Celebration of the Music of 1972, Part 1

When it comes to popular music, if there is such a thing as a "classic rock era," I would date it from 1966-1979.  In 1966 the Beach Boys released the album "Pet Sounds," Brian Wilson's seminal masterpiece that revolutionized rock recording techniques and established the principle that great bands should be able to produce an album's worth of material that was more than "filler." Pet Sounds made rockers into "artists." 

In 1979 a Los Angeles based band called The Knack released the wildly successful single "My Sharona," a guitar song with a memorable riff that (at a time when Disco, Punk, early hip-hop and New Wave were all the rage) was supposed to be the savior of the classic rock sound. But alas, by 1981 we would have MTV and a flourishing of musical styles. Some classic rock bands survived and thrived, but most never quite adapted to the video era. And so "My Sharona" did not rescue classic rock as much as represent its last gasp. 

If 1966-1979 was in fact the classic rock era, then the year 1972 would have to be its high point. My earliest memories of listening to music were in that year (I was in the 6th grade), and I've actually spent most of THIS year consumed in the music of 1972 in anticipation of writing a few 50th anniversary celebration rants. This rant is celebration #1. Celebration #2 will come sometime before the end of the year. I'll celebrate 50 albums in all. 

In 1972 Motown's Stevie Wonder toured with the Rolling Stones. His music was regularly played on FM rock radio. 

As I re-lived this music, a few things stood out. First, almost all of it still holds up today; the best has a timeless quality that does not immediately identify it as part of any particular era. Second, the diversity in styles was remarkable; in 1972 there was an explosion of rock "fusions" including jazz-rock, country-rock, soul-rock, and classical-rock while the traditional blues-rock remained vital and popular. Third, most of this music probably would not have been produced or found an audience were it not for the excellence of FM radio in 1972. I remember the excitement in the voices of the DJs on WNEW-FM in New York as they introduced new music to their listeners. Listening to those DJs, you always got the feeling that this music MATTERED. 

So we will appreciate 50 albums released in 1972, 26 in this rant and 24 more later in the year. Drum roll please: 

#50: Stevie Wonder, "Talking Book." Stevie was only 22 years old in 1972, yet Talking Book was his 15th album. Unlike the music he recorded as a child star for Motown in the 1960s, Talking Book features Wonder on the synthesizer, singing mature ballads ("You Are The Sunshine of My Life") and a healthy dose of socially conscious material. Wonder toured with the Rolling Stones in 1972, and throughout the 1970s his music was played on FM rock radio. Though the song "Superstition" is now 50 years old, its warning about the suffering that follows belief in what we don't understand seemed to anticipate the social media conspiracy theory nightmare we live in now. 

Stevie Wonder "Superstition" 

#49: David Bowie, "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars." A foundational album in the "glam rock" movement, Ziggy Stardust in 2017 was actually deemed "culturally, historically, or artistically significant" by the Library of Congress. A prominent theme in the album is that the world is headed for apocalyptic doom; not surprising then the modern Extinction Rebellion movement often plays the song "Five Years" at rallies. (the song posits that humanity may only have five years left.). "Suffragette City" (which popularized the phrase "wham, bam, thank you ma'am") received steady airplay on FM radio for decades. 

David Bowie "Suffragette City" 

#48: Mott the Hoople, "All the  Young Dudes". Speaking of David Bowie, he wrote the title track of Mott the Hoople's breakthrough "All the Young Dudes" album. The song is one of the great anthems for personal liberation. The entire album rocks, with some solid lead guitar by Mick Ralphs (later went on to play for the successful British band Bad Company), and the Bob Dylanesque vocals of the great Ian Hunter. 

Mott The Hoople "All the Young Dudes"  

#47: Neil Young, "Harvest". Neil Young's recorded output from the 1960s until today has been consistently excellent, but his 1970's albums have an inspired quality to them that made him a staple of FM radio for many years. "Harvest" includes many of his classic tunes that remain in his concert set list, including "Southern Man," "Alabama," "Old Man," "The Needle and the Damage Done," and "Heart of Gold." 

Neil Young "Heart of Gold" 

#46: Chicago, "Chicago V." The breakup of the Beatles in 1970 created an opening for bands that could produce hummable harmonies. In 1972, before AM radio became a haven for right wing ranting and assorted other nuttiness, you could put on a music station and be treated to something uplifting like "Saturday in the Park." But Chicago V has much more than catchy sing-a-longs. It's got some jazz-rock jams that defined the genre, while "Dialogue Part 1 and 2" powerfully connects with the social activism of the time. 

Chicago "Dialogue Part 1 and 2" 

#45: War, "The World is a Ghetto." The band War were giants of soul and funk known for lively concerts that attracted people of all races and cultures. "The World is a Ghetto" is most known for the hit single "The Cisco Kid," but the album in its entirety is quite an achievement. It's a nice mix of danceable tunes, lengthy jams, and socially conscious messages. 

War "Where Was You At" 

#44: Helen Reddy, "I Am Woman." The title track was an international hit, a feminist anthem that empowers to this very day. Most of the other songs on the album are not as well know, but there are some super moments. My favorite is probably her jazzy cover of Ray Charles' "Hit the Road Jack." 

Helen Reddy "I Am Woman" 

 

#43: Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Catch Bull At Four." In 1971 Cat Stevens released one of the greatest albums of all time, "Teaser and the Firecat." That record included a number of timeless classics, including "Moonshadow," "Peace Train," and "Morning Has Broken." The follow-up "Catch Bull At Four" does not reach that level of excellence, but it is still a great record. Most of the songs continue Cat's spiritual quest that eventually led to him converting to Islam in 1977 and leaving the music business for many years to pursue charity work. What an incredible voice. 

Cat Stevens "Can't Keep It In"

#42: The Grateful Dead, "Europe '72." Back in the day the Grateful Dead toured extensively, and it's probably no exaggeration to say that in their heyday they were the most popular band in the world. Most of the live shows became available as bootlegs to the Dead aficionados who had the tenacity to find them. "Europe '72," which included selected performances from the band's tour of Western Europe, was somewhat of an "official" bootleg that introduced the energy of the live performances to audiences who might have only known them from studio recordings or FM radio. "Europe '72" was for its time the most commercially successful three-album set in history, and also critically acclaimed. 

