Chewing Gum for the Eyes

I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed.
             Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Brian Williams, formally the anchor of NBC Nightly News, was suspended this past week for six months.  His crime was in telling people that he was on a helicopter that was shot down in Afghanistan.  Now, as it was, he was nearby but in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to establish his bonafide as a reporter who reports from the front lines, he felt the need to lie.  In some ways, Mr. Williams’ actions were predictable and indicative of a general decline in the professional standard that has clearly lost its way in the last several decades. 

Watching television news broadcasts from the 1960s is jarring in its approach, what defined news and what was expected from its presenters.  Taking its cue from the growing professionalism of newspaper reporting, television news saw its duty as telling viewers what was happening around the world.  National broadcasts were filled with news, compared to modern broadcast that have fifteen minutes of “hard” news and the other half filled with fluff material.  Suit-wearing talking heads played it as straight as possible.  There was not emotiveness or gesticulation.  Instead, the more controlled the presenter was, the more trusted and respected they were.   

The 24-hour news development, first seen with CNN, changed radically the role of the presenter.  Entertainment was always an element of news presentation but with CNN and other subsequent news networks and programs, entertainment took on a whole new dimension.  In doing so, it changed how the news would be delivered and what would be presented.  It was an extension of the programming dilemma – directors trying to figure out how to fill large swaths of segments and soon, the idea of opinion news materialized and took off.   

Over the last few decades, the line between news and entertainment have systematically disappeared.  Furthermore, the Internet has eroded the once-proud professional guidelines, eradicating the neutral tone, the formality and the gravitas required.  The shrill of newscasters smacks of desperation, not trusting their role or their purpose to the American people.  This is typified with the disaster theme music which is widely mocked but never corrected.   

The lack of formality is yet another frantic attempt to appeal to people based on false assumptions of what is required to obtain and keep an audience.  It is seen in the dressing-down of presenters and the informality of language such as calling the president simply “Obama” or the usage of slang or trendy phrases.  It trivializes and minimizes the importance of the news, smacking of the transient nature of Twitter or any other social media site. 

And then, there is the nature and legitimacy of the presenters of themselves.  Do a Google search of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Bob Schieffer or Frank Reynolds – just to name a few.  They treated the news seriously and therefore, so did those watching.  The demeanor and professionalism of news anchors led people to trust and believe in what was being reported.  That kind of faith does not exist today.  Modern presenters have acted so silly over the last few decades, they have to affect a "serious" tone to present serious information.  This has impacted how Americans respond to the news.  Our current generation considers a serious treatment of the news made up of taking a picture of themselves, holding a placard that says #fillinyourtritepoliticalstatementhere.  The news is no longer treated important so why should our response to it be so?   

With the rampant rise of news as entertainment and the opinionated pablum that fills out the network days, why are we surprised or outraged that Brain Williams fudged on the details.  The idea that NBC, the purveyors of MSNBC, should be shocked and appalled by Mr. Williams’ actions is disingenuous at best.  It is easy to see that if news continues on this path, incidents like Mr. Williams’ will be considered quaint in comparison.  NBC and other networks can pat themselves on the back for putting their foot down on like incidents but it does nothing to reverse television news’ downward trend.

The Disappearance of Curiosity and Questioning

Considering the state of things, one could devote a lot of time trying to find a reason and ultimately, a solution.  Is it our education system or parenting?  Is it our indulgent and self-congratulating culture that revels in the importance of the inane or worse, the repugnant?  Where does our mental acuity begin to erode?  All the aforementioned conditions can hasten the erosion and the fact that we champion it does not help.  However, the breaking down begins with something basic – something we are naturally inclined to do but are incessantly taught, explicitly and implicitly, not to do.  We may be living at a time when we are losing our curiosity and questioning spirit.

Like most things that get me thinking, my original observations begin with my students.  They are nice enough, many with a helpful spirit.  However, I’m also faced with the problem that some of the students are not interesting.  They get good grades and have a way of engaging adults.  However, over the last fifteen years, they’ve been instructed by parents to focus only on grades and they’ve learned from schools that nothing is important unless it will be on a test or can be used toward their future monetary success.  Ergo, I have a classroom full of well-manicured receptacles. 

So, what is the ramification of this phenomenon?  There is a general lack of curiosity to ask questions and a willingness to endure questions.  Here is how it manifest itself:

Teacher:  How did we get involve in the Spanish-Cuban conflict?
Student:  We sent the USS Maine to Cuba to protect American interests (almost verbatim from the textbook).
Teacher:  True but why were we there?
Student:  To protect American interests.
Teacher:  From whom?  Who was provoking the U.S.?
Student:  Spanish?
Teacher:  Why would the Spanish antagonize the Americans?  They don’t want us involved.
Student:  Cubans? 
Teacher:  Why would the Cubans provoke the Americans?
Student:  So that we would join them?
Teacher:  Why would we join those who just attacked us?
Student:  (Shrugged shoulders) I don’t know. 
 

