NPR: National Public Ruckus (October 25, 2010)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

NPRSMALLHEADER

Bill O’Reilly is having a hell of a month. The professional muckraker and Fox News pugilist managed to manipulate his proffered vision of a tyrannically liberal media into a self-fulfilling prophecy on October 14th. That was the Thursday when, embroiled in a heated discussion with the ladies of “The View” over whether or not the “Ground Zero” mosque should ever see the light of day, O’Reilly caused co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk offstage mid-broadcast with five little incendiary words: “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” When head diva Barbara Walters responded by saying “I love my colleagues, but that should not have happened,” I am sure old Bill had trouble containing his glee.

Over the course of O’Reilly’s long career, I have witnessed this pattern over and again, the consistency of a practiced bully: keep yelling and poking until you hit the right nerve, then stand back and act befuddled, telling your adoring audience, “See, you can’t even have a conversation with these guys!” But why fix what isn’t broken? If nothing else, I admire the man’s PR savvy. After “The View” confrontation, that evening’s broadcast of “The O’Reilly Factor” welcomed over four million viewers, easily trouncing the competition at CNN, MSNBC and Headline News.

Joy and Whoopi played right into O’Reilly’s hand and all parties earned a couple of days of front and center media coverage. This is a page from the Fox host’s established playbook. However, I don’t believe the talking head was egomaniacal enough to predict that lightning would strike twice for him in the cultural zeitgeist this month. O’Reilly was nothing more than a fortunate bystander in last week’s blow up between NPR and longtime political analyst Juan Williams, and yet one can be certain that the incident created another occasion for the Fox News star to do the happy dance.

By now anyone who hasn’t been hiding in an underground bunker (a tantalizing prospect before next week’s midterm elections to be sure), has heard the famous exchange between Williams and O’Reilly that led to the former’s axe from liberal media stalwart National Public Radio:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said. “But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” To the suggestion that an expression of these views might be a bit, un-PC shall we say, Williams went on to state: “Look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”

NPR did not wait long to act. In a tersely worded statement, the media giant called Williams a “valuable contributor” but said that his comments “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” And there you have it, right?

Wrong. In a turn of events that it is now certain NPR never predicted, the conglomerate began to take hits from all sides of the political and ideological spectrum. The axis of most of these potshots rotates around a single question: in this age of corporate media domination, a time of 24-hour viral spin, is there room left for free speech? For one moment, professionals of all stripes have been able to put aside the partisan spin to take an overdue look at the journalistic profession, a sector that has begun to have the kind of approval ratings that make members of Congress appear positively loveable by comparison.

The behemoth “liberal media” banner has taken so many punches lately from so many silos, I sincerely hope the vocation has given consideration to investing in one of the “Cadillac” health care plans that President Obama discussed last summer. Predictably, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, who has since offered the sacked Williams a job at the conservative outlet, labeled the analyst “an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.” One can hardly blame the network for its carpe diem approach to casting itself as the last bastion of the First Amendment, irritating as it may be.

However, more surprising was the response from left leaning publications like The Washington Post, which labeled the NPR imbroglio, “Williams’ Shirley Sherrod moment.” This reference to the former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the USDA, who was unceremoniously dumped by the Department after a manipulative video produced by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart framed her as a racist, is pregnant with meaning.

While Juan Williams’ statements on “The O’Reilly Factor” may have been cringe worthy to a subset of the American audience, they were clearly offered as opinion, a reflection of the commentator’s own experience and internal struggles, rather than a journalistic conclusion. The point of the dialogue, which lovers of Western democracy claim they desire, was to facilitate a discussion about the visceral reactions associated with wearers of traditional Muslim garb onboard aircraft. While Williams’ comments may have been clumsily framed, they should not have been cause for dismissal. Was O’Reilly sacked for his blanketed, incendiary rhetoric on “The View?” Once we start firing people for sharing their fears openly, no matter how misinformed we might find them, we have entered a new era of McCarthyism.

And the association between NPR and intolerance may lead to expensive repercussions beyond the costs of image repair. As the Associated Press reports:

“In response to the firing, South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint planned to introduce legislation to end federal funding for NPR, his spokesman Wesley Denton said Thursday night. Denton said the senator would expand upon his proposal in a statement on Friday.”

In rejoinder to this bit of legislative opportunism, sometimes Republican lawmakers and full-time media whores Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee joined the braying chorus for NPR’s figurative head. Yes, the non-profit membership media organization acted hastily, and perhaps unfairly, in its handling of Juan Williams, but blatant cynicism on top of cynicism is clearly no solution at all.

