Take last Monday, for instance. As I started out the day, I had five things I wanted to get done– all of them for sheer enjoyment’s sake. I wanted to (1) watch a video of my cousin Steve teaching, (2) read part of a couple books, (3) listen to some new music, (4) learn a new song on my guitar, and, most importantly, (5) something else I can’t remember because it’s not that important right now.

Yes, those all sound like wonderful things to do on a lazy day off while my wife is off at school and I’m sitting around the house wearing pajama pants and a funny t-shirt that I am the only one laughing at.

But I didn’t do any of them.

So what did I do instead?!

I played the brand new FIFA 2006 on my Xbox. All day. It was an amazing accomplishment, when I think about it. It’s been a long time since I played video games regularly and it’s been ages since I actually went on a binge.

So, today, instead of frittering away the hours trying to set up the perfect cross from Rooney to Ruud, I am going to work today on finishing what I’ve started, as I have scattered around the house and various “drafts” folders piles of unfinished business.

FIFA 2006 and Man. U can wait a few more Mondays.

But I’m already writing about it, so what the heck…

My theory is this: People who do specific things very well are either normal, stable people who work very hard and practice a great deal or they are rabid, mildly insane and extremely eccentric people who are also phenomenally gifted.

See the diagram below:

This is certainly a very limited diagram. There are, of course, more than four quadrants of people. It’s totally silly to limit the vast number of people out there to just four categories. There’s like five!

I fall into that small, unnamed category of those who are rabid, mildly insane, extremely eccentric people who are not phenomenally gifted, but don’t practice either. Thankfully, I have taken care of the rabies issue. For now.

But seriously, here’s the problem: I am a dabbling jackass of all trades. (All trades except blacksmithery, that is. Bloody anvils!) As soon as something I’m working in or on gets too difficult, I find a new hobby or skill to take up.

There are several things that have haunted me for many years. One is this creepy ghost named Mr. Charlesworth Richenbacher. But he and I have been getting along for some time, so that’s really not a problem. But the other thing that has haunted me for so long has been my inability to practice things once reaching an operating level of proficiency.

For example, after playing guitar long enough, I could play most of the basic chords and all of the uncomplicated barre chords quite easily. At that point, my development as a guitar player choked, wheezed, and sputtered to a stop. When I could hack together a web page designed entirely in notepad without it looking horrible, I stopped working on my html and css skills. Same goes for Photoshop, Premiere, and a huge number of software titles, as well as the Linux and Mac operating systems.

More important to me than any other skill is writing, but I plateaued there as well and stopped practicing.

once I reached the point in college where I could crank out in 24 straight hours a high quality full term paper with research, full citations and multiple revisions, I stopped working on my writing. After I finished college, I didn’t write anything.

Unfortunately, when I was in second grade, after reading Alexander Key’s Sprockets, I determined that I would practice writing every single day of my life. Shortly thereafter, I signed my name in blood on the back inside cover of Beverly Cleary’s Dear Mr. Henshaw. And the blood’s now about as crusty as my un-practiced writing has gotten.

Today, however, I have decided to make good on the committment I put myself to so many years ago. I am going to write something every day. To keep myself accountable, I am going to post something every day. I won’t necessarily post what I write, as a lot of it will probably suck ass. But I will do my best to post something just so I can keep track of my progress.

Who knows? Maybe I’ll be the next Steve Geluso!

The term “broken”, does not mean “never worked” of course, nor does it mean “irreparable”. From an optimistic sense, when something is broken we are provided the best opportunity to fix it, even to make it better. And every good AA chap worth his twelve steps knows that admitting you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it. Thus, I present the problem as I see it. I do not claim to be the first to point any of this out. My aim is to aggregate and parse the truth.

This nation was founded not upon impetuous talking points, but on informed contemplation and authentic debate. Here’s to the hope that is our future and not merely our past.

A Civics Lecture from a Comedian? Yep.

It is rare in today’s American media to witness authentic, heartfelt passion without an agenda. We were given such a gift from an unlikely source last Friday when The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart shredded CNN’s Crossfire, its hosts, and major television news media on the “debate” show. [CNN Transcript, video clip mirrors: 1 2 3 4 5 6]

Stewart compared Crossfire’s “debate” format to the argumentative equivalent of professional wrestling, calling it staged theatre. He said Crossfire, Hardball, and shows of their kind simply create a forum for politicians and their cronies to spout endless talking points, while only using an opposing talking points to refute them.