That would be an exchange from a more diligent student.  Most students would have folded like a cheap lawn chair not long after the second question.  As the student was reading at home, he or she read it without consideration for what they were reading.  They do not ask questions or otherwise, they would have come to those questions themselves.  Current high schoolers (it does go well beyond them, however) are not trying to obtain knowledge, they are trying to retain information until the test.  They are searching for grades (something that does not extend beyond the class or subject) and not enlightenment or understanding.

Where previous generations embraced questions as the pathway to knowledge, students today see it as badgering.  They haven’t considered the questions themselves and would not have the confidence in their thought processes if they had.  So, when confronted with a series of questions, they shut down and realize that what is being pushed for might not be that “important” long term (meaning, tests).   

Education is inundated with buzz words like “21^st century skills” to ready our students for jobs that “we are not even aware of yet” – certain they will help to reach our hidden destination?  Neil Postman suggested that our intellectual future lies in leaning on the best of our past.  If students can develop some intellectual stamina, treasure knowledge over information, if they know how to think, if they know how to problem solve (which requires a great deal of curiosity and questioning), it does not matter what appears in the future.  These are skills that can transcend all future obstacles.  Instead, we prep them for tests that indicate nothing of substance and suggest that everything not on the test is not important.  

Socrates once wrote about those who “will be of tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”  We cannot accept the emphasis on information which does nothing to enhance knowledge and thinking.  We can’t abide with the emphasis on the need for “critical thinking skills” without a consideration for or appreciation of the process required to get there.  The more we dumb things down, the more precipitous the decline in curiosity or questioning.  It is a trend in desperate need for a reversal.      

 

The Beginning of an Uncertain Era

Greece is a wonderful country.  We visited a couple of summers ago and we met helpful and generous men and women who were happy to show off their country and culture.  However, in a crisis not seen since the collapse of the military junta in 1974, Greece has lived on a tipping point and today, they went to the polls where if public opinion is to be believed, the radical leftist party Syriza will win a convincing victory.  Dangers lie on what such a victory would mean for Greece, austerity measures and Europe as a whole.  

Throughout European capitals, there are concerns about Syriza and its charismatic leader, Alexis Tsipras.  He is seeking to unseat Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, he who seeks to continue the austerity measures placed upon Greece to pay back its debt.  Greece’s public debt is 176% of the gross domestic product.  This is a shocking number but in recent months, Greece has slowly climbed out of its recession, unemployment is down and by most measures, the birthplace of democracy is on the rise.  However, it will take years to fully recover and Mr. Tsipras and his populist rhetoric is called for a massive restructuring of the European binds.   

When speaking of the Europeans in the aftermath of World War One, who sought a way out of war debt, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge said, “Well, they hired the money, didn’t they?”  With the shoe on the other foot, European leaders must be asking themselves the same thing because Mr. Tsipras has declared that Greece will not continue the austerity measures and does not feel beholden to Europe’s demand.  Strangely, at the same time, he also declares that Greece will not leave the euro.  Well, Greeks might want to dust off their old collection of drachmas because that will not be Greece’s decision.  Mr. Tsipras might also be threatening the much-needed $7b in aid they are set to receive from the money lenders. 

As I’ve written before, Greece has institutionalized and entrenched traits of corruption and incompetent economic policies.  The corruption spans the spectrum from the highest Greek politician to the average citizen who does not trust their government; therefore they don’t pay their taxes.  This is a nation in the throes of withdrawal symptoms from previous, reckless behavior.  Mr. Tsipras has promised to tone down his earlier rhetoric which railed against the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and its central bank who has demanded Greece’s recent economic policy.  However, words said or not said mean nothing if actions remain true to his nature.   

Alexis Tsipras assured victory leaves only the question as to whether Syriza will win and outright majority or not.  If not, Mr. Tsipras will have to figure out a coalition that will cross the Rubicon with him.  That may not be that easy.  European leaders, primarily German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Holland are gearing for a confrontation that could greatly compromise the euro and the current European economic structure.  Much like Greece, Europe and the EU are on the verge of dealing with the consequences of its past actions.  On a euro high, the EU were quick to draw in the Mediterranean states over a decade ago.   

As I finish this article, it appears that indeed the Syriza has won its expectant victory and the Greek people have turned their back on the success of the Samaras government.  Mr. Tsipras is about to confront the reality of Greece’s situation.  If he can look into the abyss and still pick a fight with the continent, the next few years could have a reverberation that will shake Europe and the world.  Many in the U.S. may not have Greece atop of mind but the governmental actions on that beautiful peninsula will make an impact.  One can only hope that no matter what happens, lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated.

