 |
| Deep Purple's 1970 In Rock album cover. From left to right, the band members were Ian Gillan (vocals), Ritchie Blackmore (guitar), Jon Lord (keyboards), Roger Glover (bass), and Ian Paice (drums). Though not an explicitly political band, Purple's idea of British rockers as enshrined on Mt. Rushmore can be read as an ironic statement of how pop stars had replaced politicians as icons in that turbulent time. |
Wednesday, June 03, 2020
Deep Purple's In Rock at 50: In Praise Of Metal For The Ear
I'd like to take time out from the many crises facing the world, including the disturbing suppression of free speech here in the States, to celebrate one of the foundational recordings in the rock-and-roll metal genre. Deep Purple's In Rock album turns 50 years old today. Were it not for the fact that the song "Smoke on the Water" (from the album Machine Head) forever branded Purple as the band known for that famous riff, In Rock in my humble opinion would be more widely recognized as the band's signature piece of music.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Monday, June 01, 2020
How Joe Biden Can Unite Factions: The Pope-A-Dope Strategy
[Full Disclosure: While I am not a practicing Catholic, I still consider myself to be a member of the Church. Growing up I attended 16 years of Catholic School, including St. John's University in NYC. --Tony Palmeri]
Given that he's running for the presidency in the middle of a global pandemic, depressed economy, and the most widespread racial justice protests since 1968, it's not surprising that Joe Biden's religious background has received limited media attention. Yet if he does prevail in November, Mr. Biden would be only the second Catholic ever to occupy the White House. The first of course was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Biden takes his faith seriously, and in 2005 said, "The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious, I'm going to shove my rosary down their throat."
Back in the day, anti-Catholic bigotry made it virtually impossible for Catholic candidates to capture the presidency. New York Governor Al Smith, Democratic party nominee for president in 1928, could not overcome hysterical reactions to his Catholicism in some parts of the country; in the deep south the Ku Klux Klan campaigned actively for Republican Herbert Hoover. Political historian Allan Lichtman concluded that “the religious issue was by far the most important influence on voting.” (cited in Jay Dolan, "The Right of a Catholic to Be President," Notre Dame Magazine, 2008).
Above: Sample Ku Klux Klan rhetoric used against Al Smith in 1928. Klansmen argued that if a Catholic were elected President, he would take orders from the Pope. Such sentiments had widespread support in the United States for many years.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Ten Bold Cover Tunes Part VII: The Kennedy Center Honors Edition
Annually since the late 1970s, a range of performance artists have been honored in Washington by the Kennedy Center. Even though the president of the United States has no direct role in selecting the honorees, the number of popular music artists recognized seemed to increase during the Obama years--perhaps a nod to #44's rock star image.
The most fun part of the annual ceremony is when popular artists serenade honorees with covers of the honorees' well known tunes. During these televised performances, the director always treats the audience watching at home to reactions shots of the honoree(s) and the POTUS and First Lady. The former can often be seen to be forcing back tears, while the latter reveal themselves to be human beings capable of appreciating the art of the masses.
What follows, in no particular order, are ten noteworthy Kennedy Center cover performances.
#10: Beyonce's Cover Of Tina Turner's "Proud Mary." "Proud Mary" was written by John Fogerty and recorded originally by his band Creedence Clearwater Revival. But Ike and Tina Turner's gritty and energetic version was so captivating that the song forever after became associated with them.
Beyonce's 2005 cover at the 2005 Kennedy Center Honors captures the energy of the Ike and Tina version. President George W. Bush's reaction suggests that the song transported him back to his pre-politics partying days, which were legendary.
Video: Tina Turner "Proud Mary"
#9: Lyle Lovett's Cover of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows." Before the 1960s, rock lyrics about relationships existed on a spectrum from macho male posturing (inherited from Chicago blues) to tear-jerking sentimentalism. With the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" (1966) and Beatles' offerings of the same time period, rock songs about relationships became outer expressions of internal grief; odes to codependency and control that have probably exerted more influence on youth over the years than the raunchy sex and violence recordings that the so-called "pro-family" groups have been obsessing over for many years.(Perhaps that's because the so-called pro-family groups are led by people for whom relational co-dependency and control are common states of being.). Brian's Wilson's "God Only Knows" from that Pet Sounds album is perhaps the archetype in the genre:
#8: Eddie Vedder's Cover of Bruce Springsteen's "My City of Ruins." At the 2009 Kennedy Center celebration of Bruce Springsteen, with the country still reeling from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder performed a perfect song for the times. Springsteen's "My City of Ruins"--written in 2000--may experience a resurgence as our current recession/depression almost makes prior crises seem like cakewalks by comparison.
Video: Eddie Vedder, "My City Of Ruins"
The most fun part of the annual ceremony is when popular artists serenade honorees with covers of the honorees' well known tunes. During these televised performances, the director always treats the audience watching at home to reactions shots of the honoree(s) and the POTUS and First Lady. The former can often be seen to be forcing back tears, while the latter reveal themselves to be human beings capable of appreciating the art of the masses.
What follows, in no particular order, are ten noteworthy Kennedy Center cover performances.
#10: Beyonce's Cover Of Tina Turner's "Proud Mary." "Proud Mary" was written by John Fogerty and recorded originally by his band Creedence Clearwater Revival. But Ike and Tina Turner's gritty and energetic version was so captivating that the song forever after became associated with them.
Beyonce's 2005 cover at the 2005 Kennedy Center Honors captures the energy of the Ike and Tina version. President George W. Bush's reaction suggests that the song transported him back to his pre-politics partying days, which were legendary.
Video: Tina Turner "Proud Mary"
#9: Lyle Lovett's Cover of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows." Before the 1960s, rock lyrics about relationships existed on a spectrum from macho male posturing (inherited from Chicago blues) to tear-jerking sentimentalism. With the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" (1966) and Beatles' offerings of the same time period, rock songs about relationships became outer expressions of internal grief; odes to codependency and control that have probably exerted more influence on youth over the years than the raunchy sex and violence recordings that the so-called "pro-family" groups have been obsessing over for many years.(Perhaps that's because the so-called pro-family groups are led by people for whom relational co-dependency and control are common states of being.). Brian's Wilson's "God Only Knows" from that Pet Sounds album is perhaps the archetype in the genre:
If you should ever leave me
Though life would still go on, believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me
God only knows what I'd be without you
Though life would still go on, believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me
God only knows what I'd be without you
Yep, if you leave that old singer he might actually kill himself! Really healthy message, eh?
I enjoy Lyle Lovett's cover from the 2008 Kennedy Center Honors because he looks and sounds like a wedding singer who can't figure out why the bride is marrying that obnoxious asshole.
But even better is Brian Wilson's reaction shot: I imagine him thinking, "If people knew the pain I was in when I wrote that song they would be crying instead of cheering."
Video: Lyle Lovett "God Only Knows"
Video: Lyle Lovett "God Only Knows"
Video: Eddie Vedder, "My City Of Ruins"
#7: Mavis Staples and James Taylor's Cover of the Beatles' "Let It Be." At the 2010 celebration of Paul McCartney, the great Mavis Staples transformed "Let It Be" into a Sunday sermon. When she and James Taylor were joined by rocker Steven Tyler and a choir for an uplifting version of "Hey Jude," the capacity of the Beatles' music to unite genres was on glorious display for all to see and hear.
Video: Mavis Staples and James Taylor "Let it Be"
Video: Mavis Staples and James Taylor "Let it Be"
#6: Kings of Leon Cover of the Eatles' "Take It Easy." Kings of Leon are multiple Grammy Award recipients and big stars in their own right, but I have to think that it must have been super intimidating for lead guitarist Matthew Followill to perform the guitar solo on "Take It Easy" just a few feet away from Joe Walsh--arguably one of the greatest guitar players in the history of the universe. Followill acquitted himself quite well, as did the entire band in a cover that stays true to the country and western vibe of the original while maintaining the Kings' flair for energetic rock.