There are, however, questions to answer. Many card carrying liberals are uncomfortable with the proximity of NPR’s recent intolerance of dissenting opinion to the “fair and balanced” right wing slant from which the media warhorse once sought to set itself apart.

Obama’s Election Team Needs A Bit Of Newt Attitude (February 5, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

obama-gingrich-300x224

Disclaimer: The author of this column is in NO WAY advocating for the Presidency of Newt Gingrich. He is a delusional narcissist of epic proportions, whose previous House “leadership” provided ample 1990s evidence that he shouldn’t be trusted to make decisions about where to order takeout (Tiffany to-go boxes anyone?) let alone guide the nation. And yet….

“But for those tempted to once again predict the speedy collapse of his campaign, consider yourselves forewarned. I’ve known this guy long enough to realize that the only three species destined to survive a nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich.”

– Joe Scarborough, Politico, 1/27/2012

In a 2012 Republican Presidential campaign that will be forever remembered for its absurdity, it is still easy to pinpoint the most amusing candidate. This year’s election is deadly serious, with so many elements of our social, political and economic fabric at stake. The nation’s middle class has been besieged from all sides for the better part of 35 years. Whichever party assumes control of the legislative and executive branches of government this fall will determine whether America backslides toward the one percent-friendly policies of George W. Bush, or continues the incremental change momentum the POTUS has painstakingly secured.

In a different field of Republican contenders, I might feel considerable anxiety. Obama is vulnerable on a number of fronts: some real (health care reform), some imagined (see accusations of “European-style socialism”). There is a long way to go, and many national mood shifts to expect, before the polls open in November. And yet, given the uncanny ability of GOP hopefuls to stick their feet in sewage or exhibit double-take ignorance, this appears to be the President’s contest to lose.

This state of affairs affords me the latitude to sit back and admire the utter chutzpah of Newt Gingrich. It is clear by now that even amongst members of his own party, few believed Mr. Gingrich to be a viable contender when he announced his candidacy in May of last year. However Newt has demonstrated for over 25 years that he is Washington’s answer to the Playskool Weeble, and here were are in 2012 waiting with bated breath. The suspense has been  heightened by Mitt Romney’s failure to create a personality or a cognitive weigh station that might prevent him from blurting out his indifference toward the poor. Still let’s not take anything away from Gingrich.

Because really in another context, Newt Gingrich’s immunity to poll numbers, conventional wisdom and the agenda of his own party would be quite admirable. Newt possesses the kind of single-minded determination Democrats could only dream of last summer. While enduring the tragic debt ceiling debate and the added caveat of “Yes, we can…but only if John Boehner says so,” many liberals may have yearned for a little of that Gingrich magic, the ability to barrel through roadblocks like so many pieces of balsa wood.

I have lost count of how many times Newty has come back from the dead, and though his smug delusions of grandeur are often tough to swallow, I would argue that it is his complete indifference to popular support that has gotten him this far. With an overflowing reservoir of self-regard, he simply doesn’t need anyone’s love.

Whatever one’s opinion of Gingrich, I wouldn’t have minded a little more indifference toward Gallup from the Obama team subsequent to the 2008 inauguration. A eye toward the play in Poughkeepsie has, on occasion, led to much dithering and inertia.   Like him or not (most of us not), you don’t run that risk with Newt.

Late-January’s State of the Union address signaled the possibility of a messaging pivot from the White House. But the President’s inner circle needs to do a lot more than just issue confident statements. After a bruising three years, and an achingly slow vindication of policy, they need to display some real swagger. At the risk of inviting mountains of hate mail, may I suggest an internal mantra for the re-election team? WWND. What Would Newt Do?

Is This What We Were Sold? (October 9, 2010)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

ThisIsWhatWeWereSoldSmallHeader

For the second time in a 10-year professional career, I find myself in the position of having to collect government cheese. By that I mean I have joined the ranks of the approximately 11 million people who currently collect some type of unemployment benefit. Every other week, like so many of my fellow Americans, I call-in or go online to “certify” that I am not a complacent, louse of a person content to rake in $275 a week before taxes, instead of looking for a gainful occupation. It is truly a dehumanizing ordeal, as has pretty much always been the case.

