National Guard Suicides: The Problem is the War on Terror

Shortly before Thanksgiving, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released an important investigative report (behind a paywall) by reporters Katelyn Ferral and Natalie Brophy on the tragic increase in suicides among soldiers in the Wisconsin National Guard. The report tells the stories of four Wisconsin National Guardsmen who went to Afghanistan together and returned safely. Tragically, all of them took their own lives within months of each other. The four soldiers--James Swetlik, Eric Richley, Evan Olson, and Logan Collison--were victims not just of the inadequate support system available for guardsmen during and after their service commitment, but of the misguided and never ending war on terror policy that changed the National Guard "forever." 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's important and informative report on Wisconsin National Guard suicides included this photo of the mothers of Logan Collison, Eric Richley, and Evan Olson at a memorial for their sons. 

As a university teacher I've had National Guardsmen in my classes as students. They are usually extraordinary young people striving to be "ordinary." That description certainly fits the fallen soldiers portrayed in Ferral and Brophy's reporting: "Specialist Evan Olson,a 24-year-old from Waunakee, had a penchant for trivia and wore red, white and blue every Fourth of July. Specialist Logan Collison, 21, was an exceptional artist and wanted to be a history teacher. He was from Oshkosh. Specialist James Swetlik, a 23-year-old from Appleton, enjoyed traveling, at one time working as a cross-country truck driver. Sergeant Eric Richley, at 32 was the oldest of the four. He lived in Nichols and was the father of two boys, ages 7 and 9." Collison was a student at UW Oshkosh. I did not know him, but several of my students did and they describe him as a fun loving, amazing young man who treated everyone with concern and kindness. More about each of the four soldiers can be found here. 

The death of young soldiers by suicide has become all too common. According to Ferral and Brophy, four times as many veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war have died by suicide than in battle. Nationwide, 90 Guard members died from suicide in 2019. In 2020 the number jumped to 120. The victim is most commonly male and under the age of 30. The report suggests that a large part of the problem stems from mental health issues brought on and/or reinforced by the extreme workload: "Guard units across the country have been called up more in the last year than in any 18-month period since World War II, and there's no cap on the number of times a soldier can be activated. Some families who lost soldiers to suicide say they are frustrated that the Guard markets itself as a part-time commitment." 

Even though 3 of the 4 victims profiled in the report expressed frustration with their Guard experience, Ferral and Brophy do not explore the connection between war policies hatched in Washington and the resulting impact on the military personnel putting those policies in place. Instead, the reporters frame the solution as essentially one of better mental health assistance for soldiers, more transparency from the Guard in terms of granting access to suicide investigations, developing more specific guidance on treatment with medications, and raising awareness of gun safety issues with veterans. 

All of the proposed solutions are important and should be implemented immediately. Unfortunately, they side step the real problem, which is the failed war on terror policy. That policy, known euphemistically as the "Bush Doctrine," has for 20+ years allowed the Pentagon to wage continual war in a number of countries in the name of "protecting the homeland." In 2001 the only member of the United States House of Representatives to vote against the "Authorization for use of military force" was California's Barbara Lee, who warned that it would be a blank check to wage war anywhere in the world with little accountability. Sadly, Lee turned out to be 100 percent correct. The authorization has been used to allow military deployments in at least 10 countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia), usually with limited or no debate in the Congress or in the national media. National Guard troops can be sent anywhere at any time. For example, one-thousand troops from Virginia and Kentucky just found out that they are going to the horn of Africa. 

The Department of Defense releases an "Annual Suicide Report." Journalists frequently use this document as a resource for discovering number of suicides by military unit, assistance available for veterans, and efforts the military is taking to confront the problem. The document is not surprisingly silent on how DOD's war on terror policies are at the root of the crisis. 

Under "Operation Inherent Resolve" the United States established what appears to be a permanent presence in Middle East hot spots, dropping bombs continuously. If you thought that the Biden Administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan meant that we would be scaling back these "dirty wars," you would be wrong. Just recently the Pentagon announced the renaming of Operation Inherent Resolve to "Special Operations Joint Task Force-Levant," and that its authority in the region would be expanded. The expansion of the dirty wars lends itself to more provocation of anti-US and anti-Europe sentiment in the world, which then increases the likelihood of the eventual need for troop deployments, which then leads back to the National Guard. In fact, what the Guard have experienced since 2001 is a defining feature of what I recently referred to as the "third score of shame".(By which I meant the years 2001-2021 as being a twenty-year period as shameful in its political cowardice, fear appeals, and tribalism as 1837-1857 and 1877-1897). 

Reporters Ferral and Brophy in the Journal Sentinel did not frame Guard suicides as an inevitable consequence connected to the failed war on terror. But the connection is there, and even suggested in the quoted remarks of suicide victims Eric Richley and  Logan Collison. Sergeant Richley, the father of two, was stricken with guilt after participating in an attack that killed 25 Afghan civilians including women and children. According to the report, his mother recalled him asking, "What if it had been my kids that somebody did that to?" Logan Collison started to grasp the politics of it all. Ferral and Brophy write that "According to his family, Logan increasingly felt like a political pawn. He said the Guard had become an 'easy button' that politicians pushed anytime there was a problem they didn't know how to address." What Richley and Logan exposed in their remarks is nothing short of a national scandal, one that is bipartisan in nature and should--if democracy and the rule of law were anything more than applause lines at political fundraisers--lead to war crimes trials for the scoundrels who got us into this mess. 

Journalism that raises awareness of the plight of the National Guard is valuable and should be more common. But its value is diminished when it accepts the Pentagon's and the hack politicians' framing of the problem as being one of essentially how to guarantee better mental health access. The problem is much greater than that. As noted recently by Mark Landler in the New York Times, "Twenty years after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the so-called war on terror shows no signs of winding down. It waxes and wanes, largely in the shadows and out of the headlines." 

It's time to get the war on terror back in the headlines. It's time for journalists to resist pressures to parrot the Pentagon's line on all matters related to war and peace, including military suicides. It's time for the emergence of a new, reinvigorated peace movement that can honor the legacy of James, Eric, Evan, Logan and many others by demanding better from those who plan and profit from wars. 

Government By "Don't Think" Tanks and Twitter Trends

My "Running on MT" podcast co-host Matt King and I recently interviewed Wisconsin Senator Melissa Agard (D-Madison) about her Senate Bill 545 which would legalize cannabis in Wisconsin for medical and recreational purposes. Including her time in the Wisconsin State Assembly, Agard has sponsored cannabis legalization legislation for eight consecutive years. Not once has the Republican majority leadership scheduled the Bill for a hearing, even though it's now become common for Wisconsinites to travel to neighboring states for pot purchases and opinion polls show majority support for legalization. 