The Grateful Dead "Sugar Magnolia" 

#41: Rod Stewart, "Never A Dull Moment." One of Rod Stewart's best albums from his most creative period. Rod's unique voice--rightfully so--always got the most notice from fans and critics, but what also stands out on this album is Ron Wood's guitar playing and Micky Waller's drumming. The majority of the record features original songs, but Stewart's covers of Jimi Hendrix's "Angel" and Sam Cooke's "Twistin' the Night Away" almost surpass the originals. 

Rod Stewart "You Wear It Well" 

#40: The Jeff Beck Group, "Jeff Beck Group."  Jeff Beck may be the greatest guitar player ever, but the 1972 "Jeff Beck Group" album is certainly NOT his best. It was recorded and released in that transition period for Beck (between the groundbreaking Yardbirds period and his later success playing jazz) in which he could not decide if he was a rocker, a soul disciple, a jazz player, or something else. If the album is not one of his best works, then why include it on this list? Because Beck's version of the Don Nix classic "Going Down" is such a spectacular recording that by itself it brings up the entire record. Every member of the band achieves greatness on "Going Down": Bobby Tench's gritty vocals, Max Middleton's boogie woogie keyboards, Clive Chaman's thumping bass, Cozy Powell's bombastic but appropriately subdued drums, and of course Beck wails on lead guitar. "Going Down" seems to have disappeared from classic rock radio, which kind of sucks. 

Jeff Beck Group "Going Down" 

#39:  The Carpenters, "A Song For You." Siblings Karen and Richard Carpenter had a string of hits in the 1970s. I didn't really care for their music at the time, in part because they were not an FM radio act. Listening to the Carpenters today, it becomes clear what a unique talent Karen was: a soulful singer who was also a very competent drummer. Karen's tragic death, brought on by complications from an eating disorder, makes listening to these old records somewhat bittersweet. 

The Carpenters "Top of the World" 

#38: The Allman Brothers Band, "Eat A Peach." A groundbreaking record, "Eat A Peach" solidified The Allman Brothers Band as the kings of the "Southern Rock" sound. The title of the album comes from part of guitarist Duane Allman's response to the question, "What are you doing to help the revolution?"  He said, " . . . every time I'm in Georgia, I eat a peach for peace." Duane tragically died in a motorcycle crash at age 24 in October of 1971, but his guitar playing appears on most of "Eat A Peach." A double album, Eat A Peach included studio and live recordings. Gregg Allman's vocals were amazing, especially on tracks like "One Way Out" and "Melissa." Meanwhile, guitar player/vocalist Dickie Betts' "Blue Sky" is probably the epitome of the southern rock sound. 

The Allman Brothers "Blue Sky" 

#37: ZZ Top, "Rio Grande Mud." This was ZZ Top's second album, recorded at a time when they were still deeply embedded in the idea of being musical soldiers in the movement to keep old-school blues and R&B alive. There's a stylistic purity about Top in this period that they kind of lost when they attained their greatest success in the MTV era. 

ZZ Top "Just Got Paid" 

#36: The Doobie Brothers, "Toulouse Street." The Doobies second album, "Toulouse Street" included  songs that became mainstays on FM rock radio for generations such as "Listen to the Music" and "Rockin' Down the Highway." The Doobies had their biggest commercial successes after Michael McDonald joined the band in 1975, but the 1972 band IMHO is the definitive Doobies. Their version of the Art Reynolds Singers' gospel classic "Jesus is Just Alright" is a crazy good version of that song. 

The Doobie Brothers "Jesus is Just Alright" 

#35: Lou Reed, "Transformer." Another foundational recording in the "glam-rock" genre, "Transformer" is typical Lou Reed: an overall sullen mood created by poetic, provocative lyrics and Bob Dylanesque vocals. "Perfect Day" is one of my personal favorite songs of all time, while "Walk on the Wild Side" with its themes of sexual orientation and gender identity was way ahead of its time. The New York Times in 2013 called the song "a ballad of misfits and oddballs that became an unlikely cultural anthem." To this very day I am shocked that the line "But she never lost her head/even when she was giving head" was minimally censored on the radio. Perhaps the Big Brothers at the FCC in 1972 did not know what "giving head" meant.

Lou Reed, "Walk on the Wild Side" 

#34: Howlin' Wolf, "Live and Cookin' at Alice's Revisited." By 1972 the old school Chicago blues legends (Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley)--the true great grandfathers of rock-and-roll--were treated by the rock business establishment as if they were museum pieces. Each of them continued to record new music, but even the progressive FM radio of the time did not give it major air time. For that reason, Howlin' Wolf's "Live and Cookin' at Alice's Revisited" went virtually unnoticed even though it's a remarkable representation of the energy Wolf brought to his performances at the latter stage of his career (he died in 1976).  

Howlin' Wolf "Call Me The Wolf" 

#33: Paul Simon, "Paul Simon." This was Paul Simon's second solo album, but the first released after the breakup of Simon & Garfunkel. The album produced three huge hits ("Mother and Child Reunion," "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard," and "Duncan") along with a number of lesser known songs that feature some of Simon's best lyrics and guitar playing (e.g. "Peace Like a River" and "Paranoia Blues). A standout album in a year filled with standout albums. 

Paul Simon "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard"

#32: Emerson, Lake & Palmer, "Trilogy." A foundational recording in the "progressive rock" genre. British progressive rock super trio ELP were most known for Keith Emerson's keyboard and synthesizer theatrics, but I think an argument could be made that Carl Palmer's drumming--which had a kind of "focused chaos" style, was the glue that kept the band together. Meanwhile, Greg Lake's guitar playing and vocals on "From the Beginning" were of the caliber of the best of the Beatles in their artistic (1967-1970) period. "Hoedown," a reworking of a 1942 classical piece by composer Aaron Copland, was an FM radio staple and ELP concert favorite for many years. 