Video: Kings of Leon "Take It Easy"
Video: Kings of Leon "Take It Easy"
#5: Bruce Springsteen's Cover of Sting's "I Hung My Head." No one will ever come close to Johnny Cash's version of "I Hung My Head," but in this 2014 celebration of Sting, Bruce Springsteen comes close.
Video: Bruce Springsteen "I Hung My Head"
Video: Bruce Springsteen "I Hung My Head"
#4: Snoop Dogg's Cover of Herbie Hancock's "Cantaloupe Island." What's priceless about this 2013 Snoop Dogg celebration of the great Herbie Hancock is how the brash rapper gets a crowd of uptight DC bureaucrats to discover their inner Break Boy and Break Girl.
#3: Garth Brooks' Cover of Billy Joel's "Goodnight Saigon." Also in 2013, Garth Brooks delivered up a special rendition of Billy Joel's epitaph to the Vietnam War. Actual veterans join Brooks on stage, presenting the audience with literal enactments of the song's lyrics. I'm always wary of the showcasing of veterans at establishment entertainment and/or political events, mostly because such spectacles are typically the result of some producer willing to exploit the soldiers' service and pain for cheap patriotism points. In this case however, the soldiers exude a genuine love and expression of solidarity for each other that transcends whatever ill intent the producers might have had. It's quite amazing.
#2: Bettye LaVette's Cover of The Who's "Love, Reign O'er Me." This 2008 cover of the classic Who tune from the rock opera "Quadrophenia" is probably my favorite cover of the ten mentioned in this post. Bettye LaVette, one of the most underrated blues/soul singers of her generation, captures the song's emotional roller-coaster of grief and hope in a way that perhaps only someone schooled in (or has lived) the blues and soul can deliver. Watching Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey, and Barbara Streisand all mesmerized by the performance is an added treat.
#1: Heart's Cover of Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart, accompanied by Jason Bonham (the late Zep drummer John Bonham's son) on drums, a wicked horn section and other orchestral elements, a guitar player who has the solo down, and a gospel choir, deliver a ridiculously great version of one of the iconic tunes of the classic rock era. One wonders if the Wilson sisters, who grew up as Zep fans, ever dreamed they would someday perform the tune in front of their heroes. The reactions from surviving Zep members John Paul Jones, Robert Plant, and Jimmy Page is also endearing. Jones appears to be studying it as if he is a musicologist, Plant looks like he wants to burst out crying, and Page just seems overjoyed that for one night no one is thinking about whether or not he plagiarized the song.
Prior Posts in the Ten Bold Cover Tunes Series:
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Friday, May 01, 2020
COVID-19's Challenge to Free Speech
Note: For a video version of this rant, click HERE.
In 1963 the Speech Association of America (SAA) adopted a "Credo For Free And Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society." The SAA later became the National Communication Association, and reaffirmed the Credo in 2017.
As someone who regularly teaches a course called "Freedom of Speech in the United States" and relies on First Amendment freedoms to provoke students, produce blogs, and engage in other forms of activism, I find myself coming back to the Credo often. Regularly reminding myself of the Credo's six principles helps me to make sure I am holding my students and myself to high standards worthy of the life and death struggles for freedom that preceded us and continue to this day.
We free speech advocates have always assumed that active use of First Amendment freedoms enhances civic health. COVID-19 challenges that assumption, as we now find ourselves in a bizarre and disturbing place where some citizens insist that "peaceful assembly" includes the right to risk infecting oneself or others with a deadly disease at a public gathering. Huge segments of social media and cable television denigrate and distort peer-reviewed medical findings while amplifying junk science. Meanwhile, the President of the United States treats daily briefings as a kind of Open Mic Night where he feels free to riff on whatever comes to his mind, even to the point of suggesting that ingesting bleach or disinfectants might cure the virus. In another essay I've argued that these types of bullshit, bluster, and bullying tactics are never particularly helpful in any context, but are absolutely useless when confronting a novel coronavirus.
In the COVID-19 era, the irresponsible communicative acts of distraction + defamation + delay = DEATH. (I want to say that we can and must do better, but my fear is that the response will be "OK Boomer.").
What follows is the Credo for Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society. Please read it, reflect on it, and use it as a way to hold yourself and others accountable for your and their communication practices. Be especially mindful of the admonition in principle #5 that we should "expose abuses of the communication process." Those abuses, some of which I mentioned earlier, are having a profoundly negative effect on our ability to loosen the deadly grip of the coronavirus on our nation and world.
Here is the Credo:
Recognizing the essential place of free and responsible communication in a democratic society, and recognizing the distinction between the freedoms our legal system should respect and the responsibilities our educational system should cultivate, we members of the Speech Communication Association endorse the following statement of principles:
Principle #1: We believe that freedom of speech and assembly must hold a central position among American constitutional principles, and we express our determined support for the right of peaceful expression by any communicative means available.
Principle #2: We support the proposition that a free society can absorb with equanimity speech which exceeds the boundaries of generally accepted beliefs and morals; that much good and little harm can ensure if we err on the side of freedom, whereas much harm and little good may follow if we err on the side of suppression.
Principle #3: We criticize as misguided those who believe that the justice of their cause confers license to interfere physically and coercively with the speech of others, and we condemn intimidation, whether by powerful majorities or strident minorities, which attempts to restrict free expression.
Principle #4: We accept the responsibility of cultivating by precept and example, in our classrooms and in our communities, enlightened uses of communication; of developing in our students a respect for precision and accuracy in communication, and for reasoning based upon evidence and a judicious discrimination among values.
Principle #5: We encourage our students to accept the role of well-informed and articulate citizens, to defend the communication rights of those with whom they may disagree, and to expose abuses of the communication process.
Principle #6: We dedicate ourselves fully to these principles, confident in the belief that reason will ultimately prevail in a free marketplace of ideas.
______________________________________________
Will reason ultimately prevail in the free marketplace of ideas? Given the extreme levels of misinformation and disinformation--some of it shared innocently on social media but much of it promoted willfully by bad faith actors--I am not sure that reason WILL prevail. We need to prepare ourselves for what will in our public sphere probably be a long period of malicious efforts to distract us from the urgency of the crisis at hand and defame those good faith actors doing all they can to lead us through it. Distraction and defamation will succeed only in delaying actions necessary to help solve this terrible problem. Remember, distraction + defamation + delay = death.
Some seem to think that reason would stand a better chance of prevailing in the marketplace of ideas if private sector social media companies would simply censor all of the bad faith nonsense out there. If history has taught us anything, it's that censorship does not stifle stupidity, and more dangerously any censorship regime gives too much power to whoever decides what communicative acts are "in" and what communicative acts are "out." You might love the censor when he shuts down what you despise, but it's only a matter of time before he cancels you too.
If people of goodwill refuse to act, then documents like the Credo For Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society are nothing more than pious platitudes on a page. I urge all of us to digest the principles and take an honest inventory of where we come up short. Monitoring my own communicative weaknesses and pledging to do better puts me in a much better position to expose the weaknesses of others. The alternative is to continue living in tribal, self-righteous bubbles overflowing with BS, bluster, and bullying. How's that working for us?
In 1963 the Speech Association of America (SAA) adopted a "Credo For Free And Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society." The SAA later became the National Communication Association, and reaffirmed the Credo in 2017.
As someone who regularly teaches a course called "Freedom of Speech in the United States" and relies on First Amendment freedoms to provoke students, produce blogs, and engage in other forms of activism, I find myself coming back to the Credo often. Regularly reminding myself of the Credo's six principles helps me to make sure I am holding my students and myself to high standards worthy of the life and death struggles for freedom that preceded us and continue to this day.
