Archive Listing
January 15, 2010 - January 8, 2010
Friday, December 12, 2008
Decline of
Capitalism,
Mass Media Style...
An
alternative rock band called 'The Jesus and Mary Chain'. From
Scotland, the birthplace of
capitalism. If it looks like they're turning
their backs on their audience, they
are. They were famous for that...
FOREVER
PUNK. I'm going to start this in left field, so try to keep up.
There will be a point to it all, I promise. Have you heard of The Jesus
and Mary Chain? They emerged on the U.K. rock scene in 1992 with a
single called
Upside Down,
which was (according to
Wiki)
"reminiscent of 1960s 'wall of sound' pop music of the like created
by... Phil Spector, but
Upside Down
gives the material a noisy post-punk treatment, with brutally simple
drums and one guitar playing shrill feedback throughout most of the
song.". Here's what else Wiki says about them:
The Jesus and Mary Chain's early gigs
have become somewhat legendary in indie circles. Playing in front of
small audiences, the Mary Chain earned their notoriety by playing very
short gigs, some lasting no more than 10 minutes and consisting of a
constant wall of feedback and distortion, as well as playing with their
backs to the audience and refusing to speak to them. Many shows
culminated with the Reids trashing their equipment, which was often
followed by the audience rioting.
Sounds like fun, doesn't it? The band ascribed its impact to the fact
that they were better than everyone else, although they seemed
simultaneously pleased by the rioting and disdainful of the audience
generally (see
here
for riot footage and band interviews). They broke up in 1997, well
short of worldwide superstardom. But like many other flashes in the
pan, they have recently reunited. Here's what they're doing now:
On January 22, 2007, the band was
confirmed as one of the acts for Coachella 2007. They were joined on
stage by actress Scarlett Johansson
for their April 27, 2007 main-stage performance...
In an interview to Uncut Magazine, [frontman] Jim Reid announced that a
new album by the band is in the works. In March 2008, the band released
a studio recording of "All Things Must Pass" on the soundtrack album to
the NBC television drama Heroes.
It is the first new song to be released by the Jesus and Mary Chain
since 1998.
Rhino Records has released the much
waited for 4 CD box set entitled The Power of Negative Thinking:
B-Sides & Rarities. The box set consists of material from
the Barbed Wire Kisses, The Sound Of
Speed and The
Jesus And Mary Chain Hate Rock and Roll compilations, alongside
unreleased tracks and rarities from throughout their career; including
early performances, unheard demos, re-mixes, alternate versions of some
songs and bootleg recordings. Originally slated for a February 2008
release, the box set finally landed on September 29, 2008. [boldface
mine]
So the one-time bad boys are at last becoming commercially savvy, aware
that at some point you have to turn
toward
your audience and maybe even cater to the low tastes represented
by Hollywood cheesecake and mass-audience television series.
Apparently, the capitalist component of their Scottish heritage is
reawakening. Now they want to take credit for having been very bad boys
in the past, but they intend to be good enough to reap some financial
rewards in the future. So much for negative thinking and hating rock
and roll.
But what does this have to do with the decline of capitalism and
the behavior of the mass media? Quite a lot, actually. There was never
anything very new about the Jesus and Mary Chain. If you'd cared to
think about it, you could probably have made them up yourself as a
next-generation successor to the
Sex Pistols, who
rebelled against the titanically successful corporatized rock and roll
of the Rolling Stones who, may I remind you, started the whole
sex-drugs-and-screw-you bad boy act in the first place. But something
got unhooked along the way. Entertainment is a business, dependent upon
popular appeal. Jagger and the Stones (Keith notwithstanding) always
understood that. The Sex Pistols didn't. They built their careers on
the back of the very band they professed to contemn; without the Stones
precedent, no one would have been looking for the next
badder bad boy of rock, and no one
would have given a moment's attention to a band that was proud of not
being being able to play very well or even play a set without a
snootful of heroin. A generation later, nobody would have been
interested in a band that turned its backs on the audience, hardly
played any songs in a set at all, and sabotaged the ones they did play
with ear-splittingly screechy feedback. You can pretend that all of
these are artistic developments, but what they really are is the
narcissistic pretensions of wannabes who've forgotten what their
business is.
