too much like a dog. Please save your reputation by leaving your bias and your ego at the door, sir, and please engage us in meaningful discussions that is respectfully representative of the multiplicity of views of our UNITED States of America, and stop fueling the partisanship fire your preach against every night from on top of your soap box.