We free speech advocates have always assumed that active use of First Amendment freedoms enhances civic health. COVID-19 challenges that assumption, as we now find ourselves in a bizarre and disturbing place where some citizens insist that "peaceful assembly" includes the right to risk infecting oneself or others with a deadly disease at a public gathering. Huge segments of social media and cable television denigrate and distort peer-reviewed medical findings while amplifying junk science. Meanwhile, the President of the United States treats daily briefings as a kind of Open Mic Night where he feels free to riff on whatever comes to his mind, even to the point of suggesting that ingesting bleach or disinfectants might cure the virus. In another essay I've argued that these types of bullshit, bluster, and bullying tactics are never particularly helpful in any context, but are absolutely useless when confronting a novel coronavirus.
Forgive me for having to state what is or should be an obvious point: Just because an act of communication might technically deserve First Amendment protection, it does not follow that that same act of communication is responsible. In "normal" times, irresponsible communication in the public sphere certainly produces negative consequences, from distracting our attention away from urgent issues to defaming good people to delaying actions needed to fix what's broken in our society.
What follows is the Credo for Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society. Please read it, reflect on it, and use it as a way to hold yourself and others accountable for your and their communication practices. Be especially mindful of the admonition in principle #5 that we should "expose abuses of the communication process." Those abuses, some of which I mentioned earlier, are having a profoundly negative effect on our ability to loosen the deadly grip of the coronavirus on our nation and world.
Here is the Credo:
Recognizing the essential place of free and responsible communication in a democratic society, and recognizing the distinction between the freedoms our legal system should respect and the responsibilities our educational system should cultivate, we members of the Speech Communication Association endorse the following statement of principles:
Principle #1: We believe that freedom of speech and assembly must hold a central position among American constitutional principles, and we express our determined support for the right of peaceful expression by any communicative means available.
 |
| Protesters, many of them armed, berate security officers at the Michigan State Capital. Though protesters had their temperatures checked before entering the building, we know that coronavirus carriers are often asymptomatic. Can this possibly be a form of "peaceful expression?" (photo from BBC News) |
Principle #3: We criticize as misguided those who believe that the justice of their cause confers license to interfere physically and coercively with the speech of others, and we condemn intimidation, whether by powerful majorities or strident minorities, which attempts to restrict free expression.
 |
| Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has faced the most hostile reaction to stay-at-home orders, from threatening signs to armed militia members showing up at her private residence. Polls show support for the governor's coronavirus actions even as strident protesters try to coerce her into retreat. Masses of people who understand and accept the need to maintain stay at home orders until there is a clear downward trend in coronavirus cases--with full knowledge of the economic harm the orders are causing their communities and them personally--are the true "silent majority." |
Principle #5: We encourage our students to accept the role of well-informed and articulate citizens, to defend the communication rights of those with whom they may disagree, and to expose abuses of the communication process.
[Note: Chris Hayes' exposure of "coronavirus trutherism"is a good example of how a public sphere pundit can expose abuses of the communication process. MSNBC is not a great news and opinion network, and not everything on Fox is awful; but one of the worst media tragedies of our time is that the loyal followers of each will never see the segments worth seeing on the "other side." Fox viewers really do need to see this segment by Hayes--it might literally save their lives.]
Principle #6: We dedicate ourselves fully to these principles, confident in the belief that reason will ultimately prevail in a free marketplace of ideas.
______________________________________________
Will reason ultimately prevail in the free marketplace of ideas? Given the extreme levels of misinformation and disinformation--some of it shared innocently on social media but much of it promoted willfully by bad faith actors--I am not sure that reason WILL prevail. We need to prepare ourselves for what will in our public sphere probably be a long period of malicious efforts to distract us from the urgency of the crisis at hand and defame those good faith actors doing all they can to lead us through it. Distraction and defamation will succeed only in delaying actions necessary to help solve this terrible problem. Remember, distraction + defamation + delay = death.
Some seem to think that reason would stand a better chance of prevailing in the marketplace of ideas if private sector social media companies would simply censor all of the bad faith nonsense out there. If history has taught us anything, it's that censorship does not stifle stupidity, and more dangerously any censorship regime gives too much power to whoever decides what communicative acts are "in" and what communicative acts are "out." You might love the censor when he shuts down what you despise, but it's only a matter of time before he cancels you too.
If people of goodwill refuse to act, then documents like the Credo For Free and Responsible Communication in a Democratic Society are nothing more than pious platitudes on a page. I urge all of us to digest the principles and take an honest inventory of where we come up short. Monitoring my own communicative weaknesses and pledging to do better puts me in a much better position to expose the weaknesses of others. The alternative is to continue living in tribal, self-righteous bubbles overflowing with BS, bluster, and bullying. How's that working for us?
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Video: State of the State: Tony Evers Confronts BBB With BBB
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Oshkosh Independent Column and Audio: Evers Confronts BBB with BBB
Check out my latest State of the State column HERE.
An audio version can be found HERE
Click the logo for more State of the State columns.
An audio version can be found HERE
Click the logo for more State of the State columns.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part VI: Bring It On Home To Me Edition
In this Ten Bold Cover Tunes installment, we learn about and listen to covers of the late Sam Cooke's 1962 soul classic "Bring It On Home To Me." Before talking about it, let's listen to Sam's original.
"Bring It On Home To Me" is one of three Sam Cooke songs recognized by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on the list of the 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll.(The others being "A Change is Gonna Come" and "You Send Me."). Released as a single in the old days of vinyl, "Bring It On Home To Me" was actually the B-side of "Having A Party" and borrows its melody from Charlie Brown's and Amos Milburn's (1959) "I Want To Go Home." The song is not typically thought of as a duet, but the great Lou Rawls' backing vocals on the track most certainly contributed to its power and popularity. Years later Rawls released his own spectacular soul-funk version of the song.
Now Sam Cooke was such a breathtaking singer that he could have crooned the contents of a milk carton label and no one would have minded. Having said that, I've never quite been able to get behind the lyrics of "Bring It On Home To Me." It's kind of like the prototype "baby please come home" tune, expressing what became (especially in pop music) the standard mix of glossing over the problems that led to the breakup, hyperbolic promises and passive aggression. In the song, we never know why the relationship partner left (Abuse? Boredom? Value differences? etc. etc.). The singer "laughed" when the partner left, but apparently now in a fit of loneliness realizes he "only hurt himself." To get the partner back he's going to give jewelry, money, and is even willing to be the partner's slave until he's "buried in my grave." And that all sets up the passive-aggressive part: "I tried to treat you right, but you stayed out late at night. But I forgive YOU." So really, the singer says, this breakup was as much your fault as mine. Not surprisingly, many covers of the tune actually leave out the "I forgive you" part.
When I teach "The Rhetoric of Rock and Roll," one of the messages I try to get across is that you can reject the message of a song and yet still like or love it. The key is to THINK CRITICALLY about a musical message just as you would any other. No message gets a free pass just because it's accompanied by a gripping melody and a beautiful voice. Some years ago the Boston Public Health Commission produced a very good "song nutrition" scorecard that can help people (and not just young people) discover the extent to which a song urges healthy or unhealthy relationships.
Okay, enough lyric analysis. Between recordings and live performances, there have probably been many hundreds (if not thousands) of covers of "Bring It On Home To Me." I'm going to focus just on ten of my favorites. Numbers ten and nine (by Eric Burdon and the Animals and the Supremes) were released not too long after Sam Cooke's untimely death in 1964 and are notable tribute versions. The remaining covers, as we will see and hear, bring unique approaches to the song. So let's get to it:
#10: Eric Burdon and the Animals: One of the most important British Invasion bands of the sixties, the Animals were heavily influenced in all their recordings by American blues, R & B and soul. This was one of the last Animals' songs to feature the extraordinary keyboard work of Alan Price, and Burdon's vocals ooze with sincerity.
#9: Diana Ross and the Supremes: In 1965 the Supremes (featuring Diana Ross) released "We Remember Sam Cooke," a tribute to Sam featuring covers of his greatest hits. A song that's like a mini soap opera fit perfectly within the Motown ideology of the time, and the Supremes as usual did not disappoint.