Interview with Senator Melissa Agard 

We asked Senator Agard how she became passionate about something like cannabis legalization. Her answer was very "old school." She said that while marijuana is not part of her personal culture and she never campaigned on the issue, every time she knocks on citizens' doors or meets voters in other settings, she hears numerous stories of how pot prohibition is harming people. As she told us: 

After I was elected and maybe even before I was elected, as I was knocking on doors and pounding the pavement so to speak . . . I had people coming up to me and sharing with me very personal, compelling stories about how the prohibition of cannabis was harming them and harming the people who they love. Whether it was the mom who was talking to me about her son who lost his scholarship and housing opportunities for college because he was pulled over for a missing tail light on his car and the police found a blunt in the ashtray. Or whether it was how egregious our racial disparities are when it comes to arrest for simple possession in Wisconsin--the fact that black and brown people are between four and seven times more likely to be "invited into" the criminal justice system than white folks. Or people who had left the state of Wisconsin to learn about and become part of the cannabis industry, and wanted to be able to come back and pollinate that knowledge and bring the industry into Wisconsin, but they weren't able to. Or parents with very ill children whose peers in other states were able to provide relief to their kids with access to cannabis . . . The stories could go on and on, but it was really clear to me through these stories that the most dangerous thing about pot in Wisconsin is that it's illegal, and prohibition is not working.

Every single member of the state legislature represents people with pot prohibition stories similar to those Senator Agard hears. No doubt every representative also hears from people with sincere, evidence based objections to legalization. (I personally support legalization based on the evidence I've seen and testimony I've heard, but am very open minded to opposing views.). In a functional, truly representative government, the way to work out the disagreements is to have public hearings on the Bill in the relevant committees. If the Bill makes it out of committee, then schedule debates in and votes of the full legislature. If it passes both Houses, send it to the governor for his signature. That's Civics 101. 

Note that I said "functional" government. State government in Wisconsin stopped being functional a long time ago, to the point where the old school practice of legislation starting at the grassroots level has virtually disappeared. What's replaced it is government by partisan [don't] think tanks and Twitter trends. 

A textbook example of what I'm talking about occurred recently in Wisconsin when the legislature along strictly partisan lines passed an education bill designed to ban Critical Race Theory from schools and mandate the GOP's vision of civics education. Let's compare what happened with Senator Agard's cannabis legislation with the GOP's education bill: 

*The cannabis legislation emerged from grassroots level discussions with citizens hurt by the current policy. The education legislation is part of a national movement spurred on by Fox News and other right wing actors. 

*The cannabis legislation has been filed for eight consecutive years and still has not had a committee hearing. The education legislation was introduced in June of this year and fast tracked through the legislature. 

*The cannabis legislation appears to be a good faith effort to address the real, documented harms caused by the current policy of prohibition. The education bill appears to be the latest episode in the never ending attempt to make hot-button culture war issues the center of attention in election season. (In Virginia, the central claim of Republican Glenn  Youngkin's gubernatorial campaign is that a vote for Democrat Terry McAuliffe is a vote for critical race theory. Youngkin might win.). 

*The cannabis legislation has bipartisan support among the people (83 percent including a majority of declared Republicans support medical marijuana; 59 percent including a majority who "lean Republican" support legalization for recreational purposes). Passing such legislation--or at least giving it an opportunity to be debated in good faith--would be a rare unifying moment across party lines in Wisconsin. In contrast, the education bill is strictly partisan, and its fast tracking and passage appeared designed to enhance divisions across the state. 

Put simply, the legislation to ban "Critical Race Theory" in Wisconsin education is just another example of our state legislature being coopted and exploited by national [Don't] Think Tanks and the Twitter trends they create. Because Don't Think Tanks and Twitter Trends are designed to build support for tribal interests as opposed to sound public policy, legislation that gets passed is often so poorly thought out that the consequences can range from absurd to unconstitutional to just frightening. For example, the education bill passed by the Wisconsin Assembly creates a literal censorship regime in the state's public schools, in which teachers are told that certain concepts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. 

Do you think I'm exaggerating? Last August, Wisconsin Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), one of the co-authors of the critical race theory ban, in testimony before a joint Assembly/Senate education committee meeting outlined a number of terms that would be prohibited subjects in the classroom: 

• Critical Race Theory (CRT)
• Action Civics
• Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
• Culturally responsive teaching
• Abolitionist teaching
• Affinity groups
• Anti-racism
• Anti-bias training
• Anti-blackness
• Anti-meritocracy
• Obtuse meritocracy
• Centering or de-centering
• Collective guilt
• Colorism
• Conscious and unconscious bias
• Critical ethnic studies
• Critical pedagogy
• Critical self-awareness
• Critical self-reflection
• Cultural appropriation/misappropriation
• Cultural awareness
• Cultural competence
• Cultural proficiency
• Cultural relevance
• Cultural responsiveness
• Culturally responsive practices
• De-centering whiteness
• Deconstruct knowledges
• Diversity focused
• Diversity training
• Dominant discourses
• Educational justice
• Equitable
• Equity
• Examine “systems"
• Free radical therapy
• Free radical self/collective care
• Hegemony
• Identity deconstruction
• Implicit/Explicit bias
• Inclusivity education
• Institutional bias
• Institutional oppression
• Internalized racial superiority
• Internalized racism
• Internalized white supremacy
• Interrupting racism
• Intersection
• Intersectionality
• Intersectional identities
• Intersectional studies
• Land acknowledgment
• Marginalized identities
• Marginalized/Minoritized/Under-represented communities
• Microaggressions
• Multiculturalism
• Neo-segregation
• Normativity
• Oppressor vs. oppressed
• Patriarchy
• Protect vulnerable identities
• Race essentialism
• Racial healing
• Racialized identity
• Racial justice
• Racial prejudice
• Racial sensitivity training
• Racial supremacy
• Reflective exercises
• Representation and inclusion
• Restorative justice
• Restorative practices
• Social justice
• Spirit murdering
• Structural bias
• Structural inequity
• Structural racism
• Systemic bias
• Systemic oppression
• Systemic racism
• Systems of power and oppression
• Unconscious bias
• White fragility
• White privilege
• White social capital
• White supremacy
• Whiteness
• Woke

Were it not for the fact that legislation like this is so destructive, the idea that the sponsors cannot see the irony of them rejecting discussions of "white fragility" or "critical self-reflection" would be funny. 

In all seriousness, do the writers of this legislation even know what the majority of these "radical" concepts even mean? Do they have any idea how mindful, dedicated teachers use the concepts? Do they even care? 

I understand that the Governor will probably veto the legislation. I also understand that it is aimed at K-12. But as a university professor, I know that such legislative overreach does have a chilling effect that makes instructors "think twice" before introducing certain concepts into the classroom. And yet how can any serious curriculum in the Humanities or Social Sciences avoid critical discussions of race? 

To provide just one simple example: I teach a sophomore level class in "Rhetoric and Public Advocacy." The course covers dozens of concepts, including a brief mention of "intersectionality." That concept, which has become the new "communism" for bad-faith Republicans, simply refers to the obvious fact that our performance of all identity factors is impacted by other identity factors. For example, a person's  performance of their age is impacted by the performance of social class and race. Middle-aged white men with white collar jobs have different life experiences than middle-aged black men with white collar jobs. Are white people in America really too fragile to consider the possibility that some of those differences in experience are the result of deeply rooted, systemic factors that are rarely talked about? If we don't talk about those factors in schools, then where? When? 