There is a line that I have heard Stewart utter an increasing number of times in the past year when told that he was highly respected as a news anchor or when informed of the results of the several polls and studies related to the trustworthiness of the Daily Show. He says, “That is either a terrible statement about the state of news in our country or the state of comedy on our program.”

Perhaps we and the media do indeed need a “civics lecture” from a comedian.

In an interview on NPR, Stewart explained his view of the problem in detail:

These political parties are basically dedicated to figuring out how to game the system. And they have found – I think – the real vulnerability in our media, and they are exploiting that loophole. And that vulnerability is twofold: one is the pace at which the 24 hour networks have – and the other is that the anchors are not versed in an expertise of news, they are “TV people”.

And so those two together form sort of a conspiracy of a non-aggression pact, if you will, and it allows these “talking point robots” – operatives from different political parties – to go on these shows and basically lay it out without question. And it’s designed to influence people through repetition.

In Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire, co-host Paul Begala tried to defend the show saying, “We’re a debate show… we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out…” Stewart’s response to this issue comes across clearest in the NPR interview, where he says, “In the marketplace of ideas, from what I understand, there aren’t only two products available… that’s like saying fair competition is soda machines with only Coke and Pepsi in them.”

Watching Crossfire and listening to the NPR interview, my heart raced with excitement, hearing the truth spoken.

In an age when the corporations, the ruling elite, and mass media are in bed together providing a maximum of two worldviews sold hard using emotionally charged rhetoric like “flip-flopper” or “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” or “the American people are safer” or “the number one most liberal senator” or “W stands for women” or “W stands for wrong”.

The level of discourse in any political campaign will naturally sink to that of a junior high ASB election without someone doing the work of breaking past the mudslinging and campaign slogans. Let’s face it. For the masses, two polarized sides hard selling and shredding are far more entertaining to watch than a group of people thoughtfully engaging the issues in a civilized and logical manner. Every argument seems to boil down to statements fishing for an emotional reaction.

I am reminded of my favorite Simpsons episode, “The PTA Disbands.” [clip] The teachers strike and Principle Skinner and Mrs. Crabopple are facing off before the PTA over more money for teachers and school supplies. The teacher says, “It’s for your children! They’re the future!” And the crowd is heard excitedly and joyfully saying to each other, “Yeah The kids! It’s about the kids!” Then the principal cuts in on the mike and says, “We’ll have to raise taxes!” Immediately the crowd shifts to a negative murmur “Oh! Taxes! I hate taxes!” they say. “Think about the children!” Mrs. Crabopple says. The crowd changes again, reacting positively and murmuring. “It’ll cost ya!” Skinner says. “Arr! Taxes! Not taxes!” the crowd says. “C’mon…” says Crabopple and the crowd reacts again cheerfully. Then Skinner rubs his fingers together and the crowd murmurs, “Oh yeah! Taxes! The finger thing means the taxes! We hate taxes!” And so it goes.

But this is the media environment that has been created. It’s a high-calorie, low-nutrition junk food diet high in emotionally charged sound bytes and low in facts.

Look. It’s very easy to say this is the most secretive administration in history, as so many have alleged. Perhaps it is. Maybe it isn’t. People fault this president for not being curious enough, But every politician would love the gift the media has handed this president: a “free pass” and absolute compliance. So what if Bush has held fewer press conferences than any president in history? It doesn’t really matter if our media doesn’t care!

Our media has lost its status as watchdog by allowing its bark and bite to atrophy.

Compare Bill O’Reilly’s interview of President Bush with that of Irish reporter Carole Coleman. [O'Reilly video, Coleman video] Now, it doesn’t matter what political party he belongs to, I want journalists to beat the heck out of my president – regardless of political party! I want journalists to make them feel awkward. I want my president so exposed to the truth that he has to eat it or it will eat him.

Why don’t we have any reporters like Carole Coleman? Why is it that American media seems to have little to no interest in actual journalism? Because they – just like the politicians they promote – are owned by corporations.