The Legacy of Voltaire

Speech is civilization itself....It is silence which isolates.
             Thomas Mann

This past week, three heavily armed and religiously motivated gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo, a fringe Parisian satirical magazine.  A harder-edged Mad Magazine, it goes after a wide range of targets, including those espousing Islamic fundamentalism.  Twelve were killed, including the editor, many of the staff’s cartoonists and at least one police officer to silence disagreeable ideas.  By Friday of this week, the men responsible were gunned down by French police.  From the shock and outrage of the event, an important cause has re-emerged that has been largely forgotten throughout Europe – the freedom of expression.

Throughout Europe, various countries have eliminated or restricted expression for fear of offending.  Whether it be cartoons or restrictive measures against anything entitled “hate speech”, Europe has tied itself into legislative and linguistic knots to prevent anyone giving offense.  A few years ago, Europe shrank from the violence throughout the Middle East over cartoons…cartoons!  As a result, many European countries have attempted to curb what can and should be said about various groups – be they ethnic or religious. 

In their efforts to eliminate “hate speech”, these democratic countries have taken away the choices and the rights that democratic people have traditionally treasured and enjoyed.  As a history teacher, I’m not blind to the historical context that some of these laws have but ultimately, they are self-defeating.  As Voltaire said, “Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.”  And in an attempt to ensure that people are capable of going through life without distress, some European countries have sacrificed a fundamental right of a free people.

As the fallout of these deaths is felt, the reaction has been typical from the home of the satirical and philosophical giant, Voltaire.  And in the writer’s spirit, leave it to the obdurate, infuriating French to reassert values that much of Europe has lost track of over the last several decades.  Freedom of expression and speech means nothing if it only applies to that which is acceptable or safe.  Charlie Hebdo has spent the better part of five decades offending and shocking people with its cartoons and articles.  Though the publication may have crossed the line over the years (some regular readers say it happened often), a free society must accept and allow for it. 

Every free society runs risks.  Yes, there is a chance that another attack might occur, particularly because Charlie Hebdo has declared that they will continue.  However, the power to speak one’s mind, even if one is an idiot or a psychopath, must be equally treasured.  If a government can declare one person’s opinions not worthy of airing out, whose opinions will be next? 

So, how does a nation confront such speech – be it from xenophobes or fundamentalists?  More free speech.  Consider Germany.  While saddled with its own misguided speech laws, speech has countered speech.  A group out of Dresden called Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) has attempted to get its point across through protest marches (no doubt they will be emboldened by the events in Paris).  However, Germans who disagree took to the streets in record numbers to counter protest.  Ultimately, hateful speech needs to be aired so that it may be legitimately countered and defeated.  Otherwise, the baleful ideology festers and grows.

It is heartening to see the French fight back with a renewed commitment to freedom of expression – not just journalistic but individualistic as well.  Though the French have their own nationalist groups (Marine Le Pen’s Front National for example), they have answered the terrorist attacks not with hate but with a reassertion of democratic values and principles.  The West is guilty of many things but at our best, democratic principles represent the full-realization of the individual – be we French, American, Egyptian, Iranian, whoever.  Though we do not always get it right, freedom of expression applies to all and it will be our legacy.

Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.” 

Pax Cubanus?

In 1959, the United States supported Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.  The U.S. did not particularly like him but he was not a communist and as for the qualities that made him a horrible leader, the U.S. had to accept it until something better came along.  Fidel Castro, a lawyer who had taken to the mountains and demanded equality and freedom for the Cuban people, stoked that hope.  Once in power, he proved to be as morally bankrupt and murderous as his predecessor.  The U.S. responded by cutting off diplomatic ties to the island and this past week, with no visible change in the government’s behavior, President Barack Obama has ventured into yet another ill-conceived major endeavor – normalizing relations with Cuba. 

Given the way some people lionize Sr. Castro and his number one henchman, Che Guevara, one can be forgiven for thinking that these two men were misunderstood humanitarians, seeking only the improvement of their people.  However, it was the oppressive, police state that Sr. Castro established and its growing relationship with another brutal dictatorship, the Soviet Union, which led to American concerns.  The attacks on his own population led to people pouring into the Caribbean on rafts that ranged from make-shift to sea-worthy, in an effort to reach the U.S.  Still today, thousands languish in prisons simply for their opinions while others walk free, but fear to speak honestly about the world around them. 