When we get to the intersectionality concept in class, I usually show a provocative ad run by the Procter & Gamble corporation called "The Look." In the ad, we see an African-American man and his son entering spaces filled with predominantly white faces in places like a restaurant, public swimming pool, and an elevator. In all the spaces, the African-American man gets "the look" suggesting his presence in the space provokes fear and suspicion. It is not until the end of the ad that we find out that the African-American man is a Judge; when he is wearing his robe and reaching for his gavel he seems to get the respect denied him in other places. 

Procter and Gamble Ad: The Look

That simple yet effective ad provokes some great discussion in the classroom. If white people are suspicious of the man before they know he is a judge, does the suspicion go away when he puts the robe on? Does the African-American judge have to be "twice as good just to be equal?" If that judge shows up in a predominantly white neighborhood seeking to purchase a home, would he be treated as any other potential home owner?  There are no "right" answers to these questions. The point is that it is impossible to raise such questions seriously without at some point having to introduce concepts like "intersectionality" or "white privilege" or "systemic racism" or any number of concepts that the GOP majority--acting in response to [Don't] Think Tanks and Twitter Trends--seek to censor. 

When it comes to governance in Wisconsin and in the United Stated generally, we are living in disturbing times. Legislation with bipartisan support, like that which would legalize cannabis for medical and/or recreational purposes, cannot get a formal legislative hearing even after eight consecutive years of being introduced. Meanwhile, legislation that is purely the concoction of partisan [Don't] Think tanks and Twitter trends gets fast tracked and passed without the consequences being addressed in any meaningful way. 

What do we do about it? There are no easy answers, but in a Media Rants blog I would be remiss if I did not point out that major media need to do a much better job of calling out the bad faith actors willing to hijack state government for their own partisan political purposes. They also need to call out those members of the legislature who--probably because of intimidation or ignorance--are willing to allow themselves to BE hijacked. 

Ten Noteworthy 21st Century Speeches

I'm currently teaching a course called "History of American Public Address." The course examines speeches widely appreciated for their eloquence, provocative ideas, and impact on public policy. Examples include: 

*Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "The Solitude of Self": "The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, her forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emancipation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superstition; from all the crippling influences of fear—is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the "Solitude of Self" before the Congressional Judiciary Committee on January 18, 1892. The speech grounded its [at the time] radical argument for women's equality in the traditional American value of individual responsibility. 

*George Washington's Farewell Address: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

George Washington warned us about the evils of party politics. We did not listen. 

*Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Lincoln's Second Inaugural was a courageous call for unity and compassion at a time when the Civil War was still ongoing. 

*Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream": "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."

An amazing speech that to this day is widely [and in some cases willfully] misunderstood, King's "I Have A Dream" was not merely calling for integration. The speech called for racial justice, an admonition that links King clearly with #blacklivesmatter

Students who take History of American Public Address frequently conclude, not without justification, that modern rhetoric in the public sphere cannot hold a candle to the public address of the past. Even the most appalling and awful rhetoric of years gone by, like President Andrew Jackson's message on "Indian Removal" or South Carolina Senator John Calhoun's case for slavery as a "positive good," does not seem--in contrast to much modern rhetoric--to be opinion poll driven and focus-group tested. For better or worse, speakers from less mass and social mediated times come off as more authentic and genuine in their convictions. Put bluntly, old time rhetors do not come off as bullshit artists seeking to exploit the worst tendencies of their "base" for political advantage or personal gain. Rather, they present themselves as "true believers" who--in hindsight--were not able to see past the dominant attitudes and values of their time. 

So what really is a "great speech" in the public sphere? One way of defining it is as that which challenges the dominant beliefs, attitudes and/or values of the time while promoting alternatives that move us closer to the dream of equal justice for all. (The speeches by Washington, Lincoln, Stanton, and King all fit that definition.). In political discourse, the great speech does not parrot party or interest group talking points, but gives us truth as the speaker sees it. And in the great speech, that truth is communicated thoughtfully, so that audiences perceive the speaker as an intelligent person of character and goodwill. 

Have there been any great speeches delivered in our current century? Perhaps it is too early to tell; sometimes multiple generations must pass before a public address can be fully appreciated. There certainly have been a number of noteworthy speeches--some or all of which MIGHT end up in "History of American Public Address" courses if such a course is still being taught a century from now. Here are ten noteworthy speeches from this century: 

*Barack Obama's New Hampshire Primary Concession Speech (January 8, 2008). After winning an upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, many pundits expected Barack Obama to cruise to the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2008. Yet in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won convincingly. Obama's concession speech succeeded in deflating any momentum Hillary might have gained from that victory. Though the content of Obama's speech was not markedly different from what he had been saying on the campaign trail for months previously, on this night he delivered it with an urgency that energized and mobilized his supporters. The "Yes We Can" section ended up becoming part of Will.i.am's famous pro-Obama video, one of the first ever viral videos sparked by a political campaign. 

Video: Barack Obama New Hampshire Speech 

*Bill Gates' Ted Talk (March 8, 2015) on "The Next Outbreak? We're Not Ready." Thanks to Covid-19, Gates's speech was rediscovered and is now one of the most downloaded ever. Too bad world leaders, especially those consumed with the "War on Terror," did not listen. Gates understood that our hyper vigilance on seeking out enemies to destroy via military means was an oh so 20th century way of looking at the world. Future generations will recognize Gates' speech as a voice of reason and common sense in a world led by too many that stubbornly resisted recognizing the actual threats to humanity. 

Video: Bill Gates' Ted Talk

*Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address. Well we have to follow the Microsoft god with the Apple god, right? The late Mr. Jobs, a college dropout who "dropped in" just on courses he wanted to take, left us with one of the most outstanding college commencement addresses of all time. Before Jobs, commencement speeches typically were part pep talk, part platitudes, and part parental advice. Jobs' speech certainly had elements of all three, but his deeply personal narrative had a poignancy to it that most commencement speakers since have tried to mimic with more or less success. Jobs' plea to follow the advice of Stewart Brand's countercultural "Whole Earth Catalogue" to "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" lives on as one of the most memorable endings in the long history of the commencement genre. 

Video: Steve Jobs' Commencement Speech

*New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's Address on the Removal of Confederate Monuments (May 2017). Given the cartoonish way that politics and political rhetoric are covered in our national media, it's easy to think that local leaders in deep red states are all longing for a confederate resurgence. Mitch Landrieu's dissertation on the need for the south (and really all America) to "face our flaws" is a remarkable rejection of the southern leader stereotype. The speech is part history lesson, part sermon on right and wrong, and part plea for the entire nation to reject the lazy acceptance of white supremacist symbols and instead pledge to work together to create new, more inclusive ones. 