People talk all the time about the media bias. The liberal media bias! The conservative media bias! But as Al Franken wonderfully points out in his latest book, the primary media bias is neither liberal nor conservative. It is overwhelmingly a money bias. (Except for the Family Circus, which has a funny and heartwarming bias.)

That money bias, unfortunately, flows from the same place our politians’ money bias does: corporations.

In Bill Moyers’ brilliant collection of essays and speeches, Moyers on America, he points out that while news was once a loss-leader and advertising was the moneymaker in journalism, the demand by megamedia conglomerates for increased profit in a highly distracted and segmented market has made sensationalism and celebrity our top headlines. It is this increasing demand by news corporations for profit without honor that is killing our ability to govern ourselves. Without a real understanding of the issues, we are lost in a sea of appeals to our emotions.

John Adams said, “But as long as human nature shall have passions and imagination, there is too much reason to fear that these advantages, in many instances, will have more influence than reason and equity can justify.”

This past year I read David McCullough’s amazing biography of John Adams and came to have a deep admiration for our second president, who was a strong advocate of education and informed opinions. He was blessed with an environment that encouraged and enabled civilized discourse, something we have not been afforded.

But whether or not our current situation makes discussion comfortable, Adams was right in saying, “Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people.” Reclaiming the media is not an option if we value liberty.

Believe it or not, but we still have the power to reign in these corporations through greater levels of political accountability and involvement.

O Murrow, Where Art Thou?

When it comes to icons of integrity and the true spirit of journalism, Edward R. Murrow tops most lists. As a proud graduate of the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication, journalism, and related issues have always been interesting and important to me. The media’s role as the so-called “fourth branch” of government has been a long established principle of American democracy. Murrow contributed as a watchdog particularly through his World War II broadcasts from Europe and his undermining of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s House Unamerican Activities Committee.

The recent controversy regarding CBS’s airing of a story based on faked military documents intended to discredit the president gives us a pointed analogy for how far we’ve come. A disgraced Dan Rather now sits at the desk where Murrow once anchored a trusted name in news.

Certainly the falsified records story makes a statement about the condition of journalism, but the greatest problem in American media has been its shift from being a political watchdog to a political lapdog.

Thanks to the Internet, what Stewart did last Friday on Crossfire has the potential to be a wakeup call for American media on par in importance with some of Murrow’s work. Monday’s reaction from the hosts of Crossfire demonstrated just how serious of a threat Stewart is viewed as. Over the past six months watching the Daily Show, I have seen Jon Stewart grow more and more frustrated about the state of media. During that time, he has spoken out on a number of broadcasts outside his own.

So how did we get here? How did we get to the place where the most powerful critiques of American media come from a comedian from a fake news program on a cable comedy channel?

When Comedy Central birthed the Daily Show in 1996, it is highly unlikely its creators knew it had the potential to become a meaningful contribution to American democracy. With a steady need for new material, the show’s writers would have to constantly watch every major news program and then identify items to mock. Inadvertently, the show has created a media watchdog culture founded in satire, a powerfully effective form of communication.

The Daily Show moved from Craig “dumb as wood” Kilborn to Jon Stewart at anchor in 1999. In doing so, viewers were blessed with the always-suspicious postmodern comedian. And it was Stewart’s stubborn unwillingness to stomach political B.S. that blessed all of us with the first hero for American media in a long while.

It may be a little early to call Stewart the next Murrow, and I will probably get some flack for such a bold statement, but there is practically no one else out there willing or able to fight to turn this mess around.

I echo the thoughts of Brandon of Contemporary Insanity:

What was most surprising to me was the resonance this story, article, clip, and event had with all kinds of people, across the whole political and social and cultural spectrum. This may be the one time in my life that I’ve felt completely at one with the world. One post to TotalFark stated that Jon Stewart had “totally reenergized the youth vote”. And I couldn’t agree more. I’ve had the pleasure now of e-mailing, chatting, and instant messaging with people all over the United States, and all over the world, and it seems we all agree on one thing: it’s time for this major media [expletive] to end.

I hope Jon Stewart understands that before that day he was just a comedian with a fake news show that followed phone pranking puppets. Today, though, he stands as the undisputed voice of my generation.

Back to you, Jon.

See also:

Jon Stewart interview on NOW With Bill Moyers, 2004 [audio]
Jon Stewart interview on NOW With Bill Moyers, 2003 [transcript]