ELP "Hoedown" 

#31: Focus, "Focus 3." Another groundbreaking album in the progressive rock genre. Yes kids, there was a time when bands dared to release double albums that included a 20-minute jam on one side. The musicianship displayed by the Dutch band Focus on this record is nothing short of extraordinary. It's certainly not for everyone: a primarily instrumental album with complex song arrangements won't work for people conditioned to the 2-4 minute pop song with innocuous lyrics. But if you give it the time, Focus 3 grows on you. Thijs Van Leer's flute and Hammond organ playing is the stuff of legend, while guitarist Jan Akkerman deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, Page and other classic rock era guitar gods. 

Focus "Sylvia" 

#30: Elton John, "Honky Chateau." In the 1970s Elton John released a string of seven consecutive chart topping albums. Honky Chateau was the first of the bunch. It's the album that gave us Elton's signature song "Rocket Man" along with other tunes that stayed in his concert set list for decades. 

Elton John "Rocket Man" 

#29: Funkadelic, "America Eats Its Young." What a perfect title for an album, eh? This is a highly experimental album much more musically complex than anything composed up to that point by Funkadelic front man George Clinton. The complexity sometimes makes it difficult to grasp the social messaging in the album. My favorite tune on it is probably "Biological Speculation:" 

Some of you, you might not be aware

That some of us don't eat 

Some of you don't even care 

Oh, if and when the system 

Creates hunger and hate 

Then the laws of nature will come and do her thing 

Funkadelic "Biological Speculation" 

#28: Carly Simon, "No Secrets." Largely due to the strength of the standout singles "You're So Vain" and "The Right Thing To Do," "No Secrets" was Carly Simon's breakthrough record. Along with Carole King and others, she was one of the great "confessional" singer/songwriters of the 1970s; artists who openly shared their relationship and other struggles on their albums. The best modern equivalent is probably Taylor Swift (who loves Carly Simon). P.S. I don't think Jimmy Ryan has ever gotten enough credit for his spectacular guitar solo on "You're So Vain." 

Carly Simon "You're So Vain" 

#27: Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote."  Though "Don Quixote" was Canadian singer/songwriter Gordon Lightfoot's 8th album--and all of them were popular in Canada--it would still be another two years before he'd make a breakthrough in the states (with the great album "Sundown"). "Don Quixote" is vintage Lightfoot: a modern troubadour with pleasing melodies (e.g. no pun intended, but "Beautiful" is one of the most beautiful songs ever written). What sets "Don Quixote" apart is the most un-Lightfoot song on the album: "The Patriot's Dream" may be the only time he ever ventured into the protest genre. The song has been ignored for decades, but I would rank it with the best protest music of people like Phil Ochs, Tom Paxton, and Bob Dylan. 

The patriot's dream still lives on today

It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray 

Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill 

Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills 

Gordon Lightfoot "The Patriot's Dream" 

#26: The Edgar Winter Group, "They Only Come Out At Night." This is just a good time, let's have a party rock-and-roll record. Lots of energy throughout. What makes it stand out, however, is the epic instrumental "Frankenstein," featuring one of the great riffs in rock history. On that song, Edgar's synthesizer and Ronnie Montrose's guitar are enough to knock your teeth out, and Chuck Ruff's drumming is in Keith Moon territory. The strangest part of the song comes at about the 3:15 mark, when Edgar's synthesizer gives us what sounds like about 80 million crickets copulating. This song was on heavy FM radio rotation for years, justifiably so. 

The Edgar Winter Group "Frankenstein"

#25: James Brown, "There It Is." Classic James Brown from his "Godfather of Soul" period. Some of the songs are extended funk-jams that Brown became known for (e.g. "There It Is Parts 1 &2," "I'm a Greedy Man," and "Talkin' Loud and Saying Nothin'"). But what really sets this album apart are its powerful anti-drug messages, especially in "King Heroin" and "Public Enemy #1 Parts 1 and 2." In the "Public Enemy" tunes, Brown is at his preacher best. Sadly, the messages of these songs are even more relevant 50 years later. 

James Brown "Public Enemy #1" 

Hopefully that gives you a good taste of the tremendous music of 1972. In a few months we will feature 25 more albums from that year! 

A Social Media Home Run: Yanks and Rays Team Up On Gun Violence

I'm writing this piece soon after the tragic massacre of children and teachers in Texas. We are the only nation in the world that allows repeated assaults on children and teachers in schools. Just since 2012: Newtown, CT (26 dead); Marysville, WA (4 dead); Parkland, FL (17 dead); Santa Fe, TX (10 dead); Oxford, MI (4 dead) and Uvalde, TX (21 dead). 

So far we've seen the typical post-massacre routine: cowards in government (mostly Republicans) offering "thoughts and prayers" while refusing to debate gun control measures, ratings driven media spectacle, and the inability of We The People to unite and demand NO MORE. 

When an issue is troubling and complex, the human tendency is to want to avoid careful thinking about it. Covid-19, global climate change and gun violence are three examples. Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1980 created the  "Elaboration Likelihood Model" (ELM) of persuasion as a way of explaining this phenomenon. ELM posits two "routes" to persuasion: the central and the peripheral. The central route features careful information processing, good faith efforts to comprehend all serious sides of an issue, and being open to new information. The peripheral route, on the other hand, features "mental shortcuts" such as repeating back familiar talking points, trusting the "expertise" of popular commentators, and rejecting information that contradicts already existing positions. (The mass appeal of the Joe Rogan podcast, in my view, is in large part a function of the way he reinforces the desire of his listening audience to avoid deep thinking about any issue; i.e. Rogan is a master tour guide on the peripheral route.). 

By relying on the familiar template and allowing the same cast of characters to repeat back the same talking points, on gun violence mainstream media mostly reinforce the peripheral route. In theory social media, because it gives us a more robust marketplace of ideas, should provide traditional media with ample alternative ways to frame the gun violence issue that prod mainstream audiences to think more critically about the issue. 

