Media Monopolies- one message, different voices

Far be it from me to criticize a media monopoly. Last week, it actually got me quoted in over 14 different newspapers across the country, including the thriving metropolis of Saskatoon. I put the link at the bottom.

So is the Canwest chain (nee Southam) the Wynand Papers? Gail Wynand sold his integrity for power, I am not sure Lord Black can say the same thing. Wynand sold smut, to the lowest common denominator. At least the Financial Post offers something new and interesting from time to time.

I have always been very critical of the way that the media manufacturers news. The way they report a story has a way of shaping (what ultimately becomes) the truth. Tragically, because of the way that the media reports stories (short, 30 second bursts) the details are often lost in the flashy sound bite. Media monopolies compound this problem. They take the same flashy little sound bite and repeat it twenty times.

Of course suggesting that anything other than a free market should drive ownership would be in clear opposition to the objectivist view. An Equalization of Media Opportunity Bill; this is probably the only time I will ever be on the side of the looters.

But, does that mean that the ownership interests should be limited? Lord Black (incidentally, possibly the wickedest name for a comic book villain ever) owned newspapers in several countries, and let me assure you, the editorial content of the National Post never came close to that found in its Jerusalem equivalent, and the post has even denounced israel. In fact, in London, he sold the same kind of smut Wynand did. It was only when he started to get investigated that he used his soapbox(es) to advance his own political causes.

Why? Because he understood sales. He knew that not everyone cared what his opinions were on issues, and that force feeding them a biased perspective would drive readers away. So, what about the CBC?

In Rand world, the media is seen as a vivid participant in the public discourse. Only the truly insipid do not understand this to be a criticism of the media, and that they have failed in the role to report the news, rather than create it. Rand documented the rise and fall of Wynand because of the editorial choices he made.

The difference between rand world and ours is that there was a form of democracy associated to it. Wynand fell out of favour and people stopped reading his paper, and advertisers stopped selling in it. I can’t remember the last time that happened in Canada. Frank does not count.

Personally, I am very particular about most of what I read and watch. I find myself screaming at the television when an issue is misreported, or simply a fluffy human interest piece that no one in their right mind cares about. Kind of like reading Hi & Lois is every city (or, as my friend says For Better or for Worse). Of course, that has to do with syndication, not monopolies.

Theoretically, having competition for media stories would improve the quality of journalism. It would certainly contribute the diversity of editorial opinion. Without Lord Black, that diversity has arrested itself.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/national/story.html?id=d2e0d545-bfb1-48d0-81e1-8909fa250501

Taggart's Man in Ottawa

Taggart had a man in Washington.

It wasn’t until yesterday that I actually figured out what that meant. That man wasn’t only a lobbyist. That man was a fundraiser who literally bribed congressman into doing his bidding. So, why is money so important? In politics, money is the vehicle to articulate an idea. In business, politics is the vehicle to simplify business. Money is required by both politicians and businesses. Bizarre love triangle.

The Federal Accountability Act was introduced yesterday. It is 250 pages of amending legislation, tweaking already strong legislation under the auspices of making government more accountable. It is the perfect example of why campaigning on policy is a bad idea. There are good things in it, don't get me wrong, but it isn't the vehicle for massive change as it is being heralded.

One provision absolutely drives me bonkers. I can understand a universe where eliminating political contributions from corporations and unions can be seen as a good idea. Personally, I think corporate money is very important because it actually provides POORER candidates a chance to compete with the rich ones. Rich people have rich friends. Poor people have poor friends. Corporations and unions can contribute to rich people and poor people, and have employees or members. But I digress.

The limitation that the proposed act places on individual contributions is far more incommodious. The current standard of $5,000.00 (adjusted for inflation to $5,200) is not really all that much money. There were very few people who contribute this much. On its face, however, it is an affront to the constitutional right to free speech. Whether it is a reasonable infringement is debatable. Lowering it to $1,000.00 will produce a constitutional challenge, and if I can find someone to lend me a couple hundred grand, I will violate the law myself and take it all the way up to the top.