Video: Mitch Landrieu's Address on the Removal of Confederate Monuments

*Bernie Sanders Speech at Liberty University (September 2015). Liberty University is a conservative evangelical Christian institution founded by Jerry Falwell in 1971. The Democratic Socialist, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at the campus during his campaign for president. Listening sessions and debates between people of opposing views are now so rare that Sanders' speech would be noteworthy just for the fact that he accepted the invitation to speak. But more than that is the fact that Sanders used the opportunity to alter the conservative audience's perception of what it means to act morally as regards public policy. He said in part: 

"Are you content? Do you think it's moral that 20 percent of the children in this country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world are living in poverty? Do you think it is acceptable that 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty? In my view, there is no justice, and morality suffers, when in our wealthy country, millions of children go to bed hungry. That is not morality . . . I think when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children, the poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick!"

We don't know how many people in that audience were persuaded by Sanders, but his effort to find common ground with those who disagree--and create a shared vision of what a just America could look like--is an effort that more of us should undertake. The survival of the country might depend on it. 

Video: Bernie Sanders at Liberty University 

*Nikki Giovanni, "We Are Virginia Tech" (April 2017). This poem brings tears to my eyes almost every time I listen to it. Delivered shortly after the awful massacre of innocents on the Virginia Tech campus, Giovanni lifted the spirits of the survivors while at the same time reminding them of the universality of tragedy: 

"We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy."

The standing ovation in response to the poem was like a collective catharsis. Giovanni the poet prodded the nation to perceive that we are ALL Virginia Tech. 

Video: Nikki Giovanni, We Are Virginia Tech

*Aly Raisman Confronts Larry Nassar in Court (January 2018). Former USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar assaulted perhaps hundreds of girls over the course of decades. He was enabled by academic, athletic, and government bureaucracies that did not take complaints against him seriously, looked the other way, or tried to make the girls feel delusional. 

When Nassar was finally tried and convicted, a number of victim statements were made in court. Olympic champion Aly Raisman directly confronted Nassar, becoming a role model for finding one's voice: 

"Larry, you do realize now that we, this group of women you so heartlessly abused over such a long period of time, are now a force and you are nothing. The tables have turned, Larry. We are here. We have our voices, and we are not going anywhere. And now, Larry, it’s your turn to listen to me . . . Imagine feeling like you have no power and no voice. Well you know what, Larry? I have both power and voice and I am only beginning to just use them."

Video: Aly Raisman Confronts Larry Nassar

*Oprah Winfrey's "A New Day Is On The Horizon" (January 2018). Delivered at the Golden Globes ceremony, Oprah's speech became a foundational #metoo moment, filled with righteous anger at the past but bubbling with hope for the future. After this speech, Oprah's name popped up regularly as a possible 2020 presidential candidate. Part of me wishes Oprah had entered the primaries. A Donald Trump v. Oprah Winfrey race would have been quite educational. 

Video: Oprah Winfrey's A New Day Is On The Horizon 

*Stephen Colbert's Roast of George W. Bush (April 2006). For years, comedians invited to speak at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) Dinner had performed mostly inoffensive, bland jokes that--at best--reached a Saturday Night Live level of mainstream satire. In 2006 Stephen Colbert's cutting attacks on the Bush presidency (with the president himself sitting just a few feet away), set a new tone for WHCA gatherings that ultimately led to the cancelation of inviting humorists to the event. (Although now that Mr. Trump is out of office, I can see a scenario where the speech returns.). 

What's become tragic about Colbert's speech is that his main criticism of the Bush Administration--that it "believed the same thing on Wednesday as it did on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday"--is now pretty much standard operating procedure for partisan hacks. What Colbert tried to express as absurd and outside of political norms is now THE norm. 

Video: Stephen Colbert Roast of George W. Bush

*George W. Bush's Speech on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11/2021. I'll let former President Bush have the last word here. Mr. Bush, who presided over two failed and ill conceived wars, the worst economic crash in history, and assaults on our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, is a very difficult man to rehabilitate. And yet in today's Republican party he sounds like a voice of sanity. It is difficult to listen to his speech of 9/11/2021 and interpret it as anything less than a total rejection of Trumpism: 

"There's little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them."

If the Republican Party ever finds its way out of the cult of personality morass it is now painfully ensnared in, speeches like the one President Bush delivered at the 9/11 ceremony will be remembered as an attempt to rescue the party from itself. Bush was never the brightest national leader, but he does understand that a "disdain for pluralism" will ultimately destroy the Republican party--if it does not destroy the entire country first. 

Video: George W. Bush Speech on 9/11/2021

2001-2021: The Third Score of Shame

Were it not for Abe Lincoln ("Four score and seven years ago . . . ") almost nobody would know that one meaning of "score" is a period of twenty years. Dating back to 1776, the USA has now been around for twelve score and five years. (Twenty score and one year ago if you prefer to start at 1619). 

Not every score in that two hundred forty-five year period has lived up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, some twenty-year periods ought to be looked at as deeply shameful times when the iron triangle of fear, tribalism, and political cowardice gripped the land. We've just lived though such a period (2001-2021), though "lived" might be an overstatement. 

The years 2001-2021 will go down in history as our third score of shame, rivaled only by 1837-1857 and 1877-1897 for sheer self-induced misery. Each score saw those who fought to expand rights up against vicious attempts to abridge them. Each score in part illustrates W.B. Yeats' famous line from "The Second Coming": "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." 

 In the most shameful periods of American history, public policy is dominated by the worst: bad-faith actors who exploit divisions for narrow, self-interested agendas. 

Charlie Watts: Ten Classics

Charlie Watts, legendary drummer for the Rolling Stones, passed away last Tuesday at the age of 80. Other beat keeping pioneers of his era (Keith Moon, John Bonham, Ian Paice, even Ringo Starr) dazzled with drums to the point of sometimes taking over a song. Watts' brilliance was more paradoxical; his reserved style resulted in a powerful percussive presence even as he--on the surface level anyway--seemed to minimize that very presence. While Charlie Watts was always admired by drum geeks, the fact that he spent his entire adult life accompanying the naughty narcissists Mick Jagger and Keith Richards made it easy to overlook his achievements. 

Watts was brilliant on just about every Stones' song ever recorded, but I will share just ten that I think best represent his legacy. 

#10: Get Off My Cloud. Released in 1965, Get Off My Cloud features Charlie Watts in a bombastic style that blew up AM radio that year. Though not a typical style for him, the aggressive beat ended up influencing much rock and roll of that era. 

Get Off My Cloud

#9: I Just Want To See His Face. Not one of the Stones' best known songs, I Just Want To See His Face is a gospel inspired tune that started off with Watts and then rhythm guitar player Mick Taylor jamming in the studio. 

I Just Want To See His Face 

#8: All Down the Line. One of the Stones' signature rockers, a gritty R & B tune with Chuck Berry style guitars and featuring the kind of Watts drum groove that's probably his most typical snare drum style. 

All Down the Line

#7: Sympathy For The Devil. One of the greatest rock songs of the 1960s, the kind of tune that helped launch FM radio as a vital space for new music. Fans of the Stones at the time dug the socially conscious lyrics and the eerie South American beat. Thank you Charlie Watts for the latter. 