Believe it or not, after the Texas tragedy one of the most responsible uses of social media occurred on the Twitter feeds of the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays. You heard that right: the social media arms of two major league baseball teams ended up trying to educate their followers about gun violence in ways rarely seen or heard in mainstream media.  Jason Zillo, the Yankees’ vice president of communications, told the New York Times that “As citizens of the world, it’s hard to process these shootings and just slip back into a regular routine. For one night, we wanted to reflect and draw attention to statistics that carry so much more significance and weight than batting average.”

Below are the texts of the tweets that were posted on May 26, 2022 by the Yankees and Rays. Notice how each makes a factual claim and cites source material to back it up. 

*Tweet #1:  Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns, and more than 200 are shot and injured. Citation: Centers For Disease Control study on "Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2020" 

*Tweet #2: Firearms were the leading cause of death for American children and teens in 2020. Citation: CDC Data

*Tweet #3: 58 percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence.  Citation: Survey USA

*Tweet #4: Every 3 hours, a young Black man dies by gun homicide. Citation: CDC Data

*Tweet #5: Each year, more than 4,100 Latinx people dies from gun violence in the US and 13,300 are shot and wounded. Citation: CDC Data

*Tweet #6: About 4.5 million women in the US today report having been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner. Citation: National Library of Medicine Study

*Tweet #7: Access to a gun triples the risk of death by suicide. Citation: Annals of Internal Medicine Study 

*Tweet #8: An average of 4,500 veterans die by firearm suicide every year, about 12 veterans each day.  Citation: US Department of Veterans Affairs 

*Tweet #9: When an assault weapon is used in a mass shooting, it results in six times as many people shot as when other weapons are used.  Citation: Everytown research and policy

The Twitter responses to the Yankees/Rays tweets were fully consistent with what the Elaboration Likelihood Model described earlier would predict: tweeters (especially pro-gun people) dutifully repeated back the same one liners they trot out after every tragedy. That was not surprising. What was surprising was the high amount of likes and retweets the Yankee tweets received. Trolls were not able to silence those who want to take guns seriously and pressure the government to DO SOMETHING. 

In the sports world, the Yankees and Rays were not alone in trying to provoke a meaningful response. San Francisco Giants manager Gabe Kapler wrote a thoughtful blog post  questioning whether or not the United States can legitimately be called the "Home of the Brave."  He said in part: 

I’m often struck before our games by the lack of delivery of the promise of what our national anthem represents. We stand in honor of a country where we elect representatives to serve us, to thoughtfully consider and enact legislation that protects the interests of all the people in this country and to move this country forward towards the vision of the “shining city on the hill.” But instead, we thoughtlessly link our moment of silence and grief with the equally thoughtless display of celebration for a country that refuses to take up the concept of controlling the sale of weapons used nearly exclusively for the mass slaughter of human beings. We have our moment (over and over), and then we move on without demanding real change from the people we empower to make these changes. We stand, we bow our heads, and the people in power leave on recess, celebrating their own patriotism at every turn.

Every time I place my hand over my heart and remove my hat, I’m participating in a self congratulatory glorification of the ONLY country where these mass shootings take place. 

San Francisco Giants manager Gabe Kapler (left), like Colin Kaepernick (right), announced that he would not stand for the national anthem as a peaceful protest. He made an exception for Memorial Day. Unlike Kaepernick, Kapler probably won't be banished from his sport for speaking out. 

Similarly, Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr gave an impassioned statement ahead of game four versus the Dallas Mavericks. Speaking for all decent people, he asked "WHEN ARE WE GONNA DO SOMETHING!!!"  

If history is a guide, the honest answer to Kerr's question is "not anytime soon." The good news is that history does not determine the present or the future. WE THE PEOPLE, if we can find a way to unite all people of goodwill, can make great changes. 

No one is under any illusion that the social media feeds of the Yankees and Rays, or the impassioned pleas of Kapler and Kerr, will by themselves create any change. Yet the fact that they recognize that having a large public platform carries great moral responsibility is significant. In their own ways, they are challenging us to think critically and take a stand on gun violence. They are pointing us away from the peripheral route and toward the central. When enough of us--regardless of the size of our platforms or spheres of influence--do the same, then we will see real change. 

Media Bias: Left/Right vs. Top/Down

Over the last few decades the idea that we should be teaching people "media literacy" has gained traction. There now exists a substantial body of scholarship, popular writing, and other communications dedicated to that general topic. Indeed, this "Media Rants" column and blog from its inception twenty years(!) ago has at least in part been designed to promote media literacy. 

One major part of media literacy efforts--I've seen it expressed in scores of articles, panel discussions, and workshops--involves making people aware of media "bias."  The dominant view is that media bias exists on a "left vs. right" axis. From this perspective, media consumers should know which sources lean left or far left, which lean right or far right, and which are "centrist." This type of media literacy education and advocacy has had a profound impact on the way people consume news in the United States. Almost everyone believes that some kind of political agenda infects all reporting, and almost everyone sees "unbiased" reporting as something worth striving for. 

In my view, teaching media literacy as the ability to locate left/right bias has been a well meaning but seriously flawed effort. In the remainder of this post I will highlight the flaws and then present an alternative. Specifically, I will argue that media literacy education should encourage people to think of media as existing NOT on a left vs. right continuum, but on a top vs. bottom. Moreover, I will argue that in a democratic society, media literacy education should not teach people that ethical reporting minimizes all bias. Rather, ethical reporting minimizes bias toward the "top" while maximizing bias toward the bottom. In other words, ethical journalism in a democratic society should be of, by, and for the people. 

The Flaws of Left vs. Right Bias: The Example of the AllSides Media Bias Chart

AllSides Media was founded in 2012 by John Gable, a former Republican party aide and communication technology specialist, and software developer Scott McDonald. AllSides makes a good faith effort to help people escape from the "filter bubbles" that limit their ability and/or willingness to investigate multiple sides of important issues. AllSides has probably become most famous for its "Media Bias Chart".