However 2010 is no ordinary year. We are now a full 24 months into an economic collapse of epic proportions. Through the use of some magic formula that millions of suffering and out of work Americans (including me) don’t comprehend, the unemployment rate has remained steady at 9.6% for several months. I think I speak for a lot of us when I declare that more than 9.6% of my inner circle are either looking for work, or have taken a job with ludicrously bad pay, hours and/or benefits simply because they have to survive. Be that as it may, we’ll go with 9.6% for now. Even those with jobs have lost their homes by the truck load, or are in the process of doing so, less fortunate than those so far “underwater,” owing to the rapid decline in home prices, that they can reasonably expect to be stuck in place for a decade or longer. It’s not pretty for members of the middle and lower classes, to end this paragraph with a gigantic understatement.

In fact upon reflection, there are many differences between my experience as a newly unemployed worker today versus October 2001, the last time I received a pink slip and an invitation to purchase ridiculously expensive COBRA health coverage. I am not saying that being handed my post-9/11 walking papers was easy, especially with no work experience outside the foundering travel industry. The two months it took me to find a new job were no doubt anxious times. Yes, I said TWO MONTHS. And I was 23 years-old. And the job I accepted paid more than the one I lost. Seriously, in this decade, can you imagine?

So with that in mind, for your reading pleasure and my need to make sense out of the current tailspin in which I find my career, I have prepared the following bulleted list of varying experiences as a person standing in the bread line, 2001 versus 2010.

  • 2001: Age – 23
  • 2010: Age – 32

I assume it goes without saying that this difference is more than just numbers. At 23 years of age, I was too dumb to be terrified after losing my first post-collegiate job. Not to mention I didn’t appreciate what I had. In a short time I had worked my way up from corporate travel agent at a large firm, to a communications coordinator role, which means I had the thankless task of being wined, dined and partied by ostentatious hotel representatives. I was routinely plied with free cocktails and comped luxury suites, for the favor of publicizing a particular chain’s “hot rate” in Salt Lake City via newsletter. When I was released with the freedom to “find myself,” I had the nerve to be relieved.

In 2010, I’ve lost a mind-numbingly stressful administrative management job, far from creatively satisfying and definitely minus the chi chi parties and fruity drinks. Oh, and I earned roughly the same as I did in the position I lost in 2001. Stagnant wages anyone?

  • 2001: Cause for Dismissal – Bottoming out of travel sector after 9/11 use of airplanes as weapons.
  • 2010: Cause for Dismissal – Disapproval of my outfit one day (or something equally arbitrary)

It’s certainly an employer’s world, isn’t it? I recall vividly the heady days of Summer 2000 when I posted my resume online, cobbled together from work “experience” at Bob Evans and an adult bookstore, sat back and relaxed. Interested employers came to me and in the end, my fresh out of college ass had more than one job offer to consider. When I was laid off, I knew it to be little more than bad timing in the wrong industry. I couldn’t take it personally, and as we have already concluded, I wasn’t worried in the least about finding another position.

But this time, it took me 11 months of constant hustling after leaving my previous employer to find a “good” job, and once earned, I found it nearly impossible to keep. As part of a two-person operation where the only other full-time employee, my boss, held all the power, I was sacked after enduring a half year’s worth of working lunches, late hours, ungodly deadlines and emotional blackmail that would have made Miranda Priestly, the uber bitch slave driver of The Devil Wears Prada, proud. It is telling the level of insecurity with which I view my future prospects that I still burst into tears upon learning I was being “transitioned.” Instead I should have been sashaying out of the building, vacation pay firmly in hand to put toward the cost of therapy.

  • 2001: Method of unemployment claim filing – Analog paper and pen at the offices of the Illinois Department of Employment Security
  • 2010: Method of unemployment filing – Internet(?)

How relieved I was to learn that government bureaucracy had entered the digital age. I could sit at home indulging in a major depressive episode with unwashed hair and a wicked case of acne, escaping the thick film of sadness that clings my body after each trip to IDES. Online avoidance contained mass appeal for me.

Yet when I received a letter two days after filing my web application, stating that I was “ineligible” for benefits because my employer had yet to report third quarter payroll to the State, I felt horrifically duped. Why had I fallen through the obviously naive trap door? The government, efficient and easy for taxpayers? The hell you say! Of course I had to go and stand in a 90-minute line, cloaked in that familiar and desperate sadness that only a 30 year-old dimly lit building can provide. Now I must hope and pray that the check stubs I submitted as evidence of my work from July 1 to October 13 will be deemed acceptable to the unemployment gods.

I could go on with my little exercise, but you get the idea. Times have changed. But beyond using the space of this page to pander to my personal need for a pity party, what exactly is the point?

The answer is simply another question. Why? Why have all the rules changed? Why is it no longer enough to obtain a higher education, amass a solid work history, and attempt to play by the rules? And most of all, why do we sit around complacently and act like it’s out of our hands?