Sympathy for the Devil 

#6: Wild Horses. What always fascinated me about this song was how Mick Jagger could take a trite cliche' ("Wild Horses couldn't drag me away") and sing it with a kind of gravitas and emotional frailty quite opposite of the Stones' norm of macho posturing. Watts' drumming in this tune is a classic example of his "less is more" style. The drums are not "in your face," but if they were not there you would miss them. 

Wild Horses 

#5: One Hit (To The Body). Released in 1986 at a time when Music Television was forcing classic rock bands into retirement, One Hit showed that the Stones could still rock with the best of them. Key to the song's success was Charlie Watts' driving beat. 

One Hit (To The Body) 

#4 Miss You. In 1978 disco music was still pretty hot across the US. When I first heard Miss You I thought it was a case of the Stones trying to stay relevant as blues-inspired rock seemed to be on the outs. You can tell that Charlie Watts had been listening to disco records as he certainly has the beat down. 

Miss You

#3: Hot Stuff. The first track on the 1976 "Black and Blue" album, Hot Stuff is an excellent example of why Watts and bassist Bill Wyman were one of the great rhythm sections in the history of popular music. The song has the kind catchy, soulful funk groove that a decade later would dominate the pop charts with the music of artists like Prince and Michael Jackson. 

Hot Stuff

#2. Undercover of the Night. This early MTV era rocker (released in 1983) resulted in what was--at the time--considered to be a controversial video. Watts' drumming in this one has a militaristic vibe to it that is consistent with the political themes of the song. 

Undercover of the Night 

#1: Honky Tonk Women. Released in 1969, this song features one of the coolest intros in rock history: a brief cowbell ring followed by Charlie Watts' grittiest drumming ever. The lyrics to this song don't hold up very well, especially in the #metoo era, but musically it remains as the most classic example of how the Stones at their best could mix multiple genres and end up with something fresh. Charlie Watt's drumming was always central to that act of mixing. 

Honky Tonk Women 

RIP Charlie Watts!

Live Aid At 36: Reflections On the Cooptation of Rock

August 6, 2021 Update: Today's New York Times includes a disturbing piece called "No Work, No Food: Pandemic Deepens Global Hunger" by journalist Christina Goldbaum. She writes in part: "An estimated 270 million people are expected to face potentially life-threatening food shortages this year — compared to 150 million before the pandemic — according to analysis from the World Food Program, the anti-hunger agency of the United Nations. The number of people on the brink of famine, the most severe phase of a hunger crisis, jumped to 41 million people currently from 34 million last year, the analysis showed . . . For years, global hunger has been steadily increasing as poor countries confront crises ranging from armed groups to extreme poverty. At the same time, climate-related droughts and floods have intensified, overwhelming the ability of affected countries to respond before the next disaster hits." Goldbaum's report reinforces one of the major points made in this Media Rants post: that the solution to global hunger must be based on more than the philanthropic, charitable giving model that grew in popularity as a result of the 1985 "Live Aid" concert. --Tony Palmeri 

The late Brazilian Archbishop Dom Helder Camara, a rebel inside the Catholic Church because of his outspoken advocacy of Liberation Theology, once famously said, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." 

Archbishop Camara understood that giving food to the poor is not as politically risky as asking why the poor have no food. The 1985 Live Aid concert encouraged giving, but did not raise the difficult questions about why global poverty exists. 

For everyone except a number of Republicans in gerrymandered districts in the United States Congress and state legislatures, the idea of giving food to the poor is today noncontroversial. But asking why the poor have no food is still a radical act. In fact in pretty much every "First World" city on Earth, what "conservatives" and "liberals" have in common is discomfort with--and usually avoidance of--the "why" question. Both see poverty eradication as primarily an issue of charitable giving. The theory seems to be that if we get enough donations to food pantries, or enough churches to sponsor free meal programs, or even persuade enough national governments to allocate more foreign aid, then we are somehow making significant strides in addressing "food insecurity" (our euphemism for "hunger"). 

Donating to food pantries and other charities should be encouraged and applauded, and national governments of rich countries should always be pressed to give more to the poor, but if that's ALL we do to address hunger it's a little like wallpapering over cracked walls. Asking why the walls are cracked should lead to a deep investigation of the foundation. Asking why the poor have no food should lead to a deep investigation of the unjust sociopolitical structures that create and enable poverty.   

In 1984 BBC journalist Michael Buerk's powerful and disturbing video report on famine in Ethiopia sparked global outrage. Moved by what he saw, Irish singer-songwriter Bob Geldof founded "Band Aid." The hit song "Do They Know It's Christmas" raised awareness and money. In the United States, "USA For Africa" did the same with the song "We Are The World." 

Inspired by these efforts, Geldof organized "Live Aid," the iconic 1985 benefit concert that mobilized the star power of bands like Queen, U2, and many others to raise $127 million for famine relief. Live Aid was not the first rock-and-roll benefit concert, but it was the first to take advantage of the possibilities of mass media technology to create a truly global event. To this day Live Aid is the prototype for how to employ star power in the service of mobilizing consumers to support a just cause. But Live Aid's legacy is mixed; it turns out that rock-and-roll saints can't really solve difficult issues of global poverty if they won't raise questions that implicate the establishment sinners they are in partnership with. 

To be clear: Bob Geldolf, who also organized Live Aid's 20th anniversary sequel "Live 8," was and is sincerely interested in doing whatever he can to alleviate global poverty. The sincerity of individual actors should NEVER be the major issue for debate on such matters. Rather we should be concerned with more difficult questions; e.g. do benefit concerts actually provide the relief advertised? Is charitable giving actually addressing the real problem? Are such efforts maybe even counterproductive? 

In July of 1985 the Star Power of scores of musical artists in England and the United States was mobilized by Bob Geldof to raise money for famine relief in Africa. 

"Live Aid" and its sequels were never constructed as anti-establishment events. Participants are urged to open their wallets, not overthrow their governments. If participants are to have any interaction with government at all it should be to--like Saint Bob--get leaders "on board" with relief efforts. Geldof, along with Bono of U2, model this kind of "anti-poverty diplomacy," openly pressing world leaders to provide food aid and debt relief for poor countries. 

The most cogent criticism of rock stars as anti-poverty crusaders comes from British journalist George Monbiot. In an insightful 2005 piece called "Bards of the Powerful," Monbiot argues that even though artists like Geldof and Bono should be given credit for raising billions of dollars for relief, they ultimately end up giving legitimacy to those responsible for creating the problem in the first place: 

"The two musicians are genuinely committed to the cause of poverty reduction. They have helped secure aid and debt-relief packages worth billions of dollars. They have helped to keep the issue of global poverty on the political agenda. They have mobilised people all over the world. These are astonishing achievements, and it would be stupid to disregard them . . . I understand the game they're playing. They believe that praising the world's most powerful men is more persuasive than criticising them. The problem is that in doing so they turn the political campaign developed by the global justice movement into a philanthropic one. They urge the G8 leaders to do more to help the poor. But they say nothing about ceasing to do harm."