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

AllSides markets itself explicitly to schools, and a number of K-12 and university teachers now use the Media Bias Chart as a way of helping students think critically about sources. My own anecdotal experience with the Chart is that most students immediately gravitate toward the "centrist" sources as being the most reliable and trustworthy, even though AllSides itself warns against that: "Center doesn't mean better! A Center media bias rating does not always mean neutral, unbiased or reasonable, just as 'far Left' and 'far Right' do not always mean 'extreme,' 'wrong,' or 'unreasonable.'" 

Even though AllSides warns against the fallacy of favoring "centrism," the Bias Chart inevitably skews in that direction. Since all news outlets claim to be striving for independence and objectivity, why would any of them want to be labeled as "leaning left" or "leaning right?" 

It's tempting to look at the Media Bias Chart and haggle over which sources AllSides chooses to place in each column. (e.g. is CNN really "far left"? Is Wall Street Journal news reporting really in the "center"?). But such haggling really misses the major flaws involved in situating news media as operating on a Left vs. Right axis: 

1. "Center" is perceived as "Fair" when it may in fact be "Afraid." Afraid of what? Likely possibilities include fear of offending advertisers, fear of losing subscribers, and fear of losing access to "insider" sources. 

2. Because "Left" and "Right" have become nothing more than Devil Terms, naming a source as "Left" or "Right" immediately taints it for half or more of the population. While AllSides purports to want to encourage people to consume all sides, labeling the sides in advance makes it much less likely a news consumer will do that. In other words, rather than giving people more motivation to consume multiple sources, AllSides actually provides "information" (i.e. which sources are "left," "right," and "center") making it easier for people to dismiss sources before even investigating them. 

3.  In a market economy like the modern United States, corporate news media bias is ALWAYS in the direction of profit. That's why mainstream media, on the so-called left and so-called right, can move from wall-to-coverage of Ukraine v. Putin to Heard v. Depp almost overnight. Such seismic shifts in what we are supposed to be paying attention to have little to do with "left" and "right" bias as much as bias towards clicks and downloads. 

4. Organizations like AllSides reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibility of news media in a representative democracy. Their responsibility is NOT to seek “balance” but to seek TRUTH; not to “please the rulers” but to SERVE THE PEOPLE.

An Alternative View: Not Left vs. Right, But Top vs. Bottom

The AllSides Media Bias Chart and many efforts like it are concerned with answering the question, "What perspective does news and/or commentary represent?" Is it left, center, or right? What if that's the wrong question? What if the right question is, "WHO does news and/or commentary represent?"  In the language of the Occupy Wall St. movement, does the source represent the 99 percent or the 1 percent? Asking the latter question requires replacing the "left vs. right" framework with a "top vs. bottom." 

To visualize what I am talking about, take a look at the "Pyramid of Capitalist System" which featured prominently in Industrial Workers of the World organizing in the early 20th century. The poster's illustration has roots in the anti-capitalist philosophy of 19th century French socialist Louis Blanc, and shows the masses of working people at the bottom of a social hierarchy in which the workers carry on their backs the upper classes, the police and military, the ideological managers, and the politicians. Money sits at the top of the pyramid. 

Because the Pyramid is rooted in Socialist thinking, and has been used by radical  movements in the United States and--gasp--Russia, it is easy to dismiss it as nothing more than Leftist propaganda. You don't have to be a radical socialist, however, to grasp the fact that corporate media are a vital part of the capitalist system, and that the masses of people are not served well by that media. Because mainstream journalism and commentary lacks a clear commitment to people over profit, it should not surprise us that bad faith actors like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson are able to portray themselves as populists on the side of the common man over the "media elites." The New York Times recently published a brilliant analysis of how Mr. Carlson is able to stoke populist anger, but failed to address in any meaningful way how the failings of their own brand of top-down journalism and commentary facilitated his rise. 

The "Pyramid of Capitalist System" is a useful way of thinking about the role of media in society. Media should be serving the masses at the bottom. 

In contrast to the left vs. right model put forth by AllSides and media literacy outfits like it, a top vs. down model doesn't situate mainstream media as outside the political economy of society. Rather, the top vs. down model helps people see that media are a core part OF the political economy. As such, the media will, for a variety of reasons, reflect the values of the "one percent" in much reporting and commentary. 

From the top/down framework, the purpose of news media and commentary should not be to work toward becoming "bias free," but to be biased in favor of representative democracy and biased against forces working against it. 

From the top/down framework, the "left," "right," and "center" sources listed in the AllSides Media Bias Chart can all, at various times and on a variety of issues, represent "the bottom" instead of "the top." But more important than that is the fact that the top v. down perspective encourages a media consumer to seek out-- actively--independent sources of news and commentary not reliant on one-percent support for survival. 

From the top/down framework, to be media literate means more than consuming a balanced diet of establishment "left, center, and right" news and commentary. To be media literate means to understand the media as a business, and to appreciate how that fact helps to shape stories and commentaries in ways that reinforce the values of the one-percent. To be media literate means to be a media activist; to push mainstream media to give more voice to reporting and commentary that reinforces the values of the ninety-nine percent, and to support non-mainstream, independent reporting and commentary from "the bottom." 

Ten Bold Cover Tunes Part XIII: Reggae Versions Of Classics

Reggae music, a genre inspired primarily by the rhythms of Africa, American rhythm and blues, and the traditional folk music of the Caribbean, never quite caught on in the United States. The late, great Bob Marley was a rare example of a reggae artist who had multiple hit albums in the States. British New Wave Bands of the 1980s like the Police and Punk band like the Clash were able to get reggae beats on American FM radio, but by and large the genre still remains obscure over here. 

There have been a number of great (or at least intriguing) reggae versions of classic songs. Below are 10 of them. I especially like it when rock bands adopt a reggae style when covering a tune, but I also appreciate it when reggae bands apply their style to a rock tune. The list below has both types represented. Here they are: 

#10 The Abyssinians cover of Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind." Dylan's classic civil rights movement anthem always had a sermonic quality to it. The Abyssinans' roots reggae style is sermonic by design, and as such they end up with a powerful, beautiful version on the song. 