From Buckley to Harper (the case, as spearheaded by the PM by the same name) it is an established principle that limitations on contributions and spending can exist, but those limitations cannot be arbitrary, and they cannot infringe on a citizen’s ability to involve themselves in the political process. For me, this is an infringement because it prevents me from attending the events which I want to attend- it’s a violation of my right to assemble as much as it is a violation of my right to speech.

But, if I get 200 of my friends in a room at $200.00 apiece ($40,000.00) I am in violation of no law, and there is no registration requirement?

If the purpose of the legislation is to reduce the influence that money has on an election, or on a political party after an election, do you think that I should be able to organize that event? I can guarantee that exactly ZERO mps would balk at the chance to have that fundraiser held in their riding. I can also guarantee that when I call them the next day, they will pick up the phone. Forget the lobbyists who work on the campaign and then go back to their job at Summa Strategies, or the Ministerial staffer who quits to go and work for a trade association, the fundraisers I am talking about are the real problem.

It is true that most of these people work in the G.R. industry. That is a coincidence. Most of the attendees are nouveau riche or old money aristocrats who like to have cocktail parties and hob-knob with Ministers. Lillian Rearden, for example. These events will continue to exist, and making the price tag $1,000.00 instead of $5,200.00 isn’t going to change a thing.

Do you know how I know that most of the changes don’t matter? The people directly responsible for the scandal are either in jail, or on their way. The individuals involved in the sponsorship scandal were clearly in violation of Canada's election laws when they Funneled money in unmarked envelopes. Making legitimate donations smaller certainly would not have curtailed that type of egregious behaviour. They broke existing laws.

Justice Gomery pointed out that the vast majority of public servants are honest and there are measures in place to weed out the bad people. I don’t think that anything in the Accountability Act will stop people who are decidedly corrupt from continuing that practice. In fact, as best as I can tell, in order to stop government corruption, the Tories have decided to limit my rights.

I don’t care what the contribution limit is. If I have something to say, and I want to support someone who shares my views, I think I should be allowed to do it. My critics would tell me that I can register as a third party, and involve myself that way. Guess what- limitations abound on that speech as well.

If there is a public registry of contributions, and a public registry of government grants and contracts, I can draw a line between a huge contribution and a direct benefit. That is all we need.

Aristocracy of Pull, Burk v. Roark

James Taggart is probably already a member because he inherited his daddy’s role in society. The aristocracy of pull, however, bemoaned and lamented by his sister Dagny, was understood by her and she worked within it to create success for herself.

Martha Burk is a remarkably intelligent woman. She had led a campaign against the membership at Augusta National for years. Depending on your perspective, she has obtained varying degrees of success. For example, Ms. Burk forced advertisers to balk at showcasing their products during the tournament- seen by tens of millions worldwide.

Normally, this would be the coup-de-gras for any lobby effort. Unfortunately for Burk, the organizing committee at Augusta said that they would pay the entire advertising costs associated with the broadcast, at the time, well over 400 million dollars and let the tournament air on CBS without any advertising whatsoever. That is the power that money can buy.

She has also raised this issue to a level of international prominence. Sadly, even open minded individuals like myself stop listening to her as soon as the rolling hills of Augusta National are shown on television. The best comparison to be made is the one to the international pressure levied against South Africa- everyone thought apartheid was bad until they wanted a diamond. In this case, the greatest golf course in the world probably pushes equality into the back-seat. The good news is that women can still choose to not watch. Have a nice afternoon.

It is true that in the past Augusta National bent (a prize to anyone who gets the pun) to pressure and admitted an African American member. They now have three. To date, they do not have a female member. Contrary to popular belief, there is no club rule that prevents membership. The only rule for membership is that you have to be invited to join. Bill Gates, the most powerful of all billionaires and world famous philanthropist has not been invited to join despite openly expressing interest. No nerds allowed.

Myths abound regarding the benefits of membership at this very exclusive club. Included in those myths is that fact that it is a bastion for chauvinism and that secret deals are struck and Presidents elected. Hooey. For starters, women play at Augusta National all the time – like any other guest, they have to be invited by a member. Secondly, there are strict rules that prohibit conducting business affairs and using the course to provide a benefit to clients. Thirdly, in the absence of a long standing business relationship, and with few exceptions that must be signed off by the club’s board of directors, club members aren’t allowed to do business with one another. So, what is Martha so huffy about?