In a 2013 piece, Monbiot quotes from Irish scholar Harry Browne's no-holds-barred book about Bono ("The Frontman"): 

Harry Browne's "The Frontman" is a scathing critique of rock star Bono, who like Live Aide founder Bob Geldof believes it is possible to move established powers to support just causes. Browne argues that Bono and similar rock stars end up running interference and providing cover for such powers. 

"for nearly three decades as a public figure, Bono has been … amplifying elite discourses, advocating ineffective solutions, patronising the poor and kissing the arses of the rich and powerful. His approach to Africa is a slick mix of traditional missionary and commercial colonialism, in which the poor world exists as a task for the rich world to complete".

For a more humorous take on the rock star savior complex vis a vis the African continent, check out British comedian Russell Brand's 2009 "African Child". In the brilliantly satirical video, quite obviously aimed at virtue signalers like Geldof and Bono, Brand's rock star alter ego Aldous Snow is oblivious to the narcissistic and naive roots of his Africa fixation. 

Video: African Child 

 

Additional criticisms of Live Aid founder Bob Geldof can be found here. 

My own critique of rock benefit concerts centers on what such events have done to the status of rock and roll as a cultural phenomenon. As I have written about previously, for me authentic rock and roll is an anarchic, Africa-inspired, anti-establishment art form perpetually coopted by the forces of tradition. At its most authentic, rock-and-roll has truly transformative impacts. Why? Because authentic rock-and-roll engulfs participants into a culture that liberates them from constraints imposed by tradition and social hierarchy. The racist backlash against rock in the 1950s and 1960s was not a backlash against the music as much as against rock's capacity to spark cross cultural communication, collective action, and unity. At its most authentic, rock really does encourage people to ask "why," in part because rock culture provokes rebellion against hierarchic structures that discourage questioning. Authentic rock-and-roll culture (which does not really exist in a meaningful way anywhere today) is very much like a great classroom seminar: a spirit of questioning, mutual respect, and search for meaning animates the proceedings. That kind of classroom experience is rare, as is authentic rock. But both continue to be possible, even in a cynical digital age. 

Video: School of Rock 

My frustration with benefit concerts is that they deflate the true spirit of rock culture; instead rock is constructed as a mainstream art form in which the "star power" of artists can be used to raise money for cause(s) that the financial donor may have little to no understanding of. In other words, in benefit concerts rock-and-roll becomes part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, in which asking "why" plays second fiddle to "doing something." "Doing something" invariably means giving money without much of a care or clue as to where it is going and whether or not it's actually solving the problem that the rock propagandists announce from the stage. Live Aid was kind of like an "ice bucket challenge" in a pre-social media age. Even worse--and this is what Monbiot's and Browne's work is especially good at demonstrating--is how establishment figures like politicians and non-governmental-organization bureaucrats exploit these events to build up their own particular brand. 

Video: Bob Geldof 1985 fundraising appeal 

When people collectively ask "why," we start to get some serious conversations occurring at the street level. From those conversations comes awareness that the most serious problems have structural roots. From that awareness comes organized efforts to dismantle unjust structures. Those organized efforts are called "social movements." "Live Aid" and most other benefit concerts, because they do not emerge from social movements geared toward structural reform, end up reinforcing the flawed belief that real change can somehow come from existing structures. Thus the best we can do is hope that enough well-to-do folks in the "First" world can be compelled to swipe their credit cards for the struggling masses in the "Third" world to provide temporary relief. 

Some scholars have framed the celebrity humanitarianism discussed in this post as a case of dividing humanity up into two classes: those who suffer and those who save. That division represents the worst legacy of Live Aid because it deflects attention and resources from education that might actually solve the problem of poverty; that is, an education that teaches the need to be in SOLIDARITY with the struggling masses on all continents. 

Authentic rock-and-roll is not an agent of the "savior" class. Unfortunately, that's what establishment centered benefit concerts, corporate media, and even social media platforms have reduced it to. Authentic rock-and-roll is ultimately a vehicle for solidarity. 

So as not to end on a pessimistic note, let's at least acknowledge that benefit concerts do leave us with some great musical performances. Live Aid gave us the spectacular reunion of Queen featuring the great Freddie Mercury. We can be thankful for great performances at the same time recognizing the limitations of the event itself. Here's Queen: 

Video: Queen at Live Aid 

60 Years Of Media Milestones

On July 1, 2021 I turn sixty years young. Fun Fact: I was born the exact same date and year as the late Princess Diana. Unlike Diana I never became royalty, though at my best during these 60 years I have been a royal pain in the neck to established powers. In a small way, the Media Rants column serves as a vehicle for that kind of pain delivery. 

To celebrate my 60th, I thought it might be a good idea to summarize what are--for me anyway--the most important media strides made during each decade of my life. The list is purely subjective, but anyone who bothers to look further into the strides mentioned will come to the conclusion that each has had a major impact on the way media is practiced and/or the way we think about media. Some of the strides have had transformative impacts on humanity (for better or worse). 

For purposes of space, I will only list and describe four strides per decade. Also, I don't include anything from the 2020s because we are still too early in the decade. If you don't like my list, please come up with your own! 

Here we go . . . 

1960s: The Birth of "The Media" 

To this very day, if you ask 20 people to define what is meant by "the media," you will get 20 different answers. Though media has been practiced and studied for many millennia, it was not until the 1960s that academic studies of the topic began to proliferate. At the same time, uses of the media--for better and worse--start to become more sophisticated in the 1960s. Against that backdrop, here are four 1960s media milestones: 

*FCC Chair Newton Minow's May 9, 1961 speech on "Television and the Public Interest." Delivered before the National Association of Broadcasters just shy of two months before the birth of Baby Tony, the speech introduced the phrase "vast wasteland" as a description of the quality of commercial television. Though acting in the "public interest" had been a condition of earning and keeping a broadcast license since the 1930s, it really was not until Minow's speech that popular and academic discourse began to grapple with just how far from that standard the networks had strayed. Sixty years later the problem persists, making Minow's words as vital as ever: 

In 1961 Newton Minow called TV a "vast wasteland." Today that phrase can be accurately applied to a range of media. 

When television is good, nothing—not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers—nothing is better.

But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your own television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials—many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.

*Richard Nixon's 1968 Campaign For President. The 1968 Nixon For President campaign broke new ground in how it managed to take a profoundly despicable and unpopular politician (i.e. Nixon) and--using techniques then considered cutting edge in the public relations industry--made him just likeable enough to win the race. Joe McGinniss' classic campaign memoir, The Selling of the President 1968, introduced the world to the young Roger Ailes. Ailes marketing savvy on behalf of Nixon was a precursor to the kind of divide and conquer approach to media he would late go on to pioneer for the Fox News Network. I consider Nixon's 1968 campaign a media milestone because it introduced and perfected methods of media manipulation that have been used not only in every succeeding presidential campaign, but most partisan campaigns at all levels of power. 