What makes this so frustrating as an observer of President Obama is the rashness in which he throws out shockingly dramatic proposals with little to no discussion nor, in hindsight, little to no follow through.  The lack of immediate plans of what to do about one thing or another is the product of the measures not fully planned out.  President Obama rushed to open Burma which is ruled by a military junta, complete with economic initiatives and an embassy proposal.  Today, it can be said that the military rulers have rolled back some openness and Burma’s future is no longer bright – despite the president’s “beneficent” moves.  The U.S. relaxed restrictions upon North Korea and Iran and even the most bright-eyed optimist would have to say that there are reservations about the success of either move. 

Burma is the most analogous example of the danger of what the president is trying to do with Cuba.  The president says that economic engagement and increase exposure to the rest of the world will make a difference in Cuba.  The fact is, only the U.S. has placed this economic sanction on Cuba – the rest of the world still trades with the island nation but where is the improvement?  Presidential supporters say the Castro brothers have no choice as their people are suffering.  They’ve been suffering since the early 20^th-century.  Still, President Obama has taken the paradigm that if only Cuba had the internet and access to American dollars, change would occur.  In doing so, he did not make any demands of the island for democratic reform, the release of political prisoners which has quadrupled in the last four years, or any other multiple measures that would warrant diplomatic engagement.   

This article is not to criticize the idea of possibly engaging Cuba but two important considerations make the president’s move suspect – one, the lack of forethought as to how to do it and two, the lack of demands of the Castro regime to help their own people.  When Cuba opens up, I will be first in line to visit and spend my dollars.  It has been on my bucket list for some time.  However, unless we can make some significant dents into the Cuban police state and its impact on the Cuban people, it should be caveat emptor.  Until our rhetoric matches our philosophy, a government empowered by the will of the govern, nothing will change in Cuba.

Two Deaths, Two Lessons

In the last couple of weeks, there have been two significant deaths in the world of sports.  First, 25-year-old Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes was killed when a ball struck him behind the ear where his helmet did not protect.  Second, famed Montreal Canadien hockey player Jean Beliveau died after a long and impactful life at the age of 83.  Mr. Hughes’ death and M. Beliveau’s life have raised questions about modern sports and the athletes that play them. 

Phillip Hughes was a rising star in the world of cricket, scoring 198 in his very first test match when Australia played Sri Lanka.  He was setting records and turning heads as a potential superstar in the field of cricket.  Mr. Hughes was batting in a match against a rival team in Australia when a bowler’s bouncer struck just below the ear.  He was placed in a medically induced coma before finally losing his life.  It has engendered a discussion on the safety of sports.  The sport most analogous to cricket in the U.S., baseball, is going through a similar soul-searching phase.  The question is whether such a campaign necessary? 

When you consider the benefit of sport, many will bring up the challenge it poses for its athletes, the spirit of competition, the development or revelation of character and teaching the importance of endurance.  The possibility of injury also teaches the importance of preparation and playing the game correctly.  So, to what extent should we make the game safe?  Certainly, there should be some efforts to prevent obvious possible injuries.  However, sports cannot be made safe-proof.  Whether talking about cricket, football, hockey or whatever, we can do many things but if the changes alter the nature of the sport, I’m not sure I’m in favor of it.  We cannot regulate against the rare, freak injuries.  While the world mourns the death of Phillip Hughes, cricket associations should not over-react to something that has happened twice in a hundred years.   

On another issue, there is a concern on the kind of athlete we are creating.  Jean Beliveau began his career with the Montreal Canadiens in 1950 and retired from the team and hockey in 1971.  Not only was he a prolific player, earning Hall of Fame honors in 1972 and having his name adorning the Stanley Cup 17 times, he is known equally and to many, more so, as a great human being.  At the end of his career, he set up a foundation that later morphed into the Society for Disabled Children, working his entire life for the betterment of such children.  He rejected two Canadian prime ministers who offered him prestigious government positions to be with his family and saying such positions should be elected, not appointed.  He was made a knight of the National Order of Quebec and has been awarded several honorary doctorates.  He spent his life in service to others. 

What type of athletes do we create today?  We are creating single-minded individuals who are taught that their way through this world is athletics – indeed, they are taught it is what makes them special.  So, there efforts go to that and nothing else – they are willing to do anything to strive and succeed to win.  However, in doing whatever it takes to win, some athletes not only misunderstand what it means to participate in sports but they misunderstand the value of winning.  One certainly would be hard-pressed to find the like of Jean Beliveau.  In short, most of today’s athletes are not impressive partly because we don’t expect them to be anything else. 

Over the last few weeks, two deaths have taught two lessons.  One is how fleeting life is and the importance of embracing what we have and the experiences we seek.  Mr. Hughes’ death does not speak to sports and its dangers, it speaks to the frailty of life.  Mr. Beliveau’s passing speaks to the potential of a man committed and compassionate.  Sports can teach what it means to live a full life and to live a purposeful life.  Both of these men were widely followed and adored by their respective countries.  Let’s hope their deaths prove as meaningful and impactful as their lives.