Which is what made me think of this history as a way of looking at
what's become of the news business. When you consider it carefully, the
Rolling Stones are a near perfect metaphor for the ascendancy of the
"profession" of journalism in America. Newspapermen didn't used to be
journalists. They were reporters. They were the wrong side of the
tracks of the writing life. On the one hand you had poets, novelists,
playwrights, critics, and academicians, all of whom had been to college
or the equivalent, and on the other you had the blue-collar wordsmiths
who knocked on doors, asked terrible questions of grieving mothers and
widows, and practiced a stripped down use of words that may
occasionally have intimated truths but for the most part prided itself
on sticking to the facts: who, what, when, where, and how. For the
literateurs words were paint, music, characters, and ideas. For the reporters,
words were just tools: the hammer and nails that turned facts into a
chronological story.
Most of you don't remember the parallel rise of the Beatles and Stones.
Beginning with the
Rubber Soul
Album, the Beatles were appropriated by the literary set, which was a
real first for rock music.. They were described as poets, innovators,
emotionally nuanced, musically sophisticated, a cultural prodigy
regarded as transformational and transcendent. (I can remembr a
classically trained music teacher playing "
She's Leaving Home"
for the class with tears streaming down his cheeks.) The Stones were
the dark side of the British invasion, crude, vulgar, and dirty,
musically derivative, and just possibly Satanic. (Which they proceeded
to
exploit to
great effect, of course.) But it was ultimately the Beatles who fell by
the wayside, the Stones who kept on trucking to become "The Greatest
Rock and Roll Band in the World" (an epithet they coined for themselves
btw).
Now think of the rise of modern American journalism. There's definitely
a Beatles/Stones flavor to it. Journalism came very late to the
profession game. Harvard Law School was founded in 1817. Columbia's
School of Journalism was founded in 1912. And it took many years after
that for journalism to take on the habiliments of a profession. As late
as the 1960s, most major cities had two competing newspapers -- one
Republican and one Democrat, with no one doubting the slant each
provided to the news of the day. (The Chicago Tribune vs. the Chicago
Sun-Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer vs. the Philadelphia Bulletin, The
San Francisco Chronicle vs. The San Francisco Examiner, The New York
Times vs. The Wall Street Journal vs The New York Daily
News/Sun/Post/Observer, etc.) The editorial pages of these papers were
partisan; the news pages were Joe Friday's "just the facts, ma'am." It
took television to turn the news business into show business. Edward R.
Murrow, Eric Severaid, and Walter Cronkite on CBS News. Chet Huntley
and David Brinkley on NBC News. Personalities began to
predominate over the news itself. Ed, Eric, Walter, Chet, and David
became The Beatles of journalism. Just like the Beatles, they were
deceptively friendly but still in thrall to an agenda. With one
possible exception, they were all classical New Deal Democrats, but
also, and also classically, determined to appear as unprejudiced as
possible.
With their skyrocketing fame and salaries, they did for reporting what
the Beatles did for rock and roll. They made it acceptable, respected,
even highbrow. But then came The Rolling Stones of the newspaper biz.
Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post revived the
concept of the bad boy reporter and brought down President Nixon. And
just like the Stones, theirs was the template that took over an entire
industry. There have been no heirs of Lennon and McCartney capable of
filling stadiums and selling multi-platinum records. When the history
of rock and roll is written, Jagger will be seen as the most
influential figure ever. He has personally spawned hundreds of direct
imitators, most of whom have not survived him. So it was with the
Jagger/Richards combo of the Washington Post. The thought that a
journalist could bring down a president, "make a difference," and
"change the world" was responsible for recruiting multiple
generations of professional "journalists" who thought their job was not
to report the facts but to sway public opinion in the direction they
preferred.
But here's what's really interesting. They didn't follow the one truly
successful model -- The Rolling Stones, who until recently managed to
court controversy without taking explicit political stances. Instead,
they fell into the same trap that has given us The Sex Pistols and The
Jesus and Mary Chain Gang. They thought they could keep upping the ante
until their very contempt for the audience would guarantee their
success. It doesn't. Never has. Never will.
The mainstream media are the Jesus and Mary Chain. They turn their
backs on an audience without whose support they have no chance of
surviving. They are open in their contempt for the education,
understanding, and life experience of the people they expect to buy
their papers, watch their TV shows, listen to their insights. Working
for economic institutions that have become monopolies, they can't even
remember that pissing off half the potential market is the stupidest
career decision anyone could make. We're really supposed to
admire them and buy their product because of their repeated arrogant
assurances that they're smarter than we could ever hope to be. Unless
we agree with them in every particular.
MAJOR CHANGE OF DIRECTION: Sorry. This is an old-style instaPunk entry,
the kind that gets us slammed by lefty websites who think that anything
long is automatically self-indulgent and pretentious. Maybe it is. But
I'll keep going anyway. You see, I was going to contrast the
self-destructive behavior of the media with the normal conduct of
business, just to show how stupid it is to expect continued prosperity
from a practice of disdaining your customers. AS IF the journalists were the only ones guilty of that.