The Abyssinians, Blowin' in the Wind

#9 Eric Clapton, Swing Low Sweet Chariot (Traditional hymn). In the early 1970s British rocker Eric Clapton had an international hit with his cover of Bob Marley's reggae classic "I Shot The Sheriff." In 1975 he recorded a version of the traditional Christian spiritual "Swing Low Sweet Chariot," demonstrating a mastery of the reggae genre in the same way he had mastered blues in the 1960s. (Note to people who cannot separate art and politics: yes, I know that Clapton has been a Covidiot the last few years.). 

Eric Clapton, Swing Low Sweet Chariot

#8 Frank Zappa, Ring of Fire. During a concert stop in Germany in 1988, Zappa and his band by chance were staying in the same hotel as Johnny Cash. Zappa got Cash to agree to perform on stage with his band, but apparently June Carter Cash got ill so Johnny could not attend. Instead, Frank's band did a reggae version of "Ring of Fire." It's pure Zappa in how it weds sublime musicianship with satire. 

Frank Zappa, Ring of Fire 

#7 The Clash, "Junco Partner". As their music became more overtly political and international in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Clash turned to reggae as a vehicle to express their views and emotions. Their cover of "Junco Partner," a classic New Orleans blues tune originally recorded by James Waynes, is a remarkable rendition of a song about a "worthless" man. 

The Clash, Junco Partner

#6 UB 40, Red, Red Wine. Neil Diamond's original recording of "Red, Red, Wine" from the 1960s is one of his most underrated songs. It's one of the great heartbreak songs of all time, evoking all the misery that anyone who's ever suffered through a breakup can immediately identify with. UB 40's upbeat reggae version in 1983 brought the tune back into the public consciousness. 

UB 40, Red Red Wine

#5: Bob Dylan, Don't Think Twice, It's Alright. Bob Dylan's cover of his own classic folk song appeared as a reggae version in his "Live at Budokan" album of 1979. No doubt the Japanese audience must have been intrigued by the reggae treatment. This is not Dylan's best work by a longshot, but what I like about it is that he took a risk to do something radically different. There's nothing worse, IMHO, then a popular recording artist who performs the same songs in the same "safe" way year after year. 

Bod Dylan, Don't Think Twice It's Alright

#4 Devo, Satisfaction. The alternative 1970s/1980s band Devo were known and admired for the wackiness they brought to rock. I'm not really even sure if this version would be considered reggae by music purists, but it certainly has the same beat pattern. Devo claims that they actually met Mick Jagger in New York and played him the record before releasing it, and he allegedly claimed it was his favorite version. 

Devo, Satisfaction 

#3 Joss Stone, "Here Comes The Sun". British soul crooner Joss Stone is such a fantastic singer it is difficult to imagine her doing a poor cover of anything. Her version of the Beatles' classic "Here Comes the Sun" appeared on a reggae tribute album for Nina Simone. It's amazing and ends up honoring not just Nina, but also the Beatles and the reggae genre.  

Joss Stone, Here Comes The Sun 

 #2 Shaggy, "In The Summertime." People of a certain age will remember Mungo Jerry's 1970 "In the Summertime" as a kind of baby boomer anthem of carefree living. Jamaican-American artist Shaggy's 1995 cover  updated the tune for Generation X, keeping its humor intact while making it much more danceable. 

Shaggy, In the Summertime

#1 Soul Asylum, "I Can See Clearly Now". Here's an example of a rock and roll band trying to cover an actual reggae song. It ends up sounding like a rock band imitating a reggae band imitating a rock band playing reggae. Or something like that. I love it. 

Soul Asylum, I Can See Clearly Now 

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

 

Russia/Ukraine: A Nuanced View With Dr. Michael Jasinski

Mainstream American media coverage of contemporary wars relies on a simplistic "good guys v. bad guys" framing. The lack of nuance in reporting leads to an Orwellian nightmare in which reporters and/or commentators caught deviating from the official narrative are marginalized, called traitors, and/or removed from digital platforms. Americans and western Europeans have no difficulty recognizing and--rightly--condemning censorship in Putin's Russia. Yet many so-called "liberals" will cheer as principled critics of American empire (e.g. Abby Martin, Lee Camp, Chris Hedges) have years worth of programming removed from digital platforms in an instant. 

Chris Hedges was part of a New York Times team that won a 2002 Pulitzer Prize for their explanatory reporting on global terrorism. He was forced to leave the paper because of its enabling of the Iraq war. Shunned from mainstream US media, Hedges produced a brilliant, Emmy nominated program called "On Contact" for RT. Recently YouTube deleted the entire archive of the show from its platform, even though Hedges is no more kind to Putin than he has been to American administrations. Hedges refers to having one's work deleted by digital censors as being "disappeared". He says: 

"The Ukraine war, which I denounced as a 'criminal war of aggression' when it began, is a sterling example. Any effort to put it into historical context, to suggest that the betrayal of agreements by the West with Moscow, which I covered as a reporter in Eastern Europe during the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with the expansion of NATO might have baited Russia into the conflict, is dismissed. Nuance. Complexity. Ambiguity. Historical context. Self-criticism. All are banished." 

To try to un-banish the nuance, complexity, ambiguity, and historical context from the public sphere discussion of Russia/Ukraine, I interacted via email with Dr. Michael Jasinski, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Dr. Jasinski grew up behind the Iron Curtain in Poland, so he does not have to be lectured by anyone about what it means to resist totalitarianism. When he was 13, his family fled to America as refugees. Before coming to Oshkosh, he served in the US Military as a Russian language specialist. He earned his Bachelor's degree from Towson University, Master's in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Kansas, and Ph.D in International Affairs from the University of Georgia. 

Dr. Michael Jasinski

Dr. Jasinski is the author of two books:  Examining Genocides: Means, Motive, and Opportunity. New York: Rowman and Littlefield International (2017) and Social Trust, Anarchy, and International Conflict. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. (2011). His personal experience and scholarship make him someone that the national mainstream media should seek out actively for insight on the conflict. 