Joe McGinniss' The Selling of the President 1968 was a classic narrative of how the public relations industry transformed a nasty, paranoid loser (Richard Nixon) into a winning candidate. 

*The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America by Daniel Boorstin. Professor Boorstin taught history at the University of Chicago for 25 years and then served 12 years (1975-1987) as the Librarian of Congress. The Image, Boorstin's classic 1962 book, was one of the earliest attempts to document the extent to which politics and politicians had become equivalent to entertainment and entertainers. Though the book did not predict the emergence of a Trump White House, its argument that successful politicians now had to be "media stars" certainly suggested the Orange One. 

*The Birth of Free Form FM Rock Radio. Contemporary commercial radio is so goddam awful that it's difficult to believe there was a time when it was vital. The late Tom Donahue, a radio giant who should be a household name, pioneered the "free form" FM radio format in the late 1960s at KMPX and KSAN in San Francisco. In 1967 a classic article by Donahue appeared in Rolling Stone called "AM Radio Is Dead and Its Rotting Corpse Is Stinking Up the Airwaves." His free form alternative made FM radio into a space for creative music, community activism, and youth culture. 

KSAN Newscast 

1970s: The Loss of Innocence 

As the 1960s came to a close, media junkies could with some justification be optimistic. In part as a response to Minow's "vast wasteland" comment, television seemed to be on the brink of developing its potential. FM radio was in a golden age of experimentation and creativity. Even print journalism, as evidenced by the courageous decision to release the Pentagon Papers, seemed vital. Unfortunately, all the optimism turned out to be misguided. In the 1970s media lost its innocence; the contemporary media values of greed, conformity, and clickbait all have roots in that decade. Against that backdrop, here are four 1970s media milestones: 

*The Death of Free Form FM Rock Radio: By 1975, Tom Donahue's dream of the FM dial as home of the free form format was already on the way out, done in by the same surrender to commercial pressures that had made AM radio so horrific for so many decades. Maybe it was never realistic to think that the "underground" vibe of the 1967-1975 free form could last in a commercial environment. A good book on this topic is Richard Neer's FM: The Rise and Fall of Rock Radio (Mr. Neer was a popular DJ on New York's WNEW-FM at the height of its free form days.).  The death of free form FM radio had devastating consequences not just for rock music, but for youth culture in general. I think a good argument could be made that the emergence of the vapid, conformist, money obsessed "yuppies" (young urban professionals) of the 1980s had at least something to do with the dismantling of spaces--like free form FM radio--that encouraged creativity and nonconformity. 

Richard Neer, a popular DJ for New York's legendary WNEW-FM during its high point of creativity and community engagement, wrote a great memoir about the rise and fall of rock radio. 

*Watergate and Scandal Coverage: Without question, Bob Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's Watergate reporting for the Washington Post in 1973-1974 was a rare example of how bold journalism could topple a corrupt presidency. Unfortunately, in the media world Watergate became the template guiding all scandal coverage, some trivial. 

Woodward and Bernstein established the template for covering political scandals. Unfortunately too many of the "gate" scandals have been trivial, badly sourced, or mere partisan propaganda (think "Russiagate," for example). 

*FCC v. Pacifica. This 1978 Supreme Court decision held that the Federal Communications Commission does have the power, in the name of "protecting children," to regulate "indecent" language on broadcast media. The case originated when a man traveling in his car with his 15-year-old son did not appreciate hearing George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" on the air. The Court had the opportunity to say, in legalese of course, that the man could just "change the station or turn the fucking radio off." Instead, the Court made the FCC into our National Nanny, which has ended up stifling legitimate free speech and provoking ridiculous attempts to get by the FCC censor (such as  replacing "Fuck You" with "Forget You" in TV broadcasts of movies or editing out swear words entirely in musical recordings.). 

In one of the worse Supreme Court decisions ever issued, the Court in FCC v. Pacifica endorsed a view of the Federal Communications Commission as some kind of National Nanny empowered to protect our ears from "indecency." 

*The Golden Age of Film. The 1970s were a great decade for film. Directors/Writers Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and many others made groundbreaking strides in narrative development. Scorsese's controversial 2019 claim, that "Marvel movies aren't cinema," is really not controversial at all for anyone familiar with the best movies of the 1970s. Money quote from Scorsese's 2019 op-ed: 

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form. And that was the key for us: it was an art form.

Classic Film Clip: You Talkin' to Me? 

1980s: Corporate Domination and Response  

Though media lost its innocence in the 1970s, we left the decade still feeling that for all its faults, media would never become primarily a vehicle for money making. In other words, by 1979 hope remained realistic that "operating in the public interest" was an attainable goal even for profit-driven media. Those hopes were almost entirely dashed in the 1980s, as the Reagan Administration's articulation of profit maximization as THE supreme human value became the value system of a range of institutions including media. Against that backdrop, here are four 1980s media milestones: 

*The Rise of Cable Television. In theory, the rise of cable television should have been the answer to Minow's "vast wasteland" critique. With so many channels to choose from, the crapola should be balanced out with high quality offerings, right? Anyone who subscribed to cable in the 1980s probably ended up feeling the same way Bruce Springsteen did when he sang about "57 channels and nothing on." 

*Music Television (MTV). If you think of music videos as advertisements for records, then MTV in the 1980s became the first network in history to feature ads literally 24-hours a day. Add in the sexism and misogyny of much of 1980s music video and MTV goes from being an interesting experiment to one of the lowest points in the global history of corporate media. 

*The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. There's been much confusion about what the Fairness Doctrine actually did, and I've written about that here. The caricature of the Fairness Doctrine is that it mandated targets of criticism on broadcast news stations to have some kind of right to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was never that powerful; still, there is no doubt that its repeal contributed to the rapid growth and development of ultra one-sided, mostly right wing talk radio and cable pundit shows. 

*Classic Media Criticism.  From an academic perspective, the 1980s were groundbreaking for the release of some seminal works of media criticism that set the standard for that genre of writing. Some of my favorites include Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly (1983), Noam Chomksy's  and Edward Herman's Manufacturing Consent (1988), Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), and Herb Schiller's Culture, Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression.   

The late Neil Postman's 1985 classic Amusing Ourselves to Death was one of a number of brilliant works of media criticism released in that decade. 

1990s: Wasted Opportunities and Dreams Deferred  

In part because of the corporate control of politics, the 1990s was a decade of wasted opportunities and dreams deferred. The fall of the Soviet Union could and should have been a rallying cry for democratic reforms all over the globe. Instead, the United States spent most of 1998 and 1999 consumed with the earth shaking issue of whether or not the President of the United States lied about getting a blowjob in the oval office. Against that  backdrop, here are four 1990s media milestones: 

*The Internet Revolution. Obviously the most transformative technological development since Gutenberg's printing press in the 1400s, the Internet in the 1990s immediately impacted every area of human existence. A number of scholars and pundits treated the new technology with optimism, thinking that the digital age would bring about democratic participation on a scale never seen before. While such optimism might still be justified, democracy activists have learned over the last 30 years that the Internet is more easily coopted by corporate powers and their lapdog politicians than we initially thought possible. 