And then I remembered. I have actual personal, professional experience
in both the banking and automotive industries. And they have come to
their current pass by acting exactly like the journalists.
I used to be a management consultant. I worked with both General Motors
and what was then the NCR component of AT&T. The last time I
addressed a large business audience was at NCR, in a conference on the
the hot topic of the day, customer satisfaction. I told an audience of
executive and senior executive bank vice presidents that they were in a
unique position. I told them all the assets they made decisions about
and used to make more money with didn't belong to them or their
shareholders but their customers. I told them how ironic it was that
they were nevertheless the only major industry who systematically
treated their customers like criminals. I compared them unfavorably to
the automotive industry, in which product warranties had reached the
level of guaranteed maintenance and repair for as much as five years
of product life while they, the bankers, were still punishing customers
for overdrafts based on the (absolutely in the age of electronic
transactions) fraudulent pretense that it took five days to process a
check from Pennsylvania to Ohio. I invited them to remember that they
were more, not less, dependent on the continuing faith of their customers than industrial
corporations. I invited them to regard their institutions as businesses
with customers who could be driven away, not as sinecures for their
automatic success. I suggested that the acquisition fever which then
gripped the banking industry was a form of denial, which could not
forever hide the business problem of an industry that hated its own
customers. When I finished, there was no applause. I was never invited
back.
I could have saved a lot of time by saying "Don't play your music with
your back turned to the audience. If they decide they don't like you,
you're done."
And then I also thought about my time working with General Motors. And
with the UAW (under a separate contract). The more I thought about it,
the more I realized they've also turned their back on the audience. Not
publicly. They haven't run the advertising campaign which suggests that
everyone who doesn't "buy American" is a traitorous malcontent none of
us should invite over for dinner or go bowling with. They've done it in
far more serious and fatal ways. Their corporate cultures have commanded
ignorance and denial. I worked with GM management for four years on
quality improvement and the implementation of Toyota's Just-in-Time
manufacturing methods. I wrote executive speeches, video scripts,
training materials, and did in-depth research to help them translate
theory into valid implementation models. The more work I did for them,
the more darkly they regarded the Toyota MR2 I drove into the lot. I
was warned about the danger of getting keyed or otherwise vandalized,
and I was warmly congratulated when I finally bought a GM SUV (that was
twice stolen on business trips to Detroit).
I learned in the course of my experience with GM management that the
company spent more on market research than any other corporation in the
world. I learned that it took two full-time engineers a year to design
a taillight. I learned that there were so many layers of GM management
and so many meetings that a business unit could operate for three or
four months without ever laying eyes on its boss. I also learned that
from top to bottom, the people who planned, designed, and built GM cars
had never driven the competitors' cars. Way back then, the one reform I
wanted to enact at GM was to make all the executives I worked with
spend weeks or months driving my MR2, not fulminating at its presence
in the parking lot. A few months of that would have eliminated the need
for most of their market research. Everything about my little Toyota
was better than anything GM did. The fit and finish, the driving
position, the quality of the materials, the feel of the vehicle as a
unit, the suspension, the smoothness of the motor, every damn thing.
They had a direct competitor at the time, the Pontiac Fiero. It sucked.
Five minutes in my car would have convinced any GM executive of that.
They never got that five minutes.
As I said, I also worked with the UAW. They hired my firm to get better
at winning elections in the "transplants"; i.e., the foreign firms who
had set up manufacturing and assembly plants for Toyota, Nissan,
Mitsubishi, and Honda in the U.S. Our first recommendation to UAW
leadership was to cease persecuting workers at those plants -- stop
keying their cars, denying them access to parking spaces in UAW local
parking lots, and making life miserable for them generally. They
responded that they couldn't do that. Not ever. They, too, had never
driven, and never would, a foreign car.
Hell, I drew up driving them both. I'm an American, not a damn
Detroit-Stalinist. I've driven everything (can't list it all here), but
what I do know is that the best car is not Japanese or Korean or
American. It's part American, to be sure, but also part Japanese, part
Korean, part British, part German, and even part French. It's a
worldwide industry. Here's the worst thing I learned about GM in four
years of trying to help them become more competititive: as recentlyy as
20 years ago, GM cars still had excessively small tires and large wheel
wells because in Detroit, in winter, you have to put chains on your
tires against the snow and ice that afflicts Detroit and Buffalo. But almost nowhere else, let along in America, is that so.