#8: Eddie Floyd: As time went on the covers of "Bring It On Home To Me" became less tribute-like and added minor or major twists to it. The legendary Eddie Floyd (best known for his soul classic "Knock On Wood") released what I would call a disco version of "Bring It On Home To Me" in 1968--about seven years before anyone even knew what disco was. (Notice how Floyd reworks the lyrics to say "you only hurt YOURSELF" when you left).
#7: Aretha Franklin. The Queen of Soul released her version of the tune on her much underrated "Soul '69" album. Like most of the songs on the album, "Bring It On Home To Me" is given a Sinatra-esque big band arrangement. The big band coupled with Aretha's piercing vocals produces a stunning result.
#6: John Lennon. After years of dabbling in highly experimental, often psychedelic, and frequently self-indulgent rock with the later Beatles and in his early solo albums, John Lennon in 1975 got back to his roots with the "Rock and Roll" album. His cover of "Bring It On Home To Me" provides a clue as to what he must have sounded like at the Cavern Club in Liverpool in the days before the Beatles hit the big time.
#5: Rebecca Pidgeon. Actress and indie-rocker Rebecca Pidgeon adds a backstory to "Bring It On Home To Me" in the form of an original poem set to the melody of Auld Lang Syne. The mash up of the New Year's Eve standard with a classic soul tune is unique and appealing.
#4: Van Morrison. The classic rocker performs what is probably the angriest version of "Bring It On Home To Me," sung from what sounds like the perspective of a man who feels he got screwed over in a divorce settlement. Van sings, "I gave you all the money I had in the bank, now it's time for you to say thanks." And then, "I ain't gonna be a slave, when I'm dead and buried in my grave." Ouch! Tone and victimage aside, Van Morrison like Sam Cooke is just not capable of badly singing a song.
#3: Chadwick Stokes. This is a stripped down version of the song, with just Stokes on the acoustic guitar. Most versions of the tune minimize or don't at all capture the grief of the main character. Stokes emphasizes the grief. Of special note is the way he expresses the word "ALL" at around the 2:13 mark.
Now Sam Cooke was such a breathtaking singer that he could have crooned the contents of a milk carton label and no one would have minded. Having said that, I've never quite been able to get behind the lyrics of "Bring It On Home To Me." It's kind of like the prototype "baby please come home" tune, expressing what became (especially in pop music) the standard mix of glossing over the problems that led to the breakup, hyperbolic promises and passive aggression. In the song, we never know why the relationship partner left (Abuse? Boredom? Value differences? etc. etc.). The singer "laughed" when the partner left, but apparently now in a fit of loneliness realizes he "only hurt himself." To get the partner back he's going to give jewelry, money, and is even willing to be the partner's slave until he's "buried in my grave." And that all sets up the passive-aggressive part: "I tried to treat you right, but you stayed out late at night. But I forgive YOU." So really, the singer says, this breakup was as much your fault as mine. Not surprisingly, many covers of the tune actually leave out the "I forgive you" part.
When I teach "The Rhetoric of Rock and Roll," one of the messages I try to get across is that you can reject the message of a song and yet still like or love it. The key is to THINK CRITICALLY about a musical message just as you would any other. No message gets a free pass just because it's accompanied by a gripping melody and a beautiful voice. Some years ago the Boston Public Health Commission produced a very good "song nutrition" scorecard that can help people (and not just young people) discover the extent to which a song urges healthy or unhealthy relationships.
Okay, enough lyric analysis. Between recordings and live performances, there have probably been many hundreds (if not thousands) of covers of "Bring It On Home To Me." I'm going to focus just on ten of my favorites. Numbers ten and nine (by Eric Burdon and the Animals and the Supremes) were released not too long after Sam Cooke's untimely death in 1964 and are notable tribute versions. The remaining covers, as we will see and hear, bring unique approaches to the song. So let's get to it:
#10: Eric Burdon and the Animals: One of the most important British Invasion bands of the sixties, the Animals were heavily influenced in all their recordings by American blues, R & B and soul. This was one of the last Animals' songs to feature the extraordinary keyboard work of Alan Price, and Burdon's vocals ooze with sincerity.
Chadwick Stokes: Bring it On Home To Me
#2: Roger Ridley and Playing For Change. This is probably the most remarkable version of "Bring It On Home To Me," in that it literally unites musicians from around the globe in a glorious jam. The late Roger Ridley, a long-time street artist from Santa Monica, CA leads off the tune with the most passionate vocal style west of the Mississippi. He's joined by equally compelling singers and musicians from Italy, Cuba, Japan, and other place. All of this was made possible by the Playing For Change organization, activists who support music education and many other causes.
#1: The Tedeschi-Trucks Band With Sharon Jones and Doyle Bramhall II. In this absolutely outstanding cover of "Bring It On Home To Me," two soul/blues legends (Susan Tedeschi and Sharon Jones) produce a searing duet that recreates the studio energy that Cooke and Rawls brought to the original. Derek Trucks' slide guitar solo is the definition of awesomeness, matched only by Doyle Bramhall's guitar theatrics a minute later. Just an incredible performance all around.
Previous Posts In The Ten Bold Cover Tunes Series:
Part I
Part II
Part III: Guitar Hero Edition
Part IV: Dare To Cover Johnny Cash Edition
Part V: I Won't Back Down Edition
Part I
Part II
Part III: Guitar Hero Edition
Part IV: Dare To Cover Johnny Cash Edition
Part V: I Won't Back Down Edition
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, April 01, 2020
Tears For Spheres
In 2013 Wall Street Journal opinion writer Bret Stephens--who with David Brooks now represents the conservative wing of the New York Times opinion page--won a "distinguished commentary" Pulitzer Prize for what I perceived as a year's worth of very unremarkarkable commentary. In 2017 his first column for the Times offered an extremely nonscientific challenge to climate science that leading climate scientists ended up correcting in an open letter.
Sometimes Stephens moves from unremarkable to unhinged, as when in late 2019 he seemed to endorse (and later denied endorsing) a paper coauthored by a known racist that found a genetic basis for intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews. For one of the few times in its history, as noted in Politico, the Times ended up having to retract parts of an opinion column and add an editor's note. A summary of Stephens' most unhingeworthy moments can be found here.
But sometimes even unremarkable writers can have remarkable moments. Case in point: This SPOT-ON paragraph from Stephens' March 13th, 2020 column:
The coronavirus has exposed the falsehood of so many notions Trump’s base holds about the presidency: that experts are unnecessary; that hunches are a substitute for knowledge; that competence in administration is overrated; that every criticism is a hoax; and that everything that happens in Washington is B.S. Above all, it has devastated the conceit that having an epic narcissist in the White House is a riskless proposition at a time of extreme risk.
The suspicion of experts and exaltation of hunches, while a distinct feature of the MAGA cult, did not begin there. We've been on this path for a long time; for many decades now talk radio and the cable opinion shows have preferred verbal tug-of-war between tribal hyperpartisans over any kind of knowledge-driven discourse. The late astrophysicist Carl Sagan warned us of the consequences in his classic 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He wrote:
“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
Given the mess we are now in, I'd say Sagan's fears have been realized in a dramatic way that probably even he could not have imagined. The "combustible mixture of ignorance and power" is so deeply ingrained at so many levels of society that one has to wonder if even a global pandemic inflicting huge global casualties is enough to set us on a new path.
The Way Forward: Understanding Spheres of Argument
While the coronavirus pandemic has alerted us to the importance of appreciating science, what "appreciating science" means is not exactly clear. Does it mean more STEM education? Does it mean putting more scientists on television? Does it mean, as comic Jon Lajoie has cleverly done, thanking God for the nerds? Should professor Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" be required reading in high schools? Should every public university have a requirement similar to University of Washington professors Carl Bergstrom's and Jevin West's "Calling Bullshit"? (To be released as a book in August of this year.). Should more of us share the great Ira Flatow's Science Friday on our social media feeds?
From a media criticism perspective, the problem is not that Americans do not learn enough science in school (although that is certainly a problem.). Rather, the problem is that mainstream media coverage of science is generally poor, often featuring a kind of Scopes Monkey Trial framing in which the clash between a representative of science and a representative of some interest threatened by scientific findings is given priority over understanding the science. The entertainment value of the verbal slug fest between the Clarence Darrows and the William Jennings Bryans becomes more important than the issue that they are actually warring about.