I asked Dr. Jasinski five questions about Russia/Ukraine that I have not seen answered or even addressed seriously in most news about the conflict that I read, see, and listen to. He graciously responded to all the questions. Below are his unedited responses: 

Media Rants: Much of the mainstream media coverage of the war, to me, seems to be rooted in the old Cold War frame featuring lovers of democracy and freedom standing up to Russian hegemony. What's missing from that frame? 

Dr. Jasinski: This is more of a conflict between conflicting visions of Ukraine than between democracy vs. authoritarianism. Ukraine is a big country whose territories have, at different points in history, belonged to the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, the Ottoman Empire, and of course USSR which in the end gradually put together the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic which then became the independent Ukraine after USSR’s break-up in 1991. But whereas some parts of Ukrainian SSR were never part of anything but the Russian Empire until administrative boundaries placed them inside Ukrainian SSR, others became part of it only after 1945 and were never governed from Moscow before. This process made Ukraine a de-facto multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural country with competing ideas of national identity across those regions.

To oversimplify matters somewhat for the sake of brevity, the concept of Ukrainian national identity with strong support in the country’s eastern and southern regions might be fairly described as “neo-Soviet”, on account of a large number of self-identified Russians living there, Crimea’s and Sevastopol’s important role as a Russian and Soviet outpost and stronghold, and the Soviet-era heavy industries built in the eastern parts of the country. The separatist Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics formed in 2014 are a reflection of that identity. The opposing “nationalist” idea which has strong support in central and especially western Ukraine aims at creating Ukraine as a monolingual ethno-state, a “Ukraine for Ukrainians” to the detriment of non-Ukrainian minorities.

These two conceptions of Ukraine have uneasily coexisted ever since the country’s independence but erupted into open warfare after the 2014 “Maidan Revolution” which represented a bid by the nationalists to permanently dominate Ukraine’s politics. To make matters worse, US and EU waded into that conflict in 2014, backing the “nationalists” and lauding the ouster of Yanukovych on the grounds he was a “Kremlin stooge”. That in turn prompted Crimea’s secession and annexation by Russia, and the outbreak of a separatist insurrection in eastern Ukraine that prompted first a Ukrainian military retaliation and then a Russian military intervention that resulted in the battles of the summer of 2014 and winter of 2014/15, followed by 8 years of low-intensity warfare.

Viktor Yanukovych was denounced by Ukrainian nationalists as a "Kremlin Stooge" and deposed during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. 

To give an idea of the intensity of conflict, the “neo-Soviets” treat Lenin and Ukrainians who served in the Red Army during World War 2 as national heroes of Ukraine. The “nationalist” heroes, on the other hand, include Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, even the soldiers of the Waffen-SS Division Galizien. The depth of the 2014 political rupture is such that at the moment it is all but impossible to imagine Ukraine continue as a single sovereign state except by one of the two factions violently suppressing the other. 

2.  Russia's claim to be engaged in "denazification" of Ukraine is either marginalized or dismissed outright as Russian propaganda in most western media coverage of the conflict. Frequently we hear that Ukraine cannot harbor Nazis since President Zelensky himself is Jewish. Based on your knowledge of the region, how real is the Nazi presence in Ukraine? 

Ukraine definitely does have a “Nazi problem”, though at the same time it is not the Nazi Germany of the 1930s. There is no single “Fuehrer”, there is no totalitarian Nazi party of any note. There are, however, numerous civil society organizations and associated paramilitaries which have adopted elements of Nazi ideology and symbology, including the Azov Regiment (arguably the best known of them all, due to its Wolfsangel symbol and recruitment of foreign white supremacists), the Right Sector, the C14, and several others, who are not only tolerated but also trained and armed by Ukraine’s military and even foreign military instructors. Today’s Ukraine resembles the final years of Weimar Germany which retained the trappings of a parliamentary democracy but whose government made common cause with the NSDAP for the sake of combating Communists and Socialists. Likewise the post-2014 Ukraine governments made common cause with neo-Nazi entities for the sake of combating pro-Russia elements in Ukraine. Azov Regiment, in particular, was stationed in cities like Mariupol and Kharkiv explicitly to repress the ethnic Russian population of those cities.

In addition, official Ukrainian support for neo-Nazi paramilitaries meant that the ideology has spread into other parts of its national security establishment, including its armed forces, police, and intelligence services. The official Twitter feed of Ukraine’s National Guard, for example, posted a video of Azov Regiment soldiers greasing their ammunition with pork fat for use against Russia’s many Muslim soldiers, just to cite one of many similar examples. It’s easy to come across photos of ordinary Ukrainian soldiers wearing neo-Nazi or white supremacist badges, something unheard of prior to 2014. The official NATO Twitter feed had to pull down a post praising Ukraine’s female soldiers when someone pointed out one of the soldiers was clearly wearing a Black Sun badge on her uniform.

Therefore one should not dismiss these militias as being numerically or politically insignificant. It’s as if the US Army formed the KKK Brigade, the Proud Boys Brigade, the Aryan Nations Brigade, and several others along these lines, allowing them to propagate their respective ideologies and repress those opposed to them. One can readily imagine the chilling effect such formations would have on US politics and society. And let’s not forget that the “foreign volunteers” who have flocked to Ukraine to fight in these paramilitaries have big ideas for their own countries. They see Ukraine as a place to obtain training for what they view as an inevitable “racial holy war” back home.

Bringing up Zelensky’s Jewish ancestry as evidence Ukraine has no such problem makes about as much sense as saying that there is no problem with systemic racism in America, no need for BLM, after 8 years of Obama presidency. It’s worth noting that Israel has routinely condemned manifestations of neo-Nazism in Ukraine and has pointedly refused to send weapons to Ukraine or to impose economic sanctions on Russia. Zelensky’s appearance before the Knesset during which he appealed to them to protect Ukraine in the same way Ukrainians allegedly protected Jews during WW2 only led some of the Knesset deputies to note the large number of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and participants in the Holocaust.