And now they want us to save them. That's beggng for credit for turning
their backs on all the rest of us.
I'm not taking the bait. All the crap about "buying American" has
allowed them to get away with building inferior product for at least a
generation. To this day, there's still no GM car with a driving
position I can live with. They've learned nothing. In the final
analysis it's not about the unions or the management per se; it's
about the vehicles. My current Toyota MR2 (2002, because Toyota has
also forgoten how to build a sexy car) cost half what a Porsche Boxster
did, goes like a scalded cat, corners at 1.0 g, never breaks, and gets
34 mpg. And according to the media, the Big Three, and the U.S.
Congress, I'm supposed to feel guilty for not appreciating how they've
been looking out for me with their backs turned.
Truth is, the whole lot of them are guilty of the same sin as The Jesus and Mary Chain. They joined up in a going concern they thought could make everyone rich indefinitely, and they forgot that you actually have to be good at what you say you do.
In the words of Governor Blagojevich, F___ them.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Unnamed
Scandal Update:
Their Finest Hour
WE
TRIED TO WARN THEM. You have to admire the selfless heroism on
display
here.
NBC
is
going down in financial flames,
Newsweek
and
NPR
are laying off employees right and left, and even
The
New York Times is faced with mortgaging Punch's Palace to keep
creditors at bay, while the rest of the newspaper industry is
confronting plunging ad and subscription revenues that threaten to wipe
them out across the board. Yet what is their response when a juicy
scandal falls into their laps even earlier in the Obama era than it did
in the recordbreaking Clinton era? They are moved to explain away the
scandal completely and assure all us curious American dumbshits that
there's nothing to see here, really, so move on. One mentally disturbed government
official with a foul-mouthed slut of a wife went completely nuts for no
reason, and we shouldn't even be interested in pursuing our natural but
ill-founded questions about how this might reflect on the
president-elect and his closest advisers on the transition team.
Wow. Double wow. Dare I say it? Triple wow. That's quite a stand to
take when your whole industry, and the livelihoods of everyone in that
industry, depends on public curiosity about the rich, powerful people
who presume to lead us. Curious about Chicago politics? Forget it. The
governor is just some accidental loon. Are, or were, Obama and the
governor of Illinois close colleagues and have they spoken recently? Waste of
time to even ask. No point. Unthinkable. Did you hear the kind of
language the slut-wife used? Well, then. There you go. Barack and
Michelle would never associate with that kind of trash for a moment.
All of this is just a big misunderstanding, you'll see. Jesse Jackson,
Jr? Didn't you hear the thrill of emotion in his voice when he denied
knowing that some anonymous idiot -- also obviously crazy as a bedbug
-- offered Buggevitch a bunch of money for Obama's senate seat? There
you go.
And don't think this is partisan. Fox News is standing shoulder to
shoulder with the rest of the MSM. You should have seen the disgusted
look on Steve Doocy's face yesterday when Chicago DJ Mancow reported
that in Chicago at least, where
political
corruption is the very air
they breathe, people were speculating that Candidate 5 -- the one
bidding a
half-mill for Obama's legacy black senate seat -- was Jesse Jackson,
Jr. He was icy in his declaration that there was no evidence of that
whatsoever. And today, when the Jackson rumor was confirmed as fact,
Doocy was absolute in his
assertion that none of the wiretaps involved principals, only unnamed
whoevers. So there.
With this kind of evident, patriotic integrity, it's harder than ever
to understand why people just aren't buying newspapers and news
magazines anymore. Why the mass media have an approval rating
approaching the catastrophic levels of the U.S. Congress. Why people
are gradually tuning out on the cable news networks. Why journalism as
a supposed profession is widely seen as dead as a doornail.
Consider the irony. How many years -- how many decades? -- have people
complained that the press brings us only the bad news and never the
good. Now, when they've made it clear that the news about Obama will be
forever, absolutely and incontrovertibly good, they
stillwant to kill the messenger.
So much the unfairness of things.
I'd leave it there for all of you to stew about in the rank landfills
of your degraded consciences, but there's one more
point that has to be made. When you circle the wagons around the tents
of those who must be protected at all costs, who are you protecting
them against? In this case, I guess, it would be the U.S. Cavalry, the
constitutionally authorized forces of law and order whom the MSM have
long known to be the true ogres on the American scene. That's a
formidable enemy to be sure, and
it explains more than anything else ever could why the members of the
fourth estate are apparently willing to cut the throats of their own
businesses, and themselves, to save the One from harm, in advance of
the facts they have no interest in reporting.