The "clash" coverage ends up minimizing and delegitimizing scientific findings while placing science advocates in the bizarre position of having to defend their reputations as if they were running for office. That's how someone like Dr. Fauci and other epidemiologists become political targets. But even worse, the delegitimizing of science results in even "respectable" sources downplaying findings that suggest an urgent need for action. In an excellent essay in The Atlantic, professor Zeynep Tufekci agrees that while Trump and his right wing sycophants have tragically and willfully minimized the coronavirus from the start, the truth is that a range of journalists took too long to recognize the severity of the problem. On February 1 a Washington Post health writer said it was time to "get a grippe" because the 2020 flu was going to be much worse. A New York Times writer warned against "pandemic panic." Journalists around the world were generally better than their US counterparts at getting the story early, but it took an open letter from French journalists working in Italy to get the crisis elevated to the proper level of urgency. Bill Gates saw this coming more than four years ago, but no one listened. Perhaps if he'd questioned the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate he would have gotten more media attention.
So while more and better science education is necessary and desirable, such education doesn't count for much if our mediated public sphere continues to prioritize the spectacle of disagreement over its resolution. Allow me to explain:
In 1982 Communication Studies scholar G. Thomas Goodnight released an important essay entitled "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation." (Journal of Argumentation and Advocacy). In it, Goodnight defined spheres of argument as "branches of activity--the grounds upon which arguments are built and the authorities to which arguers appeal." For Goodnight, argument takes place in three distinct spheres: the personal, the technical, and the public.
The personal sphere is "the place where most informal arguments occur, among a small number of people, involving limited demands for proof, and often about private topics." Social media has give the personal sphere a public platform, which has had the terrible effect of reducing argument on social media platforms to something that you might experience at a neighborhood barbecue with lots of drunk participants: half-baked ideas and insults become the norm.
The technical sphere is the "argument sphere that has explicit rules for argument and is judged by those with specific expertise in the subject." The technical sphere appears in academic journals, medical literature, the legal field, and other areas where knowledge must be vetted before release (a process known as "peer review."). The Republican Party has been at war with the technical sphere for a long time now, an unfortunate choice that made it easier for the Trump Administration in 2018 to relax pandemic preparedness standards.
In 2005 the comedian Stephen Colbert famously invented the word "truthiness" to describe how knowing something in "the gut" is as good as knowing it from a book. His routine remains a classic satire on the Bush Administration's technical sphere assault. In hindsight, Bush was like Cicero compared to the current occupant of the White House.
The public sphere is "the argument sphere that exists to handle disagreements transcending personal and technical disputes." In theory, everyone can and should participate meaningfully in the public sphere. In practice, the public sphere in most countries is dominated by voices that do not necessarily share the public interest. In the United States, the public sphere is displayed on commercial news media, where viewers and listeners are typically presented with "experts" who obtained the title not by significant achievement in the technical sphere, but by representing the interests of private powers. It's difficult to quantify the damage caused by these "think tank scholars" and pundits-for-hire, but the fact that the Mayor of Tulsa, OK has had to fend off accusations of being a Bible-Belt Hitler for issuing a shelter-in-place order should give us pause.
Over many years we have allowed our public sphere to be dominated by voices telling us, repeatedly and fiercely, that we are all on our own. That we alone are responsible for solving our problems. That all government assistance is at best a necessary evil and almost always a form of totalitarianism. That we should not expect, nor are we entitled to, help from anyone else. That volunteering to help your neighbors is okay, but no one can force us to help them.
What happens when a public fed an anti-civic diet for so many years is suddenly in the position of having to think about how each individual's behavior can literally result in the death of his or her neighbor? Tragically, we are seeing what happens. Mainstream media's long habit of amplifying the voices of cranks and charlatans has made us ill-prepared to handle a public space that now relies on the testimony of medical experts. Even as the body count rises, huge numbers of people fall back on the "please don't force me to think seriously about this" memes of "this is no different than the flu," "this is all being exaggerated," "we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease," etc. When our pubic sphere has been dominated for decades by glib evasions of the world's most pressing problems, none of this should be surprising.
None of us knows how the coronavirus crisis will end. Without a rejuvenated public sphere that respects the technical and motivates the personal toward the greater good, it is not likely to end well.
Sometimes Stephens moves from unremarkable to unhinged, as when in late 2019 he seemed to endorse (and later denied endorsing) a paper coauthored by a known racist that found a genetic basis for intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews. For one of the few times in its history, as noted in Politico, the Times ended up having to retract parts of an opinion column and add an editor's note. A summary of Stephens' most unhingeworthy moments can be found here.
But sometimes even unremarkable writers can have remarkable moments. Case in point: This SPOT-ON paragraph from Stephens' March 13th, 2020 column:
The coronavirus has exposed the falsehood of so many notions Trump’s base holds about the presidency: that experts are unnecessary; that hunches are a substitute for knowledge; that competence in administration is overrated; that every criticism is a hoax; and that everything that happens in Washington is B.S. Above all, it has devastated the conceit that having an epic narcissist in the White House is a riskless proposition at a time of extreme risk.
The suspicion of experts and exaltation of hunches, while a distinct feature of the MAGA cult, did not begin there. We've been on this path for a long time; for many decades now talk radio and the cable opinion shows have preferred verbal tug-of-war between tribal hyperpartisans over any kind of knowledge-driven discourse. The late astrophysicist Carl Sagan warned us of the consequences in his classic 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He wrote:
“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
Given the mess we are now in, I'd say Sagan's fears have been realized in a dramatic way that probably even he could not have imagined. The "combustible mixture of ignorance and power" is so deeply ingrained at so many levels of society that one has to wonder if even a global pandemic inflicting huge global casualties is enough to set us on a new path.
 |
| Above: Carl Sagan prediction circa 1995. |
While the coronavirus pandemic has alerted us to the importance of appreciating science, what "appreciating science" means is not exactly clear. Does it mean more STEM education? Does it mean putting more scientists on television? Does it mean, as comic Jon Lajoie has cleverly done, thanking God for the nerds? Should professor Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" be required reading in high schools? Should every public university have a requirement similar to University of Washington professors Carl Bergstrom's and Jevin West's "Calling Bullshit"? (To be released as a book in August of this year.). Should more of us share the great Ira Flatow's Science Friday on our social media feeds?
 |
| Newspaper coverage of the 1925 prosecution of science teacher John Scopes gave emphasis to the courtroom clash between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. Modern coverage of issues in science is often similar in tone. |
In 1982 Communication Studies scholar G. Thomas Goodnight released an important essay entitled "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation." (Journal of Argumentation and Advocacy). In it, Goodnight defined spheres of argument as "branches of activity--the grounds upon which arguments are built and the authorities to which arguers appeal." For Goodnight, argument takes place in three distinct spheres: the personal, the technical, and the public.
The personal sphere is "the place where most informal arguments occur, among a small number of people, involving limited demands for proof, and often about private topics." Social media has give the personal sphere a public platform, which has had the terrible effect of reducing argument on social media platforms to something that you might experience at a neighborhood barbecue with lots of drunk participants: half-baked ideas and insults become the norm.
The technical sphere is the "argument sphere that has explicit rules for argument and is judged by those with specific expertise in the subject." The technical sphere appears in academic journals, medical literature, the legal field, and other areas where knowledge must be vetted before release (a process known as "peer review."). The Republican Party has been at war with the technical sphere for a long time now, an unfortunate choice that made it easier for the Trump Administration in 2018 to relax pandemic preparedness standards.
In 2005 the comedian Stephen Colbert famously invented the word "truthiness" to describe how knowing something in "the gut" is as good as knowing it from a book. His routine remains a classic satire on the Bush Administration's technical sphere assault. In hindsight, Bush was like Cicero compared to the current occupant of the White House.
What happens when a public fed an anti-civic diet for so many years is suddenly in the position of having to think about how each individual's behavior can literally result in the death of his or her neighbor? Tragically, we are seeing what happens. Mainstream media's long habit of amplifying the voices of cranks and charlatans has made us ill-prepared to handle a public space that now relies on the testimony of medical experts. Even as the body count rises, huge numbers of people fall back on the "please don't force me to think seriously about this" memes of "this is no different than the flu," "this is all being exaggerated," "we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease," etc. When our pubic sphere has been dominated for decades by glib evasions of the world's most pressing problems, none of this should be surprising.
None of us knows how the coronavirus crisis will end. Without a rejuvenated public sphere that respects the technical and motivates the personal toward the greater good, it is not likely to end well.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, March 05, 2020
Ten Bold Cover Tunes Part V: I Won't Back Down Edition
Note. Prior entries in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (Guitar Hero Edition), Part 4 (Dare to cover Johnny Cash Edition)
This segment of the Ten Bold Cover Tunes series was inspired by the recent "Super Tuesday" primary elections. Former Vice-President Joe Biden, a guy who has been on the wrong side of so many things that have harmed huge numbers of people for so long (corporate trade deals, Iraq War, and bankruptcy protection to name just three of many), had such a great Super Tuesday showing that he's now back as the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination.
The last time the Dems nominated a former VP whose main appeal was his "decency" (think Walter Mondale '84), they lost 49 states in the general election. And Mondale's prior baggage was a paper lunch bag compared to the over sized footlocker Biden is carrying around. Which is not to say that Biden cannot win the general election; Mr. Trump's historically unique awfulness makes him vulnerable in ways that President Reagan was not in '84. What's sad is that huge swaths of the Democratic primary electorate have so deeply internalized lesser-evilism as a legitimate electoral option that they cannot bring themselves to vote for what they actually want or need.
Biden's Super Tuesday ascension was propelled in part by other centrists leaving the race literally the day before the election to endorse him. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar came to the conclusion that their active presence in the race could potentially hand over some victories to Bernie Sanders or even Michael Bloomberg. That Pete and Amy spent over a year getting supporters excited, then backed down immediately as soon as the DNC establishment explained the stakes to them, is not exactly the definition of political courage.
All of which is not to say that Bernie Sanders is a perfect candidate. He has difficulty reaching out to older voters (who vote in big numbers), and his campaign's promise to attract new and disenchanted voters seems hollow at this point. But the good thing about Bernie is that, even at 78 years old and with two stents in the ticker, he doesn't back down. In fact the only hope right now for people who want to see the Dems nominate someone who stands for things that most Dems say they believe in is to not back down.
So for all of you out there fighting for more than pathetic business as usual, this rant is for you. Let's start with Tom Petty's original classic:
#10: Jason Aldean: Aldean's version was performed live on Saturday Night Live, and proceeds from the recording went to victims of the horrible Las Vegas massacre.
#9: Becca VanderBeck, Matthew Heath, and Noel Goff. I think Becca VanDerbeck's vocals on this cover hint at the vulnerability in the lyrics that's not immediately obvious on a surface level reading or listen.
#8: Lullaby Players: If you want to explain to young children the importance of being resilient and staying true to yourself, try accompanying your pitch with the Lullaby Players' version of "I Won't Back Down" playing in the background.
#7: JohnnySwim and Drew Holcomb and the Neighbors: Given the tragic tornado activity that hit Tennessee this week, this cover of the tune from a group of Nashville based musicians takes on added meaning.
#6: Rebel Featuring Sam James. This is almost like a Club version of the tune, good if you're in the mood to tap your feet.
#5: KT Tunstall, Mike McCready, and Leah Julius. The artists recorded this song as a "loud shout of support to all the people all over the world marching, protesting,and standing up for equality." Bravo.
#4: Reel Big Fish. If you like ska music, you will love this cover. The opening bass line by itself is worth the price of admission.
#3: Anya Marina. In the last four years I've lost my mom and mother-in-law, both of whom continue to impact me greatly. Love the fact that Anya features her mom in the video.
#2: Los Ciegos del Barrio. This band of all blind musicians know what it is like to have to struggle for acceptance and a place at the table. Their version of the tune is explicitly dedicated to the youth of the world, especially those victimized by gun violence. Powerful.
#1: Johnny Cash: The Man In Black somehow finds a way into just about all of these Bold Cover Tunes rants. I've said it before: no artist in history was able to take complete artistic ownership over other peoples' songs as well as Cash. He did it again here, belting out a version of "I Won't Back Down" that became a standard for others to follow. Amazing.
This segment of the Ten Bold Cover Tunes series was inspired by the recent "Super Tuesday" primary elections. Former Vice-President Joe Biden, a guy who has been on the wrong side of so many things that have harmed huge numbers of people for so long (corporate trade deals, Iraq War, and bankruptcy protection to name just three of many), had such a great Super Tuesday showing that he's now back as the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination.
The last time the Dems nominated a former VP whose main appeal was his "decency" (think Walter Mondale '84), they lost 49 states in the general election. And Mondale's prior baggage was a paper lunch bag compared to the over sized footlocker Biden is carrying around. Which is not to say that Biden cannot win the general election; Mr. Trump's historically unique awfulness makes him vulnerable in ways that President Reagan was not in '84. What's sad is that huge swaths of the Democratic primary electorate have so deeply internalized lesser-evilism as a legitimate electoral option that they cannot bring themselves to vote for what they actually want or need.
Biden's Super Tuesday ascension was propelled in part by other centrists leaving the race literally the day before the election to endorse him. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar came to the conclusion that their active presence in the race could potentially hand over some victories to Bernie Sanders or even Michael Bloomberg. That Pete and Amy spent over a year getting supporters excited, then backed down immediately as soon as the DNC establishment explained the stakes to them, is not exactly the definition of political courage.
All of which is not to say that Bernie Sanders is a perfect candidate. He has difficulty reaching out to older voters (who vote in big numbers), and his campaign's promise to attract new and disenchanted voters seems hollow at this point. But the good thing about Bernie is that, even at 78 years old and with two stents in the ticker, he doesn't back down. In fact the only hope right now for people who want to see the Dems nominate someone who stands for things that most Dems say they believe in is to not back down.
So for all of you out there fighting for more than pathetic business as usual, this rant is for you. Let's start with Tom Petty's original classic:
#10: Jason Aldean: Aldean's version was performed live on Saturday Night Live, and proceeds from the recording went to victims of the horrible Las Vegas massacre.
#9: Becca VanderBeck, Matthew Heath, and Noel Goff. I think Becca VanDerbeck's vocals on this cover hint at the vulnerability in the lyrics that's not immediately obvious on a surface level reading or listen.
#8: Lullaby Players: If you want to explain to young children the importance of being resilient and staying true to yourself, try accompanying your pitch with the Lullaby Players' version of "I Won't Back Down" playing in the background.
#7: JohnnySwim and Drew Holcomb and the Neighbors: Given the tragic tornado activity that hit Tennessee this week, this cover of the tune from a group of Nashville based musicians takes on added meaning.
#5: KT Tunstall, Mike McCready, and Leah Julius. The artists recorded this song as a "loud shout of support to all the people all over the world marching, protesting,and standing up for equality." Bravo.
#4: Reel Big Fish. If you like ska music, you will love this cover. The opening bass line by itself is worth the price of admission.
#3: Anya Marina. In the last four years I've lost my mom and mother-in-law, both of whom continue to impact me greatly. Love the fact that Anya features her mom in the video.
To get back to the primaries: if like me you are horrified by the turn the race has taken, the answer can't be to despair. The mainstream media will continue to tell us that we have to vote and act out of fear, that we have to share their warped sense of what a "safe" candidate is, and that we have to accept lesser-evilism as a legitimate political strategy.
We can't continue to be suckered into that nonsense.
We have to stand for something better.
And when we say we won't back down, we have to mean it.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Sunday, March 01, 2020
The Sanders Campaign Should Welcome Mainstream Media Hostility
As Bernie Sanders continues to perform well in Democratic Party primary contests, so-called "liberal" media platforms like MSNBC are finally starting to warm up to the idea of a (gasp!) democratic socialist as nominee. MSNBC's coverage of the Nevada primary relied on a motley mainstream crew including a lamebrain (Chris Matthews), a losing candidate who is now somehow an expert on how to win (Claire McCaskill), and a has-been living in the 1990s (James Carville) to lament Sanders' victory. The broadcast struck viewers as so over-the-top awful that the network the next day was forced to air a pro-Sanders voice. That voice was writer Anand Giridharadas, who was allowed on-air to refer to Matthews, McCaskill, Carville and others as "Out of touch aristocrats in a dying aristocracy."
Soon after, MSNBC pundit-host Chris Hayes delivered what sounded like a grudging acknowledgement that Bernie's lead "should not be surprising" since he's doing all a candidate needs to do to win a Democratic party nomination: winning state primaries, raising enough money to compete, and building a multiracial coalition. Significantly, Hayes' statement avoided the typical MSNBC and CNN tripe about Sanders; to wit, the moronic theory that his candidacy benefits from "Russian interference in our elections." (I wonder how the Russiaphobes explain Bernie's defeat in South Carolina. Did Putin take the day off?).
Mainstream Media SHOULD be hostile to Bernie Sanders
Unlike Donald Trump, who frames mainstream media as a hate object for political gain, Bernie Sanders' approach to media is simply an extension of his general critique of how corporate interests work in opposition to the interests of the population at-large. In his plan for rebuilding an independent press, he said the following:
*At precisely the moment when we need more reporters covering the healthcare crisis, the climate emergency, and economic inequality, we have television pundits paid tens of millions of dollars to pontificate about frivolous political gossip, as local news outlets are eviscerated.
*Today, after decades of consolidation and deregulation, just a small handful of companies control almost everything you watch, read, and download. Given that reality, we should not want even more of the free press to be put under the control of a handful of corporations and “benevolent” billionaires who can use their media empires to punish their critics and shield themselves from scrutiny.
*We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires.
CNN and MSNBC are owned by Warner Media and Comcast, two enormous and profit-driven conglomerates that are poster children for pretty much everything wrong with mass media today. The best that could be said of either is that they are probably not as bad as the Fox Corporation. Given what those megacorps represent, and given what Sanders stands for, is it really odd or unusual that CNN and MSNBC products would be hostile to him?
In no way am I suggesting that corporate media owners send directives to network hosts to bash Sanders or any progressive candidates. Such directives do not need to be sent because the news producers, directors, and on-air talent of such corporate entities know the rules of the game. Like Lee Strasberg's character in The Godfather Part II, participants in this media hit job rationalize that "this is the business we have chosen."
Tribal Politics and the Impact of News and Punditry
Even if the mainstream media were more fair to Sanders, it's not clear what difference that would actually make in terms of voter behavior. Writing in the New York Times, podcaster Steve Phillips makes a pretty convincing case that the "demographic revolution" going on in our country right now is highly supportive of the kind of politics represented by Sanders. Moreover, we're living at a time when people who identify with a party label are not easily budged from it. Consequently, it is difficult for Phillips to imagine a scenario in which Mr. Sanders loses ANY of the Democratic base that supported Hillary Clinton:
The empirical evidence shows that there is no need for alarm about Mr. Sanders being the Democratic nominee, and even some cause for confidence. If you want to engage in theoretical thought experiments, a useful exercise would be to ask how many people who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would switch their votes to back Mr. Trump just because Mr. Sanders was the nominee? Common sense suggests that the answer is infinitesimally small.
Some Sanders supporters sincerely believe that fairer media treatment would put even the hardcore Trump voters in play. They believe that Sanders' message of working class economics, uniting across racial lines, bridging the urban/rural divide, and expanding the social safety net would be persuasive to MAGA hat wearing Trumpers if reported on fairly. Maybe so, but scholarly and other investigations of the Trump base suggests otherwise. University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz's scholarship on "Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote" helps elucidate the the ideology found within the Trump base that makes such appeals fall on deaf ears. As summarized by journalist Rebecca Ruiz:
Mutz found no evidence that personal economic anxiety, represented by indicators like worry about retirement savings, medical bills, and education expenses, predicted greater support for Trump. . . Meanwhile, Trump's supporters favored a smaller safety net, which suggests they're less concerned about how people will fare when they face dire financial straits.
One particularly telling factor did increase the likelihood of support for Trump: believing that white people are more discriminated against than people of color, and believing that Christians and men experience more discrimination than Muslims and women.
For links to similar studies, see Mehdi Hasan's excellent summary in the Intercept.
For an anecdotal yet highly insightful look at the hard core Trump voter, I recommend writer Monica Potts' "In the Land of Self-Defeat" from the October 4, 2019 New York Times. Ms. Potts went back to her hometown in rural Arkansas (over 70-percent of the population went for Mr. Trump in 2016) and became dispirited by the quality of the debate over funding a local public library. She concluded that NO Democrat will win these folks back with promises of expanded government spending:
Economic appeals are not going to sway any Trump voters, who view anyone who is trying to increase government spending, especially to help other people, with disdain, even if it ultimately helps them, too. And Trump voters are carrying the day here in Van Buren County. They see Mr. Trump’s slashing of the national safety net and withdrawal from the international stage as necessities — these things reflect their own impulse writ large.
They believe every tax dollar spent now is wasteful and foolish and they will have to pay for it later. It is as if there will be a nationwide scramble to cover the shortfall just as there was here with the library. As long as Democrats make promises to make their lives better with free college and Medicare for all sound like they include government spending, these voters will turn to Trump again — and it won’t matter how many scandals he’s been tarnished by.
While I do not believe that Sanders or any candidate should simply write off these voters, I think it's silly to believe that mainstream national news and punditry will shift their views in any significant way. What's really needed in such communities is not more or even better television, but more local organizing by people committed to the region and in it for the long haul. That won't be easy, especially as opportunities for young people in such regions continue to disappear. Perhaps the Democratic National Committee, instead of plotting ways to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination, should dedicate resources to creating Americorp style opportunities across the land. The DNC perhaps could implore the Michael Bloombergs and Tom Steyers of the world to spend their billions not on hopeless ego-driven campaigns, but on programs that would support the ability of youth organizers to spend five years working on civic engagement projects in local communities.
Hostile Media Benefits Insurgent Campaigns
There's an insurgent quality to Mr. Sanders' campaign that resists calls for moving to the center. As I've argued in a previous rant, Sanders is not interested in the left/right "triangulation" that has marred our national politics for generations. For the mainstream media as represented by CNN and MSNBC to become less hostile to him means making him more "centrist." That is, showing that his programs really are not all that radical, and that he's really not all that different from your typical Democrat. Clearly the Democratic National Committee, like their RNC counterparts in bed with the one-percent, will find Sanders palatable only if he demonstrates a willingness to accommodate the oligarchs--or at least not be such an open threat to them.
Speaking just for me, should Bernie Sanders somehow get the nomination, the only way he absolutely loses in the fall is if the campaign is stripped of its insurgent spirit. While the core base of the Republicans and Democrats have already made up their mind on how they're going to vote in November, the independents and nonvoters that Sanders is trying provoke into the ballot box have zero interest in mainstream "moderate" candidates. To the extent that the mainstream media transforms Sanders into "just a more left-wing Democrat," and to the extent that he himself muffles his insurgent instincts, he loses.
When you start to see CNN and MSNBC being nice to Sanders, recognize that it is NOT because of some new commitment to fairness. Rather, it's to take the teeth out of the campaign and recast it as somehow within the boundaries of some corporate approved definition of the "mainstream."
In The Devil's Dictionary (1911), the great writer Ambrose Bierce defined "radicalism" as "the conservatism of tomorrow injected into the affairs of today." There will come a time, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, when health care as a guaranteed human right, powering the world with renewable energy sources, living wages for all full-time workers, and other policies now deemed radical will seem so obvious that people will wonder why they were resisted so long. But to get to that point, activists have to be willing to face hostility from a mainstream media propped up by powerful opponents of those same policies. To win the White House, Sanders and his supporters need to welcome that hostility, not fall into the trap of watering down the message for better coverage.
Soon after, MSNBC pundit-host Chris Hayes delivered what sounded like a grudging acknowledgement that Bernie's lead "should not be surprising" since he's doing all a candidate needs to do to win a Democratic party nomination: winning state primaries, raising enough money to compete, and building a multiracial coalition. Significantly, Hayes' statement avoided the typical MSNBC and CNN tripe about Sanders; to wit, the moronic theory that his candidacy benefits from "Russian interference in our elections." (I wonder how the Russiaphobes explain Bernie's defeat in South Carolina. Did Putin take the day off?).
There are Sanders' supporters out there working hard to get more balanced treatment for their candidate on CNN, MSNBC, and mainstream media in general. My own view is that these efforts are misguided and counterproductive for three main reasons: (1) mainstream media SHOULD be hostile to Bernie Sanders, (2) in a time of tribal politics it's not clear what if any impact mainstream news and punditry has on elections, (3) an insurgent campaign like Sanders' probably benefits from being subject to mainstream media hostility. Let's examine each.
Mainstream Media SHOULD be hostile to Bernie Sanders
Unlike Donald Trump, who frames mainstream media as a hate object for political gain, Bernie Sanders' approach to media is simply an extension of his general critique of how corporate interests work in opposition to the interests of the population at-large. In his plan for rebuilding an independent press, he said the following:
*At precisely the moment when we need more reporters covering the healthcare crisis, the climate emergency, and economic inequality, we have television pundits paid tens of millions of dollars to pontificate about frivolous political gossip, as local news outlets are eviscerated.
*Today, after decades of consolidation and deregulation, just a small handful of companies control almost everything you watch, read, and download. Given that reality, we should not want even more of the free press to be put under the control of a handful of corporations and “benevolent” billionaires who can use their media empires to punish their critics and shield themselves from scrutiny.
*We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires.
CNN and MSNBC are owned by Warner Media and Comcast, two enormous and profit-driven conglomerates that are poster children for pretty much everything wrong with mass media today. The best that could be said of either is that they are probably not as bad as the Fox Corporation. Given what those megacorps represent, and given what Sanders stands for, is it really odd or unusual that CNN and MSNBC products would be hostile to him?
In no way am I suggesting that corporate media owners send directives to network hosts to bash Sanders or any progressive candidates. Such directives do not need to be sent because the news producers, directors, and on-air talent of such corporate entities know the rules of the game. Like Lee Strasberg's character in The Godfather Part II, participants in this media hit job rationalize that "this is the business we have chosen."
Tribal Politics and the Impact of News and Punditry
Even if the mainstream media were more fair to Sanders, it's not clear what difference that would actually make in terms of voter behavior. Writing in the New York Times, podcaster Steve Phillips makes a pretty convincing case that the "demographic revolution" going on in our country right now is highly supportive of the kind of politics represented by Sanders. Moreover, we're living at a time when people who identify with a party label are not easily budged from it. Consequently, it is difficult for Phillips to imagine a scenario in which Mr. Sanders loses ANY of the Democratic base that supported Hillary Clinton:
The empirical evidence shows that there is no need for alarm about Mr. Sanders being the Democratic nominee, and even some cause for confidence. If you want to engage in theoretical thought experiments, a useful exercise would be to ask how many people who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would switch their votes to back Mr. Trump just because Mr. Sanders was the nominee? Common sense suggests that the answer is infinitesimally small.
Mutz found no evidence that personal economic anxiety, represented by indicators like worry about retirement savings, medical bills, and education expenses, predicted greater support for Trump. . . Meanwhile, Trump's supporters favored a smaller safety net, which suggests they're less concerned about how people will fare when they face dire financial straits.
One particularly telling factor did increase the likelihood of support for Trump: believing that white people are more discriminated against than people of color, and believing that Christians and men experience more discrimination than Muslims and women.
For links to similar studies, see Mehdi Hasan's excellent summary in the Intercept.
For an anecdotal yet highly insightful look at the hard core Trump voter, I recommend writer Monica Potts' "In the Land of Self-Defeat" from the October 4, 2019 New York Times. Ms. Potts went back to her hometown in rural Arkansas (over 70-percent of the population went for Mr. Trump in 2016) and became dispirited by the quality of the debate over funding a local public library. She concluded that NO Democrat will win these folks back with promises of expanded government spending:
Economic appeals are not going to sway any Trump voters, who view anyone who is trying to increase government spending, especially to help other people, with disdain, even if it ultimately helps them, too. And Trump voters are carrying the day here in Van Buren County. They see Mr. Trump’s slashing of the national safety net and withdrawal from the international stage as necessities — these things reflect their own impulse writ large.
They believe every tax dollar spent now is wasteful and foolish and they will have to pay for it later. It is as if there will be a nationwide scramble to cover the shortfall just as there was here with the library. As long as Democrats make promises to make their lives better with free college and Medicare for all sound like they include government spending, these voters will turn to Trump again — and it won’t matter how many scandals he’s been tarnished by.
While I do not believe that Sanders or any candidate should simply write off these voters, I think it's silly to believe that mainstream national news and punditry will shift their views in any significant way. What's really needed in such communities is not more or even better television, but more local organizing by people committed to the region and in it for the long haul. That won't be easy, especially as opportunities for young people in such regions continue to disappear. Perhaps the Democratic National Committee, instead of plotting ways to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination, should dedicate resources to creating Americorp style opportunities across the land. The DNC perhaps could implore the Michael Bloombergs and Tom Steyers of the world to spend their billions not on hopeless ego-driven campaigns, but on programs that would support the ability of youth organizers to spend five years working on civic engagement projects in local communities.
Hostile Media Benefits Insurgent Campaigns
There's an insurgent quality to Mr. Sanders' campaign that resists calls for moving to the center. As I've argued in a previous rant, Sanders is not interested in the left/right "triangulation" that has marred our national politics for generations. For the mainstream media as represented by CNN and MSNBC to become less hostile to him means making him more "centrist." That is, showing that his programs really are not all that radical, and that he's really not all that different from your typical Democrat. Clearly the Democratic National Committee, like their RNC counterparts in bed with the one-percent, will find Sanders palatable only if he demonstrates a willingness to accommodate the oligarchs--or at least not be such an open threat to them.
Speaking just for me, should Bernie Sanders somehow get the nomination, the only way he absolutely loses in the fall is if the campaign is stripped of its insurgent spirit. While the core base of the Republicans and Democrats have already made up their mind on how they're going to vote in November, the independents and nonvoters that Sanders is trying provoke into the ballot box have zero interest in mainstream "moderate" candidates. To the extent that the mainstream media transforms Sanders into "just a more left-wing Democrat," and to the extent that he himself muffles his insurgent instincts, he loses.
When you start to see CNN and MSNBC being nice to Sanders, recognize that it is NOT because of some new commitment to fairness. Rather, it's to take the teeth out of the campaign and recast it as somehow within the boundaries of some corporate approved definition of the "mainstream."
In The Devil's Dictionary (1911), the great writer Ambrose Bierce defined "radicalism" as "the conservatism of tomorrow injected into the affairs of today." There will come a time, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, when health care as a guaranteed human right, powering the world with renewable energy sources, living wages for all full-time workers, and other policies now deemed radical will seem so obvious that people will wonder why they were resisted so long. But to get to that point, activists have to be willing to face hostility from a mainstream media propped up by powerful opponents of those same policies. To win the White House, Sanders and his supporters need to welcome that hostility, not fall into the trap of watering down the message for better coverage.
 |
| If Ambrose Bierce were around today, he'd have little difficulty recognizing the abuses of the mainstream press. |
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)