Ukraine President Zelensky addressing the Israeli Knesset. Some pundits have argued that because Zelensky is Jewish, Ukraine cannot be a safe zone for neo-Nazis

Zelensky certainly ran and won as a pro-peace candidate but that quickly changed after he was elected and made a visit to the front lines on the Donbass where he was insulted to his face by members of one of the neo-Nazi paramilitaries who made it clear they did not respect his authority. Worse, after that visit senior national security officials launched a public campaign arguing that any move in the direction of ending the war would be tantamount to capitulation and have dire consequences for anyone pursuing it. They succeeded in intimidating Zelensky who has not made any peace overtures since and even today adheres to a very hawkish line. I’m reminded of the fate of Anwar Sadat after the Camp David Accords and Yitzhak Rabin after Oslo Accords who were killed by their own side’s extremists because they “capitulated”. Should Zelensky sign a peace agreement on anything resembling Russia’s terms, he’ll likely suffer a similar fate at the hands of his own country’s nationalists. He seems to have been reduced to a figurehead, someone who rubber stamps decisions by Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council which is dominated by nationalists.

3.  One thing that is almost impossible to learn from Western media is what the opposition to Mr. Putin within Russia actually stands for. From your knowledge of Russian politics, are the majority of Putin's opponents okay with a NATO presence in Ukraine? I personally support genuine "small-d democracy" movements in every country. What does that movement stand for in Russia? 

As in the case of Ukraine, it is also not an issue of democracy vs. autocracy. It’s an issue of Russia’s identity and role in the world. Vladimir Putin, other senior Russian government officials, and the political parties backing them, are broadly united in wanting a Russia that is a sovereign Great Power, not tolerating foreign interference in its domestic affairs and participating in international politics and the global economy on its own terms. Differences among parties and factions are over how to achieve that goal, not whether that goal ought to be pursued.

On the other hand, much of the so-called “non-systemic opposition”, people like Navalny, Sobchak, Kasyanov, Khodorkovsky, Kasparov, other people both in and out of Russia, favor a vision of the country as one integrated into the global economy even at the cost of its sovereignty and great power status. They argue Russia’s giving up on its great power ambitions would result in an improved standard of living for average Russians.  They are not opposed to NATO in Ukraine or anywhere else on the Soviet periphery, one prominent Russian blogger Ilya Varlamov even wrote an article titled “If we were defeated by NATO” which argued such defeat would be a blessing for Russia.

However, their popularity was low before the war and has now been diminished even further. First of all, “liberal” policies have been tried in the 1990s during the Yeltsin presidency, leading to the creation of the “oligarchs” and impoverishment of Russia’s urban, industrial middle classes. To this day, Yeltsin and every politician associated with him, including several of the oppositionists, remain very unpopular. Secondly, the freezes and arrests of Russian properties and assets in Western countries even when owned by private citizens, the calls to “permanently weaken” Russia, to try its leaders as war criminals, NATO’s supply of weapons to Ukraine in order to kill Russian soldiers, the presence of neo-Nazi paramilitaries who have committed atrocities both against the civilian population and Russian POWs, have rallied the Russian public around its government. Under current circumstances, arguing in favor of concessions to Ukraine or the West is not likely to be well received by a public whose sons and daughters are fighting a war against neo-Nazi-coddling Ukraine armed by NATO countries, by a public whose welfare is being threatened by Western sanctions, and might even result in criminal prosecution under laws adopted after February 24. After three decades of Russia’s gradual convergence with the West, we are now seeing a divergence that is unlikely to be reversed in the foreseeable future. I think it’s fair to say that Joe Biden not only “lost Ukraine”, he also lost Russia as a potential US partner, making it instead an increasingly close partner of China.

4.  As part of the fervor whipped up by the press, we are seeing a number of cases of Russian athletes, artists, and others threatened with losing their jobs if they do not sufficiently denounce Putin. To me, the Russophobia we've seen promoted in the press since 2016 has disturbing similarities to the Islamophobia we've seen since 2001. What's your take? 

Both 9/11 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine showed the fragility and limitations of Western institutions. For all the claims of “universal values”, Western rule of law is not universal at all and does not apply to non-Westerners. 9/11 gave us widespread use of torture in places like Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and CIA “black sites”, drone strikes, indefinite detentions, policies which likely would not have been adopted against terrorists who were white and Christian. After 2/24 we discovered that due process, presumption of innocence, property rights protections, the principle of individual rather than collective responsibility, may not apply if you are Russian. It turns out that you can be fired from your job, have your bank accounts frozen, properties confiscated, simply because you are Russian. The frenzy of Russophobic sentiment and policies, their speed and scope to the point of disqualifying Russian cat breeds from international competitions, have some disturbing similarities to the Kristallnacht and they set a precedent. Moreover, the current bout of Russophobia has inflicted tremendous reputational damage on US and European institutions. If you are a Latin American, an African, a Middle-Easterner, an Asian, would you be willing to trust Western banks, Western governments with your property, your livelihood, and even your personal safety knowing that all of that can be taken from you in the same way it was taken from so many Russians residing abroad? Do you really want to store your wealth in dollars and euros subject to the whims of Western politicians? I expect this will have long-term global economic consequences far greater than human rights abuses after 9/11.

5.  Finally, if someone is looking for nuanced views of Russia/Ukraine that do not feature simplistic "good v. evil" frames, where can they find it? 

There are several independent media outlets that have provided nuanced reporting of the sort wholly missing from mainstream media, including from NPR and PBS. For more in-depth reporting on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I would recommend MintPress News which has run a large number of well researched stories, including one tracing the development of Zelensky’s relationship with neo-Nazi paramilitaries:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukraine-jewish-president-zelensky-made-peace-neo-nazi-paramilitaries/279862/

Another site I highly recommend is nakedcapitalism.com, particularly its daily Links and Water Cooler features that aggregate some of the most important stories of the day, and which also run feature articles on relevant Russia-related topics. For example on the effect of the Russia-Ukraine war on US-Mexico relations that shows the resentment felt in the “Global South” due to high-handed Western policies toward Russia:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/03/us-mexico-relations-hit-new-low-over-russia-ukraine-conflict.html