If The New York Times should somehow survive for another thousand
years days,
people will always say of them, "Truly, this was their finest hour."
That sure beats doing their damn job. Don't it?
P.S. [A
Notation in the "InstaPunk is always right" file] Here's what I said
back in July:
All of which makes me wonder big-time
if the MSM understands how huge a
catastrophe for themselves all the salaaming before the Obamessiah is
bringing down on their own thoughtless heads...
Continue being the same adoring cheerleaders you've been so far --
through the inevitable crises and missteps and blunders and failures --
and the already tottering structure of the MSM will collapse in
cataclysmic ruin. You will bore your dwindling audience absolutely to
death, and they will begin seeking honest news reporting elsewhere. (As
they have been, btw, for some time now; how's NYT stock doing these
days, kemo sabe?)
The nature of your bet thus far is idiotic -- that Obama really is the
absolute answer to everyone's prayers you so want him to be. He isn't.
He's a flesh-and-blood man who will stumble and err and make some truly
awful decisions. When that happens, your extravagantly uncritical
support for his rise to power will make you accountable to many
Americans before you cover the first act of his administration. And
when he does take office, the fact that you have let him rewrite all
the rules of what is and is not fair coverage in political reporting
will do you in no matter what course you choose. Criticize him and be
branded with some of the worst labels available in these United States.
(
The New Yorker is
anti-muslim?
Anyone? Please.) Suck up to him and go rapidly out of business -- not
to mention
lose all the power
you have so jealously acquired and used so self-righteously in the last
hundred years.
Take your pick.
Or, in the current environment, pick your poison. Who was it who said
something about "chickens coming home to roost"? I forget. How about you?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
YouTube Wednesday:
Obama's Fantastic
Voyage
Be patient. We'll
get to the relevance. In the meantime, enjoy Raquel.
ATONEMENT FOR
YESTERDAY. You've gotta love the new scandal erupting in Illinois.
(Anyone
want to place any bets on whether the MSM will dub it "ChicagoGate,"
"GovernorGate," or "SenatorGate"? We're offering 10-1 against.) To me
it seems there are already two major stories being ignored as the lions
of the media start ripping at the carcass of Governor Buggevitch. How
many more stories will (not) emerge as this sorry melodrama plays
itself out on
TV and in the papers? Well, those are questions for later on. Right now
we're concerned with just two.
How is this
not a huge story
about mass media negligence? Why are the
New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times,
and
Boston Globe not being
printed on red paper today, or at least pink, signifying the utter
embrarrassment they should be feeling? The cesspool of Illinois and
Chicago-style machine politics that's being revealed just now was
surely relevant to the voters' ability to assess the career of Barack
Obama, since
all his time in
elected office
before he
started running for the presidency (in
Year One of his tenure as a U.S.
Senator) occurred in Chicago, Illinois. Think about it. All the crooks
we are suddenly learning about, and will be learning about in weeks to
come,
should have been
household names a year ago, revealed by the national media's
professional determination to vet a wholly unknown aspirant to the
highest office in the land. We should already know
everything about politics-as-usual
in a state where two previous governors are serving prison terms for
corruption and the current mayor of Chicago is the son of the most successful
-- and openly acknowledged, to the point of humor -- old-time political
boss in the United States, Richard J. Daley. But truthfully, everything
we're learning today is news to us. All of us. What a mess. Obama came
from this? How exactly? In short, we should already know every jot and
tittle of
the second huge
unmentioned story, which is...
The Fantastic
Voyage of Barack Obama. So. Somehow, Barack Obama started his
political career in this sewer of corruption, rose to elected office
and fame without ever being slowed, sidetracked, or done in by the
ubuquitous dirty dealing, and has now ascended to the presidency of the
United States just as the whole rotten political infrastructure he cut
his teeth on is collapsing, and he is
still
miraculously above suspicion of doing anything that's not squeaky
squeaky clean. Well, hell. That's a tremendous story if there ever was one.
No wonder his supporters speak of him in Christ-like terms.
But how exactly does someone -- anyone -- do that? It's almost as if
his entire journey through the diseased body of Chicago politics
occurred inside a specially constructed cocoon of sterility, something
like a tiny, high-tech hospital ship. I'm prepared to believe that. I
suppose. But some explanation, based on research and hard factual
reporting, would be a big help. All I've got at the moment is a kind of
blurry science fiction image that's long on dramatic music and short
on, well, everything else.
I
can't make it out. Is that Michelle fighting off those corrupt
antibodies?
Is that the Rezko deal? Or something
more sinister? Waitig for WAPO...
Or do you see something I don't?