*Hip-Hop Culture. If we look back to the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, we can see that rock-and-roll exerted a dramatic impact on culture, from language to fashion to gender roles to pretty much everything. Today the same can be said about hip-hop. But whereas rock-and-roll was primarily an American phenomenon, hip-hop from its earliest days had a global reach, in the 1990s becoming worldly in extraordinary ways. Hip-hop at its best, like rock at its best, unifies people at the street level and challenges top-down power structures. The establishment always fights back, which is why hip-hop like rock is always in a position of having to rediscover its most pure form. 

Video Clip: Evolution of Hip-Hop

*Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 1996 the US Congress and President Clinton "updated" the Communications Act of 1934. A whopping victory for big media corporations, the 1996 act set in place a media consolidation mania that has led to more than 90 percent of media content being controlled by six companies (Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Viacom/CBS, Sony, and Fox). Media consolidation has had devastating impacts on journalism, and created "news deserts" in most of the country. Proponents of the 1996 Act laud it for creating the "free and open" Internet, but increasing consolidation and the assaults on "net neutrality" prove that consumer protections in the law were never strong enough. 

President Bill Clinton, joined by VP Al Gore, digitally signs the Telecommunication Act of 1996 into law. The Act opened the door for media consolidation and corporate domination of the Internet. 

*Third Wave Feminism. In politics, popular culture, the workplace, and other areas, women in the 1990s challenged structures of power more forcefully than at any time since the 1960s. Feminist defenses of Bill Clinton during the impeachment probably undermined the progress of the movement by ceding moral high ground on behalf of a slimey but powerful man. Still, there is no doubt that the third wave feminism of the 1990s raised consciousness in a way that continues to impact women's progress as demonstrated by the #metoo movement, challenging gender stereotypes in film and other media, and the election of more women to public office. 

Sparked by the treatment of Anita Hill during the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, activist women announced a "third wave" of feminism. A record number of women were elected to office in 1992, making it forever the "Year of the Woman." 

2000s: The Crisis of Legitimacy 

In the first decade of the new millennium, perceptions of mainstream media (especially news) started to decline precipitously. Some of that was the result of the nonstop media bashing by right wing radio and other "conservative" sources that for years had made "the media" into the ultimate straw man. But I would argue that some media advances in the decade were more responsible for undermining the legitimacy of "the media". Against that backdrop, here are four 2000s media milestones. 

*The War on Terror. George W. Bush's declaration of a "war on terror" in 2001 had terrible impacts on media. Every administration since Bush has applied archaic statutes (like the Espionage Act of 1917) to go after journalists and whistleblowers. Mainstream media's failure to stand up to and call out the bullying of their own has probably done more to undermine media credibility than any so-called "fake news." 

*Embedded Reporting. In the Vietnam era, media for the most part succeeded in covering the war independently. Determined to never again allow the public to see the real costs of war, the Pentagon since the 1980s has slowly but surely co-opted war reporting. In the 2000s, "embedded" reporting on Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a shameful pattern of Pentagon talking points presented as truthful statements about the conduct of the war(s). During the 1980s, as the Soviet Union was bogged down in Afghanistan, the Russian people received nothing but bullshit from Soviet media about the conduct of and progress of the war. In those days American leaders had no problems labeling Soviet reporting on Afghanistan as pure propaganda. In the 2000s the majority of American reporting on Afghanistan and Iraq--especially in the crucial early years of the wars--came straight out of the old Soviet playbook. Truly shameful. 

Clip: Robert Riggs Embedded Reporter 552ADA Iraq Under Fire in Iraq 2003

*YouTube and Viral Media. The sheer number of hours that people (of all ages) spend consumed with YouTube and other viral media is astounding. In the early days of YouTube, we laughed at how viral videos tended to focus on cats or weird forms of human behavior. As time has gone on, we have seen YouTube become a safe space for conspiracy theories, "alternative" news and various forms of quackery passed off as serious analysis. 

*Wikileaks. Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange has been incarcerated for almost 10 years now--even though he has never been tried and convicted of anything--essentially for the "crime" of releasing information that proves the dishonesty and crimes of the US and other world governments. World leaders may succeed in silencing Assange, and might destroy Wikileaks, but those efforts are like trying to bury water. Truth and transparency, whether it is being put forward by Assange and Wikileaks or similar actors, like water will keep seeping back up at you if you try to bury them. 

BBC News Clip: Who Is Julian Assange? 

2010s: The Era of Tribes, Trolls, and Trumpism 

When I was born in 1961 the White House was occupied by John F. Kennedy and a spirit of optimism animated the nation. As I closed in on my 60th birthday, the White House was occupied by a buffoon (initials DJT) who was followed by a man (initials JRB) best known for almost fifty years of political hackery in Washington. Can we blame the political de-evolution that has taken place in my lifetime on "the media"? Not completely, but there's no doubt that media played a role in making the mess, and will play a role in cleaning it up too. Against that backdrop, here are some media milestones from the 2010s: 

*The Death of Local Journalism. It's hard to exaggerate how destructive the death of local journalism has been not only to communities, but to the entire nation. Where I live in Oshkosh, WI we have to rely on a retired professor of journalism (publisher of The Oshkosh Examiner) to do serious research on critical issues facing the community. Most communities in the country do not have even that much. In the 2020s we HAVE to do something to address the journalism crisis lest we continue our descent into a culture of uninformed, divided tribes more concerned with trolling than teaching. 

*The Rise of Social Media. In the 2010s we saw what happens when a culture becomes addicted to digital communication. Sherry Turkle's 2012 book Alone Together was a clarion call urging more mindfulness on these matters, but even she may have under estimated the extent to which the addictive qualities of digital communication make reform difficult. 

Clip: Sherry Turkle on Alone Together

*Podcasting. Like the Internet generally, podcasting has the potential to make small-d democracy something real. The 2010s saw a surge in the sheer number of podcasts on every topic imaginable. My own podcast (Running on MT with Matt King) tries to discuss serious issues in a way that anyone can understand. Podcasts like that tend to have limited listenership, while sensationalist podcasting hooks millions. Is there a way to reverse that trend in the 2020s? I'm not optimistic, but anything is possible if people of goodwill do the work necessary to make it happen. 

*Hate, Inc. Matt Taibbi's 2019 book Hate, Inc. is not the best work of media criticism that I've ever read, but he did capture the central premise of mainstream news media in the 2010s: if consumers of ideologically diverse media can be trained to despise each other, profits will follow. Playing off of Chomsky and Herman's "manufacturing consent," Taibbi calls this state of affairs "manufacturing discontent." In the 2020s I don't think we need to strive to make everyone love each other, but we should at least be able to consume--and maybe even accept on occasion--the viewpoints of others without being made to feel that we have "betrayed" a tribe. 

Clip: Matt Taibbi on how the profit motive has destroyed the media 

So there you have it. Sixty years of media milestones. What a long, strange trip it's been. For me anyway.