There is no doubt that I have serious problems with aristocracy, and it runs rampant at Augusta National. There is no doubt that I believe that individuals can overcome sexist hurdles imposed by society, and Rand is the best example of that. There is no doubt that I abhor stupid rules, and on its face, this is a stupid rule. To be fair, there are private women’s clubs all over the place that nobody seems to care about. But I digress. The bottom line is that I don’t share their views, and it is lamentable that they have elected to not invite a female member to their club.

There is a problem with lobbying and/or forcing Augusta National to have female members. If the Matrix taught us anything, it reminds us that the most important aspect of life is choice. Liberty to freely associate, unencumbered, is fundamental to human existence, and that quest for freedom drove Equality 7-2521 outside of the walled city, away from his forced associations. He returned to rescue the people he wanted to. The membership at Augusta National has the freedom to choose their associates. They are a private gaggle of predominantly old white guys, and they want to retain the ability to play at their golf club and determine who else should have the honour of sharing it with them. They are in violation of no law, and they are very serious about protecting their club’s legacy and traditions.

If society takes away the right to use freely property and time, society will not reverse any sexism which may exist within the Augusta National membership or the national business aristocracy. There is no doubt that these guys are not the most open-minded in the world, but ultimately, given time, even their views will change, and if they don’t- that is their choice.

And seriously, if we go after them for anything, maybe we should ask them to change the name of their tournament. The Masters? In Georgia? Is there anyone who doesn’t see the allusion?

The Virtue of Ceremony

Almost all of Rand's important characters hated ceremony. They either reflected this by their actions, or through their words. Waste, they would say, is the ultimate sin and is without virtue.

I gave a speech from the throne too. After I flushed it had about the same level of substance. The one delivered by her Excellency, however, had a lingering smell of cultural imperialism that just wouldn’t go away.

The pomp and circumstance that goes into the speech from the throne is the only thing that gets ordinary Canadians, albeit temporarily, to even pay attention, which is a problem in and of itself. I don’t know if that is because they don’t care, or if it is because the speech is really boring. This afternoon, there was about 45 minutes of very official knocking on doors and such. Did you know that the person who knocks on the door of the House of Commons (the usher of the black rod) makes well over a hundred grand a year? Pretty expensive trick-or-treater if you ask me.

In outlining the government’s five priorities, her Excellency did an adept job at reading the provisions drafted for her consideration by the Privy Council Office as ordered by the Prime Minister. It was also fun to watch the MPs herded behind the thin gold bar at the entrance to the Senate floor. That said, what a phenomenal waste of time and more importantly, money. There were numerous government officials who probably don’t have to do anything except go to cocktail parties until the next throne speech. The entire process reeked of elitism and government largesse with which few Canadians could identify. It was nice that the Governor General invited Santa clause and eight of his stunt doubles to attend.

At least when the President delivers the State of the Union to Congress, he can actually do something about it. What is her Excellency going to do if the House of Commons ignores her? Go out and buy a new hat? Our system of government pretty clearly establishes that the de facto Head of State and the legislative branch are on the same page, and if it doesn't, let me assure you that separatists are not suddenly going to see the light because of the carefully chosen words of the Prime Minister, read by a woman who is the representative of her Majesty, the Queen of England, also known as the embodiment of English as an intergenerational cultural oppressor. Je me souviens, indeed.

At least the State of Union helps frame the debate from the perspective of the single most important political figure in the states.

This is not a call for a wholesale renewal of our parliamentary system or process. This is a call for the Prime Minister to look beyond the Senate when he goes after democratizing institutions that Canadians pay for. The Senate actually does something for the average Canadian from time to time- I don’t think the usher of the Black Rod can say the same thing.

But, what about tradition? Tradition is fine provided that it doesn’t impinge upon the present. Tell Canadians that there won’t be money for wheelchairs or for combating homelessness because they spent over a million dollars firing blanks into the air and making sure that the Senate understands the importance of their role. I am not going to suggest for one second that massive policy changes would occur if we had that extra million bucks, but if we added it to the millions "carefully expended" investigating the millions syphoned off to well placed members of the former government to help save federalism...

It just smells. Can't one of the more nubile Senators get up and knock on the door instead?