I get
frustrated with the lack of balance in what I watch and read. A good example is
the death of Hugo Chavez, which led to a number of obituaries. Time gave very
few statistics, but talked about his effective populism and belittled his
background. The Economist acknowledged his populism, but tried to play down is
regional influence, while using selective graphs to try to demonstrate the
negative effect of his policies. The Guardian weekly gave the piece to Tariq
Ali, who lauded his regional influence and beneficial effects on the poor of
Venezuela, paying almost no heed to the legacy of currency crisis and
democratic deficit. Meanwhile US so-called TV news said hardly anything, and
what it did say could have been written by the CIA or some rich Cuban-American
lobby group.
What should
I believe? The best I can do is critically analyse the various sources and
create as balanced a view as I can. Usually the Economist does a reasonable job
of at least providing some figures and some depth of argument, but even the
Economist has its blind spots. One example is the Tobin tax, which it
consistently rubbishes with very lazy arguments (hard to collect –rubbish; a
good idea but only if everyone does it – so champion then!).
What would
really help are better common indicators. GDP, inflation and currency value
strike me as poor indicators, since they don’t effect ordinary people all that
much, yet for many years these have been the standard metrics most often
quoted. Unemployment rate is better but even that can be manipulated by
make-work schemes: nonetheless it was good to see jobs used as the main target
for both parties in the recent US election, over something only financiers care
about.
I am sure
there must be better metrics out there. The Economist has done well this year
with its campaign for equality of opportunity, and its constant reference to
ease of doing business. It also frequently quotes education levels and health
indicators such as child deaths. The regular survey on child wellbeing is
excellent, but seems to need a lot of research.
Happiness levels so far are hard to pin down, since they require surveys
and will be so affected by culture.
But surely
we can come up with a balanced set of metrics? Last week I visited the UN with
a visitor and went on their tour. At the end I felt an odd mixture of hope and
despair. One good sign was the millennium goals, which appear to have targeted
good universal benefits and to have had an impact, even if it did require Bill
Gates. But these goals feel a bit dated by now – a good organisation renews
long-term goals regularly. Where is the next set, with exciting targets for
2025? Surely that is an opportunity to use the latest thinking on good progress
metrics.
This sort of
thinking would also help to understand whether Chavez and his ilk really have a
positive side. This matters, for the conventional capitalist view is really
creaking. We have to learn from everywhere and challenge our assumptions. Which
is why it is so sad that most mainstream publications almost seem defined by
their assumptions.
In the US,
it is very hard to get any balance at all. I watched BBC World News for half an
hour last night, and saw more interesting global perspective in that half hour
than anything on TV for six months. I also saw Fox news. This is set up as a
sort of chat format, rather like breakfast TV, with the newscasters offering
inane comments. The content of the first twenty minutes was:
-
A non-story about a parent of the Sandy Hill massacre
talking to the perpetrator’s father
-
The weather (on probably the most boring weather
day for a month)
-
Obama in Israel, reasonably balanced but short
and dominated by sound bites provided by the administration
-
A suspicious little story about a rocket attack
in Israel with no injuries (“thank goodness”). Why placed here, I asked myself?
-
An abused pet in New Jersey is getting better (I
promise I am not kidding)
-
A minor star may or not enter rehab in New York
-
The Kardashians haven’t decided on a baby name
yet, but might choose something starting with K
-
Local travel, more weather and some sport
At least
this wasn’t a party political broadcast, but as news it was woeful. It is no
wonder that most Americans have no perception of the world around them. Last
week on Fox, some executive interrupted his own newscast to offer a broadside
against Bloomberg’s proposed ban on super-sized drinks. It is amazing how much
bile so harmless a proposal has generated. His arguments were:
-
New Yorkers don’t like being told what to do
-
The proposal is not a complete solution (two
cups were shown, one of which would remain legal but appeared more harmful than
the other)
-
It would be hard to enforce
-
Large-size soda is only a small part of the
obesity problem
Notice the
overlap with the Economist arguments against Tobin? And notice the speciousness
of the arguments – even if all are true, the ban is still a small step in a
good direction. Then think why a head of Fox would bother to interrupt his main
news programme with such guff, unless there is some sponsor or lobby money
behind it.
And here is
the rub. Money. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the agenda is set by
money. Fox fills its news with celebrity gossip because that improves ratings.
Its stance on issues is set by those that pay to keep the station going. There
is a blurring between content and advertising that suits the money men.
Fox may be
the bad, but everyone is at it. The Guardian is not immune, nor the Economist.
Meanwhile, statistics are consistently debased. An ad by the association of US
realtors (estate agents) quoted a survey stating that people owning their own
home were on average happier, as an argument to get more people to buy a home.
What tosh! Of course richer people in stable family environments are the ones
in owned homes, and of course they are on average happier. But someone renting
does not become happier by buying, indeed probably the opposite. Somehow they
get away with this, since watchdogs here seem to be non-existent.
Sorry for
the rant. Back to the theme of the blog. Is this lack of balance getting worse
or better? And is power more concentrated now or less?
Schumepeter
as usual set me thinking. In our frustration at blatant unfairness and vested
interests dominating we rush to bemoan the one per cent. But actually power is
becoming more ephemeral. Even major corporations can collapse overnight now,
such is the speed of news and extent of media. Just ask Mubarak. Power may have
more scope for abuse now, but it is fragile. Indeed, the fragility of power may
lead to its abuse, as those in power attempt ever-more-wildly to shore up their
positions. This trend carries risk, but is ultimately very good for humanity.
I could say
the same about balance. True, money talks, and people sometimes become populist
or fail to notice the con. But at least now we generally have a choice of
media, including blogs, to read. Balance is certainly elusive, but at least
theoretically possible nowadays. It is frustrating to have to go shopping for
balance, but at least there are some shops out there.
I also hope
that the next generation will be better equipped to shop and discern wheat from
chaff. Youngsters know how to use computers and to research nowadays, and to
use all the media they have available. There is even progress in education. In
English, my kids (grade 8) are doing a module about debate, forming arguments
and researching alternatives. This is so much more useful than the English I
was taught, based just on grammar and literature. The next generation might be
able to watch the Fox executive and be able to see straight through his
arguments.
As
individuals, all we can do is shop as widely as we can for balance and accept
the cacophony out there. We can challenge our own assumptions and always be suspicious
of the money bias. We can campaign for better metrics, and less lazy
journalism, cheer wikileaks, and abhor anything covert, including the secret
services from our own countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment