The Blast Bonus and Other Ways to Build Baseball Back Better

Back in 2015 I wrote a Media Rant called "Sports Journalism Sucks." Somehow in seven years since it's actually gotten suckier. Proof? Talk to people who rely on mainstream media for news and ask them what the major league baseball lockout is all about. The honest among them will say something like, "I don't have a fucking clue." The rest will repeat back mainstream media clichés: "it's a pissing contest between greedy players and greedy owners," "no one cares about the fans," "I don't know but I will be pissed off if they delay opening day," etc. 

The best piece I've seen on the lockout is by ESPN's Jeff Passan. He writes: "Major League Baseball is in a crisis of its own making, a self-inflicted wound borne of equal parts hubris, short-sightedness and stubbornness from a class of owners who run the teams and seemingly have designs on running the game into the ground." That baseball finds itself in this position, according to Passan, "is no accident. It is a study in the consequences of bad behavior -- of indignities big and small, of abiding by the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit and, worst of all, of alienating those who make the sport great . . . The players are angry at the trajectory of the negotiations, which have inched along for almost a year with little demonstrable progress. More than that, they're tired of the game they love saying, in ways both active and passive, it does not love them back."  (Listen to an interview with Jeff Passan HERE.). 

Team owners locked out the players on December 2, 2021. As of 3/1/22 the lockout is the second longest in baseball history, surpassed only by the strike year of 1994/95. As of this writing, the League has set a deadline of 5 p.m. on March 1st for a deal to be reached in order to avoid canceling regular season games. 

The issues dividing the owners and the players are no doubt difficult. Amateur draft lotteries, competitive balance tax thresholds, service time manipulation, salary arbitration eligibility, revenue sharing, bonus pools, intentional tanking, minimum salary, and others are not easy to explain in two minute television and radio packages. But the failure to cover such issues adequately allows most team owners to remain virtually anonymous even as they wield monopoly power giving them significant advantages in talks with the players' union. 

Regardless of how the negotiations end, we know that team owners will continue to amass huge profits. Minor league players, who are among the most exploited workers in the country, will continue to be treated like crap. The shameful exploitation of players in Latin American baseball "academies" will remain invisible and get worse. And to add insult to injury, in 2022 we will probably see commercial advertising on major league team jerseys. That will only add to the owners' bottom line at the same time they continue to price out the average fans. 

Baseball needs to build back better. 

The moral shortcomings of MLB are inexcusable in any context, but they get magnified when you consider the fact that the modern game just isn't very exciting. As noted by Jeff Passan, "There is ample room for improvement to the sport itself, which has grown too plodding for a wide swath of young, would-be fans who regard it as slow and boring." Offense-crippling shifts, high strikeout rates, unlimited pitching changes, interminable instant replay decisions, and other factors have conspired to make the 21st century game a bore. If I were the baseball commissioner, an owner, or a players' union rep, here are ten reforms I'd advocate for: 

1. Ban The Infield Shift:  Imagine a player spending his formative years mastering the third base position, only to find out that when he gets to the major leagues he'll move to short right field whenever a lefty power hitter comes up. The extreme shifts not only make a mockery of the spirit of the game, but they also wreck careers. Phillies' slugger Ryan Howard had his career derailed by the shift, as did the Reds' Jay Bruce and many others. 

Here's an example of what has become a typical shift in MLB. With a left-handed power hitter at the plate, literally the entire defense except the left fielder is on the right side of second base

Last year Tom Verducci wrote about Jay Bruce as a representative anecdote of shift madness in a great piece for Sports Illustrated. He concluded, "Seven years of evidence is enough. The shift is harming baseball and must go. The career of Jay Bruce—what it was and what it could have been—is the canary in the coal mine. It is too late for Bruce, but not for the next generation of hitters—and fans."

2. Three Foul Balls After Two Strikes And You're Out: Since ending the infield shift would help batters, we have to do something to help the pitchers too. Under the current rules, if a batter bunts the ball foul with two strikes, he's out. Most batters do not bunt with two strikes, and very frequently they hit numerous foul balls before getting a hit, striking out, or walking. This drives up the pitcher's pitch count and makes a pitching change more likely. 

After two strikes, I would allow the batter two more foul balls. On the third foul ball, he's out. This would not only reduce pitch counts and help minimize bullpen usage, but it would also speed up the game. I mean is anyone really impressed by at-bats of eight or more pitches? In 2018 the Giants' Brandon Belt had a 21-pitch at-bat (including 16 foul balls) that ended in a fly-out. Belt's at-bat was a little over 13-minutes long, roughly the same length as Iron Maiden's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." If I'm going to suffer through a headbangable 13-minutes, I'd rather that it be with Iron Maiden. 

Increase Roster Size to 30:  The 25-man (now 26) roster has been one of those sacred cows in baseball for decades. The 25-man roster probably made sense when there were far fewer teams and much less travel. Today, the 162-game schedule is grueling, and with teams carrying so many pitchers there just are not enough position players on the bench. I think a 30-man roster would extend the careers of some of the games stars by making it easier to give them days off. Just as important, an expanded roster would allow players trapped in the minor leagues to get a shot at big league playing time. Yes it would cost the owners more money, but that's always the weakest argument against reform. 

4. Tie After Ten Innings: The last two years MLB experimented with placing a "ghost runner" on second base during extra innings in an attempt to increase the chances that games would end at a reasonable time. I'm not a fan of the ghost runner (it seems a bit too little leagueish), but I also don't find anything particularly appealing about 12, 13, or 14 inning games. I suggest that during the regular season MLB add a Tie column to the standings. All games would go a maximum of 10 innings. If there is no winner after 10 innings, the game is officially in the record books as a tie. Shorter games protect the health of the position players, and the modern fan really is not all that impressed by games that don't get settled until midnight or later. The tie provision would be suspended in the postseason playoffs and World Series so that no more than 5 or 7 games would have to be played in any round. 

5. Universal Designated Hitter: The National League has steadfastly refused to adopt the designated hitter even though we have the absurd situation of pitchers who have not hit since high school having to go up to the plate against people throwing 98-mile-per-hour fastballs. It does look like the Universal DH will in fact be tried out in 2022, so at least one item on this list will become reality! 

6. Position Player Designated Hitter: When the American League incorporated the Designated Hitter in the 1970s, one of the major reasons was to bring more offense to the game. All these years later, offense is once again in need of a boost. I suggest that in addition to having the standard DH in their lineup, each team also be allowed to have one Position Player Designated Hitter (PPDH).  Suppose, for example, the Yankees conclude that catcher Gary Sanchez's defense is hurting them behind the plate. Under the PPDH rule, they could have backup catcher Kyle Higashioka play the field while Sanchez would be the PPDH. The PPDH would not have to play the same position as the person he is PPDHing for. (For example, the Yankees could have Higashioka catch and make Aaron Judge the PPDH).  

I know that the PPDH sounds radical, but so did the DH rule back in the day. The PPDH would not only enhance offense, but it would also extend the careers of the star players. Players would be able to get breaks from playing defense without having to give up their bat. 

7.  The Save Goes to the Highest Leverage Reliever:  Imagine this scenario. A relief pitcher comes into the game in the 8th inning with a one run lead. He faces the heart of the opposing team's lineup, gets out of the inning and keeps the lead. Then in the 9th inning a new pitcher comes in (the "closer"), faces the weakest part of the opposing team's lineup and gets the three outs necessary to win the game for his team. Under the current rules, the closer gets the "save" while the 8th inning guy only gets a "hold."  But who really saved that game? The 8th inning guy who faced the heart of the lineup or the closer who faced the inferior bats? 

My suggestion is to allow the official scorer of the game to decide who gets the save. The official scorer should make his/her decision based on a judgement of which pitcher faced the most high leverage situation. It might turn out, for example, that a relief pitcher who came in  the game in the 6th inning with the bases loaded, no outs and two runs already in deserved the save if he shut the door on any more runs. This reform suggestion would be great for middle-relief pitchers who never get treated well in contract negotiations because they don't have the prestigious "save" label in their stats. 

8. Four Pitcher Maximum: The growth of the relief "specialist" (i.e. the guy who comes in to throw one inning) has increased the number of pitchers per game. As a consequence, we've seen longer games, more strikeouts, and reduced offense. Excessive pitching changes added to the extreme shifts in the field are probably the two factors most responsible for making the game as boring as it is today. 

In 2019 Nate Silver of 538.com wrote a great piece on how "relievers have broken baseball." From the piece comes this chart showing how much the number of pitchers per game has increased over the years

My suggestion is to limit each team to a maximum of four pitchers per game. If a team chooses to use more than 4 pitchers, the opposing team would get 1 run for each additional pitcher. So if a team uses 6 pitchers, they are giving up 2 runs. The four pitcher maximum rule would result in starting pitchers going deeper into games, and would also revive the lost art of middle relief pitching (i.e. the guy who comes in to the game and pitches 3-4 innings). Fewer pitchers would also speed up the game. 

9. Instant Replay Reform: For me, one of the real charms of baseball "back in the day" were the arguments between managers and umpires. Managerial giants like Earl Weaver, Leo Durocher, Billy Martin, and Lou Piniella became famous for their antics. Instant replay has eliminated most of that. Call me old-fashioned, but I would much rather watch Billy Martin kick dirt on an umpire than watch two headphone-clad umpires for two minutes as they await the replay call from a New York studio. It's also not clear that instant replay has had much impact on the overall won-loss records of teams. Without instant replay, each team probably benefits from blown calls as much as they suffer from them; it's a wash. 

Instead of banning instant replay, I would limit it to high stakes calls occurring in the 7th inning or later. By "high stakes" I mean a call that resulted in a lead change. So if it's the bottom of the 8th inning at Fenway Park and J.D. Martinez is called safe at home on a questionable call to give the Red Sox the lead over the Yankees, then that would be a perfectly appropriate use of instant replay. For innings before the 7th, let's give the game back to the umpires and hopefully see a return of the colorful managers. 

10. The Blast Bonus: In baseball, the "tape measure" home run is worth same number of runs as the "cheapie" that barely gets over the fence. Maybe it's time to change that. My proposal is that if the projected home run distance of a ball is 450 feet or greater, the hitter's team would get a "blast bonus" of an additional run. At the end of the season, the player responsible for getting his team the most Blast Bonuses would receive the "Mantle" award for his efforts. (Mickey Mantle of the New  York Yankees hit the first home run that was called a tape measure.) 

I think the Blast Bonus, like the previous suggestions, would add an element of fun to the game that is missing in the current version. Major League Baseball cannot truly build back better until it's rescued from the clutches of greedy owners and the league officials that enable them. But until that happens, can't we at least make the game fun again? 

On Filibusters: Silent vs. Civic

February 2, 2022 Update:  One of the points this post makes is that corporate special interests support senators that abuse the "silent" filibuster. Found out yesterday from independent journalist Judd Legum that a number of corporations that sent out celebratory "Black History Month" tweets have actually given big sums of $$$ last year to Senators who silent filibustered the recent voting rights legislation. Examples:

*Microsoft donated $135K to Senators who filibustered voting rights.

*Verizon donated 126K

*Google donated 99K

*Dell donated 41K

*Amazon donated 30K

*Meta (Facebook) donated 27K

---------------------------------------------

February of 2022 marks the eleventh anniversary of fourteen Wisconsin Senate Democrats fleeing to Illinois rather than allow then-Governor Scott Walker's union busting "budget repair" bill to move forward. Though the bill ultimately passed and the Democrats' actions technically weren't a filibuster, as a practical matter the Senators' Illinois sojourn was filibusteresque in impact: a final vote on [what most Democrats perceived to be] a horrible piece of legislation was delayed, allowing citizens across the state more time to learn about and speak out against it. Delay tactics also enabled a massive protest movement to occupy the city of Madison, and generated needed attention toward labor issues in the national media. In other words, the filibuster/delay tactics were an act of civic responsibility.  Most Democrats loudly cheered.  

Jimmy Stewart's legendary fictional filibuster in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) is a far cry from the "silent" filibuster that now rules the Senate

I bring this up because the Democrats' current mantra that we should "end the filibuster" in the United States Senate in order to pass voting rights legislation is somewhat disingenuous, not well argued, and would rob the Democrats of a responsible tactic that will probably be needed to delay Republican zaniness if and when the GOP regains the Senate majority. What the Democrats REALLY want--and what in fact ALL citizens should want--is an end to the "silent" filibuster that has been deployed repeatedly and mastered by Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell's filibuster management, which makes a mockery of Senate parliamentary rules and is the opposite of civic responsibility, only requires the opponents of a bill to announce that not enough of them are willing to join the supporters to meet the 60 vote threshold necessary to end debate. This sham of a filibuster--which does not require Senators to speak on the floor of the Senate for even a minute to defend their position and delay a vote, effectively kills most legislation without those allegedly "filibustering" even having to break a sweat.  

From the fact that McConnell's abuse of the filibuster is anti-democratic and robs the US Senate of any claim it might have to being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that all uses of the filibuster are created equal. Let me give a hypothetical example: 

Suppose the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives and attain a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Without Democrats being able to filibuster, the Republicans could do pretty much anything with a simple majority. Let's say they put forward a hypothetical bill S.2025; the "Rescuing America's Environment Act" which abolishes the Environmental Protection Agency and defunds the Superfund program that helps pay for cleanup of contaminated industrial sites. Without a filibuster, the Democrats would have to hope that the White House is occupied by a Democrat who could veto the legislation. But what if the Republicans control the Congress AND the White House? The option then might be to go the Supreme Court and get S.2025 voided on Constitutional grounds (good luck with that given the makeup of the current Court.).  

Be honest Democrats: in the scenario I just raised, is it really unreasonable to require the Republicans to get nine Democrats to vote for "cloture" (thus having the 60 votes necessary to close debate) before a monstrous piece of legislation like S.2025 could become law? Of course not. But the problem is that under the current system, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer would only have to mimic McConnell, announce that there are not enough votes to get to 60, and effectively kill the legislation. Not one Democrat would have to take to the floor of the Senate to offer a passionate plea against the bill. At that point, the same people outraged at McConnell's use of the silent filibuster to kill voting rights would PRAISE Schumer for doing the exact same thing on the environmental legislation. 

The silent filibuster allows elected members of the House and Senate to grandstand on bills that will never pass, and then go into their districts or states and accuse the other side of not allowing anything to get done. Worse, the entire process is exploited by wealthy special interests to maintain control over elected officials. Case in point: the US Chamber of Commerce explicitly endorses the silent filibuster and sends a not-so-subtle warning to Senators that any vote to reform the filibuster rules will appear on a Chamber "scorecard." (Translation: "Hey Senator, you better keep the silent filibuster in place if you want direct payments and dark money to keep flowing to your campaign."). 

We need to replace the silent filibuster with what I call the "civic." The civic filibuster combines the Senate Chamber drama of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the turbulence of the Wisconsin Senate's excursion to Illinois. Even a filibuster opposing decent legislation has positive civic impact. Think of the filibuster over the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Southern Senators prevented the Act from becoming law for sixty days. During that time, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other Civil Rights movement leaders were able to bring awareness to the proceedings, grow their activist pool, and convince large numbers of White Americans of the moral bankruptcy of the most vocal filibusterers. Meanwhile, the overt racists and "moderates" opposing the Bill discovered during the filibuster that their support was not quite as strong across the nation as they thought. 

Contrast that with the silent filibuster we just experienced in relation to voting rights legislation. Republican Senators--every bit as morally bankrupt in 2022 as their forefather Civil Rights Act filibusterers were in 1964--only had to follow Mitch McConnell's order to refuse to vote to close debate. All but the most extreme Trumpist fringe will now agree that the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were wrong, but AT LEAST those who filibustered at that time displayed the courage of their convictions. They took to the floor of the Senate in open defiance of civil rights legislation; they made no attempt to hide behind obscure parliamentary rules. Today's voting rights opponents, in contrast, are mere cowards, silently killing legislation while giving a wink and nod to their corporate masters. 

President Biden has opined that the Senate should return to the old fashioned "talking filibuster" in which a single senator holds the floor for hours at at time. What I am calling the "civic" filibuster requires the talking component, but it also has an intentional small-d democratic component. That is, it seeks not just to delay passage of a bill, but to empower citizens outside the Senate chambers to raise their voices and rally in their own communities. A good example of what I am talking about is former Texas State Senator Wendy Davis' 2013 filibuster of an anti-abortion bill in the state legislature. While Davis held the floor for 13 hours, citizens rallied in and outside of the legislative chambers, on social media, and in locations across the state. Even Republican Senator Bob Deuell, one of the sponsors of the legislation Davis was working to defeat, called her filibuster the "music of democracy." 

In 2013 Texas State Senator Wendy Davis' 13-hour filibuster against anti-choice legislation inspired activism inside and outside the chamber, becoming the "music of democracy." 

In short, Democrats err when they call for the total elimination of the Senate filibuster. Yes, the silent filibuster needs to be eliminated. President Biden is right that the talking filibuster must be returned, but it must be more than a partisan game; it must be transformed into a civic event. Let's close by highlighting the differences between the silent filibuster and the civic filibuster: 

*The silent filibuster is anti-democratic, rooted in hyper-partisan politics, secretive, and fully endorsed by wealthy special interests that rule Washington. 

*The civic filibuster is pro-democracy, places principle over partisanship, is maximally transparent, and is a nightmare for Washington's wealthy special-interest overlords. 

Ten Bold Cover Tunes Part XII: Theme From Peter Gunn Edition

Welcome to another edition of Ten Bold Cover Tunes. (See the links below for access to previous editions.). 

One of the most important songs in the history of rock-and-roll is bandleader Henry Mancini's "Theme From Peter Gunn." Peter Gunn was a private-eye television series that ran from 1958-1961. Mancini won an Emmy and a few Grammy awards for the soundtrack, and the music became more memorable than the actual show. 

The great Henry Mancini, known mostly for jazzy soundtracks, composed and recorded a rock classic with "Theme From Peter Gunn" in 1959

Because he was thought of mostly as a jazz composer, few in 1959 considered "Theme From Peter Gunn" to be a rock-and-roll song. Thirty years later in his 1989 autobiography, Mancini revealed the rock roots of the song: 

The Peter Gunn title theme actually derives more from rock and roll than from jazz. I used guitar and piano in unison, playing what is known in music as an ostinato, which means obstinate. It was sustained throughout the piece, giving it a sinister effect, with some frightened saxophone sounds and some shouting brass. The piece has one chord throughout and a super-simple top line. 

Henry Mancini's Original Theme From Peter Gunn

I believe the Theme From Peter Gunn is important in the history of rock-and-roll for three main reasons. First, it helped to establish that purely instrumental music could be included in the rock genre; the instrument only style would later proliferate in the surf era (early 1960s) and then the progressive rock era of the 1970s. Second, the song was a breath of fresh air for AM radio. By 1959, mostly because of racist pressures, radio programmers banished the early rock stars like Chuck Berry and Little Richard and replaced them with sappy "teen idol" music (think Frankie Avalon and Fabian) that did not offend bigots or parents (the bigot and the parent were often the same person). Third, Theme From Peter Gunn has some nasty horn playing that helped keep brass in the rock genre at a time when it was gradually being phased out in favor of the basic garage band guitar/bass/drum framework. To this very day rock has a kind of love/hate relationship with horns--songs like Theme From Peter Gunn helped to guarantee that brass would never completely disappear from the genre. 

Covering any song, as the Ten Bold Cover Tunes series has pointed out repeatedly, is no easy task. Covering an instrumental is doubly difficult, as the "personality" of rock songs is typically thought of in terms of vocal stylings. In order to cover an instrumental successfully, the cover artist has to find a way to stay true to the melody, but bring something fresh to the effort so that listeners don't experience the aural equivalent of watching someone paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa. In other words, when covering an instrumental the danger of dishonoring the original is quite high. 

Below are ten cover versions of Theme From Peter Gunn that, in my humble view, honor the original tune while bringing something fresh to it. In no particular order: 

#10 Guitar Hero Version: Roy Buchanan. The late Roy Buchanan, one of the most underrated guitar players in history (his name should be mentioned along with Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, Page, and Van Halen) was known for his gritty riffs and wailing solos. Theme From Peter Gunn was the perfect vehicle for his style. 

Roy Buchanan Live: Theme From Peter Gunn

#9 Progressive Rock Version: Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Keith Emerson's legendary keyboard chops were on full display when progressive rock icons ELP incorporated Theme From Peter Gunn into their set list in the late 1970s. They introduced an entirely new generation of listeners to the tune--many thought it was an ELP original. 

ELP Live: Theme From Peter Gunn

#8 Soul Version: The Blues Brothers. The soundtrack to the iconic 1980 Dan Aykroyd/John Belushi Blues Brothers movie featured some of the best musicians from the Memphis Stax records label. The band recorded a version of Theme From Peter Gunn that stayed true to Mancini's original while simultaneously sounding like a Booker T & the MGs revival. 

The Blues Brothers: Theme From Peter Gunn

             

#7 Vocal Version: Joe Jackson. Lyrics to Theme From Peter Gunn were actually added in 1965 by composers Jay Livingston and Ray Evans. The great Sarah Vaughn then did a vocal version of it in that year. I personally prefer British New Wave artist Joe Jackson's 2019 version. Not only is Joe Jackson still in great voice (he has been performing and recording since the late 1970s), but his band absolutely kicks ass in this number. 

Joe Jackson Theme From Peter Gunn

  J

#6 Disco Version: Deodato. Eumir Deodato, the Brazilian multi-instrumentalist arranger and producer, rode the disco wave with this 1976 version of Theme From Peter Gunn. It's actually one of the most fun versions of the tune ever recorded, and of course the most danceable. 

Deodato: Theme From Peter Gunn

 

#5 Surf Version: Dick Dale. Jimi Hendrix listed Dick Dale as among his biggest influences. Listen to Dale's version of Theme From Peter Gunn and you will know why. "The father of surf guitar" brings Peter Gunn to the beach in a raucous, raunchy, memorable version of the tune. 

Dick Dale: Theme From Peter Gunn

#4 Jazz Version: Dave Grusin. In terms of sheer innovation and originality, pianist/arranger Dave Grusin's version of the tune might be the best on the list. If Henry Mancini had decided to stick to his jazz roots in 1959 instead of producing a rock number, the end result might have been what Grusin came up with many years later. Truly amazing. 

Dave Grusin: Theme From Peter Gunn 

#3 Synth Pop Version: The Art of Noise Featuring Duane Eddy. In 1986 British synth pop group The Art of Noise brought Peter Gunn into the MTV era. They invited guitar icon Duane Eddy (who had recorded his own version of the tune in 1959) to jam it with them, and the band won a Grammy Award for their efforts. 

The Art of Noise Featuring Duane Eddy: Theme From Peter Gunn Live 

#2 R & B Version: King Curtis. The late King Curtis was a saxophone wrecking machine, and played on a number of classic records including Aretha Franklin's version of "Respect." His sax playing does not disappoint on Theme From Peter Gunn. 

King Curtis: Theme From Peter Gunn

#1 Horniest Version: The Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra. I became aware of this version about 3 or 4 years ago, when I was searching online for Mancini's original version and came across Qatar's in the search results. It's really remarkable: ten horn players held together by a brilliant drummer. Great version. 

The Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra: Theme From Peter Gunn

Listen to Previous editions in the Ten Bold Cover Tunes Series: 

• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part 1
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part II
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part III: Guitar Hero Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part IV: Dare to Cover Johnny Cash Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part V: I Won't Back Down Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part VI: Bring It On Home To Me Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part VII: The Kennedy Center Honors Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part VIII: Classical Music Covers Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part IX: Covering Spoken Words
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes, Part X: Last Night I Had The Strangest Dream Edition
• Ten Bold Cover Tunes Part XI: Original Tunes The Got The Twist And Shout Treatment

The 2021 TONY Awards For Excellence in Media

I would like to dedicate this year's edition of the Tony Awards For Excellence in Media to all of the journalists around the world who were killed, imprisoned, and harassed in 2021 for committing the "crime" of journalism. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in 2021 the number of journalists behind bars reached a global record of 293, up from 280 a year ago. Reporters Without Borders provides evidence that 488 journalists were detained in 2021, while 46 were killed, 65 held hostage, and two remain missing. The situation is dire. 

Who are the main offenders? China is the most oppressive country for journalists, leading an infamous top five that includes Myanmar, Egypt, Vietnam, and Belarus. 

Zhang Zhan is a Chinese citizen journalist. Arrested for her independent reporting on COVID in Wuhan, she was tried and convicted of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble." After her imprisonment, Zhang Zhan went on hunger strike and has apparently been force fed.  There is a realistic chance that she might die in prison unless more international pressure can be directed at the Chinese government. 

In the United States in 2021, over 50 journalists were arrested or detained while doing their jobs according to the US Press Freedom Tracker. Meanwhile the United States government continues to make it impossible for whistleblower Edward Snowden to return from exile in Russia, while Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange (now in his tenth year of detention for revealing that the global emperors have no clothes) wastes away in a London cell. As noted by Chris Hedges: 

Assange committed empire’s greatest sin. He exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, callous disregard for human life, rampant corruption and innumerable war crimes. Republican or Democrat. Conservative or Labour. Trump or Biden. It does not matter. The goons who oversee the empire sing from the same Satanic songbook. Empires always kill those who inflict deep and serious wounds. 

Against that backdrop, let's reveal the Tony recipients!  I operate from no automatic set of criteria when deciding what to honor, but I am generally drawn to: 

• insightful works that shed light on some important public issue.
• creative works that deserve a wider audience.
• informative works that provide eye-opening education on a difficult topic.
• courageous works that speak truth to power.
• humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time.
• local works that promote community and civic engagement.

Like all end of year lists, mine is purely subjective and I do not pretend to come even close to recognizing all the great media produced during the year. If you don't like my list, or have some other works in mind worth recognizing, the solution is simple: invent your own award and write up a list of recipients! 

And now, without any further ado, here are the 2021 Tony Award recipients: 

*Best Local Journalist: Miles Maguire of the Oshkosh Examiner. This is Miles' fifth consecutive Tony. Though he operates on a budget that is a fraction of what the local corporate chain media has at its disposal, Miles produces trustworthy journalism of depth. If every city in America had at least one Miles Maguire producing independent journalism, I dare say that leaders would be held accountable in ways they currently are not. If you have not already done so, consider subscribing to the Oshkosh Examiner. (For some added motivation to subscribe, read Miles' New Years Day letter to readers.). 

In 2021 Miles appeared on the Running on MT podcast with Matt King and I.  You can listen to that here. 

*Best State of Wisconsin Journalism: The Wisconsin Examiner. The Wisconsin Examiner is the unmatched leader in producing daily, rigorous, progressive, Wisconsin based journalism. In their mission statement they say, We take our inspiration from the motto emblazoned on a ceiling in our state Capitol: “The Will of the People Is the Law of the Land.” The Wisconsin Examiner's outstanding staff (Editor-in-Chief Ruth Conniff, Deputy Editor Melanie Conklin, reporters Erik Gunn, Isiah Holmes, Henry Redman) reveal that inspiration in all of their stories and opinion pieces. To find out what is really going on in Wisconsin's politics & government, work & the economy, education, environment, criminal justice, and civil rights & immigration, do yourself a favor and follow the Wisconsin Examiner. The site is available for free, but you can donate whatever you can afford here. 

In 2021 Wisconsin Examiner journalist Erik Gunn appeared on the Running on MT podcast with Matt King and I. You can find that interview here. 

*Most Surprising Story of the Year: National Public Radio's "The Clear and Present Danger of Trump's Enduring 'Big Lie.'" There was a time many years ago when NPR could be looked to for hard hitting, independent reporting. Over the years NPR management allowed itself to be bullied by partisan attacks, and so for at least the last decade NPR reporting has featured the worst of kind of "both sides do it" reporting, or what NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the "view from  nowhere." The result? Mediocre reporting that achieves the purpose of shielding NPR from partisan attacks, but in the process diminishes any meaningful watchdog impact in the public sphere. 

Much to my pleasant surprise, in late December NPR's Melissa Block reported on Donald Trump's Big Lie in a hard hitting way that was the complete opposite of the mealy-mouthed babble flooding the network for far too long. As noted by professor Rosen: 

I don't know what led @NPR to do this, but I am sure glad they did. A stark look at the Big Lie and the dangers ahead. https://t.co/bvldvLmBkv

No dilution via "both sides."

No "critics say."

No turning facts into opinions.

Just a straight up warning.

Listen to it.

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) December 24, 2021

*Best Photo Feature: The Wisconsin State Journal's Picturing a Pandemic. Across the Internet one can find thousands of photo features documenting the pandemic. I like the Wisconsin State Journal's March 7, 2021 compilation because it avoids the temptation to become the "misery porn" that is so much of the visual representation of the impact of COVID-19 on our lives. Instead, the State Journal feature is striking in how it captures the struggle of ordinary people to remain . . . well, ordinary during the outbreak. 

This picture of a masked grandpa and his grandchildren enjoying a day at Vilas Zoo shortly after its reopening is the kind of human moment captured in the Wisconsin State Journal photo feature. 

*Letter of the Year: Raleigh Mayer's Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on the Oxford, MI school shooting. Raleigh Mayer needed only seventy words to capture, with blunt truth and poignancy, how we are now in "banality of evil" territory when it comes to gun violence and the mainstream coverage of it: 

The reference to the massacre at Oxford High School as "the year's deadliest school shooting" is, through no fault of the reporter, shocking in its banality. 

The fact that we now compare the numbers of schoolchildren murdered the way we might measure the stock market ("this year's most volatile trading day") or sports teams ("their biggest loss this season") is disgusting. 

If school shootings are banal, then we are evil. 

*Best Video Documentary of the January 6th Insurrection: The New York Times' "Day of Rage--How Trump Supporters Took the US Capitol."  According to Haley Willis, one of the producers of the NYT video: 

Our Visual Investigations team synchronized and mapped thousands of videos of the U.S. Capital riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened on Jan. 6 -- and why. This was a massive team effort over six months, involving resources from across the Times newsroom. We went to court to unseal police body camera footage, scoured law enforcement radio communications and interviewed witnesses. 

The 40-minute documentary is a remarkable and troubling spectacle. It is a powerful indictment--not just of Donald Trump--but of his congressional enablers who continue to minimize the violence, shift blame, and frustrate attempts to hold the perpetrators accountable. 

*Best Journalistic Warning Shot: Barton Gellman's "Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun" (The Atlantic). In meticulous detail, Gellman exposes the political treachery at work that is slowly eroding what is left of representative democracy in the United States. Much of Gellman's report centers on retired New  York City firefighter Richard C. Patterson, whose story is a kind of representative anecdote of millions of patriotic Americans who have been conned by the lies and conspiracy theories emanating from Donald Trump and his core enablers. Writes Gellman of Patterson: "His convictions are worth examining because he and millions of Americans who think as he does are the primary source of Trump's power to corrupt the next election." 

To explain the passions and potential of the "lumpen Trumpers," Gellman turns to Robert Pape, Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST). Pape has spent most of his adult life studying the roots of political violence globally. He argues that the Biden Administration is wrong to conceive of the most extreme elements of January 6th as "lone wolves." Rather, CPOST's survey data leads him to believe that in the United States right now there are as many as 21 million "committed insurrectionists" representing a "new, politically violent mass movement." Many of them are White Americans motivated by fear of the "Great Replacement" Theory (propagated by Tucker Carlson and others on the Right) that Americans of European ancestry see their numbers dwindling as a result of an elite conspiracy to replace them with more compliant, non-European people of color. 

Gellman concludes: "Donald Trump came closer than anyone thought he could to toppling a free elections a year ago. He is preparing in plain view to do it again, and his position is growing stronger. Republican acolytes have identified the weak points in our electoral apparatus and are methodically exploiting them. They have set loose and and now are driven by the animus of tens of millions of aggrieved Trump supporters who are prone to conspiracy thinking, embrace violence, and reject democratic defeat. Those supporters, Robert Pape's 'committed insurrectionists,' are armed and single-minded and will know what to do the next time Trump calls upon them to act."

We ignore Gellman's journalistic warning shot at our own peril. 

*Best Vote Fraud Debunker: The Associated Press. In 2022, expect the most Trump-debased elements of the GOP to continue to spread disinformation about 2020 voter fraud. When you hear that horseshit, refer to the Associated Press's thorough investigation of all battleground state fraud claims from 2020. Kudos to the AP for providing a well documented, independent, and legitimate examination of what actually happened in 2020. 

*Best Climate Change Reporting: The New  York Times' "Postcards From a World on Fire." This truly outstanding New York Times feature provides 193 stories highlighting the intensity of global climate change across the globe. How tragic that world "leaders" continue to lack the will to do what is necessary to address the crisis. 

*Best Talk Show Episode: Marc Lamont Hill's Interview of Chris Rufo (Black News Channel). In 2021 the political right, with much success, held up the specter of "Critical Race Theory" as the latest in a long line of efforts to scare white people in general, but especially white voters. Republican legislators in almost all states have attempted to ban "anti-racist" teaching in schools. Some pundits argue that anti-CRT sentiment contributed to the Republicans retaking the governor's office in Virginia in 2021, and that CRT is "on the ballot" in 2022. 

Much of the hysteria against CRT and anti-racism teaching in general has been sparked by Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute. His claims have been amplified and largely unchallenged by conservative media. Meanwhile, rather than debate the merits of CRT or anti-racism education, so-called "liberal" mainstream media promote the narrative that such educational practices do not even exist. The result is that news media consumers never get to witness a genuine debate about what anti-racism education is, is not, or should be. 

If mainstream media were truly interested in educating the public about anti-racism education, then news directors should do whatever they can to make sure that Americans see the brief debate between Chris Rufo and Marc Lamont Hill on Hill's "Black News Tonight" program on the Black News Channel. Hill has invited numerous CRT critics on the program, and more often than not they reveal that they have not actually read any credible CRT sources. Mr. Rufo, on the other hand, is very well versed in CRT. His debate with Hill was one of the only times (perhaps THE only time) he actually was confronted by someone with expert knowledge on the topic. I urge everyone to watch their exchange. The last few minutes are especially fascinating, as Hill politely but firmly explains to Rufo why Black people in American cannot benefit from saying "I don't see race" in the same way that White people do. By the end of the interview, Hill had succeeded in showing why CRT or something like it is actually very necessary in our schools. 

See the exchange between Rufo and Hill here. 

Best Reworking of the First Amendment: Professor Mary Anne Franks.  The United States Constitution is an 18th century document written by people who could not have imagined the complexities of 21st century life. We SHOULD appreciate the fact that it is difficult to amend the Constitution; if it were too easy we would have powerful interests spending huge sums of money to rewrite it to align with their own interests. On the other hand, we SHOULD NOT treat Constitutional language like it is some kind of God ordained gospel that cannot be tinkered with lest we rot in hell.  

Professor Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of "The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech." The book actually came out in 2019, but in 2021 Franks' push for reworking the first two amendments got more notice thanks to a Boston Globe op-ed and coverage in other sources. I'm not sure if I completely agree with Franks' suggested redo of the First Amendment, but I do believe that a debate about whether or not the current language is meeting our 21st century needs is a debate worth having. Here is Franks' suggested wording: 

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons. 

Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice. 

See Professor Franks speak about her views on the Constitution here.

Song of the Year: John Fogerty's Weeping in the Promised Land. Fogerty's song came out early in 2021 and it was largely a response to his observation of 2020. Unfortunately a year later we are still weeping. In this song, which is probably Fogerty's best since his Creedence Clearwater Revival days, he laments the twin tragedies of our failed COVID response and continuing racism. 

Watch and listen here. 

If you got this far, thank you and continue to support quality media! Happy New Year. 

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.