Welcome To Tony Palmeri's Media Rants! I am a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. I use this blog to try to promote critical thinking about mainstream media, establishment politics, and popular culture.
When Fox News founder Roger Ailes passed away in 2017, I wrote a piece called "Roger Ailes and the Eristic Revival." That piece made three main points:
Fox News did not originate but did magnify the worst tendencies of post-World War II news media in the United States.
The real significance of Fox is its revival of the ancient “eristic,” an intoxicating mode of argument rooted not in the civil exchange of ideas for the purpose of arriving at sound public policy, but in the desire to defeat and humiliate opponents.
The end and tragic result of Fox’s magnification of the news media’s worst tendencies and revival of the eristic has been the death of political conservatism as a force for generating new ideas or reformulating old ones.
Fox's recent termination of its most popular pundit, Tucker Carlson, gives us another opportunity to opine about the network. With the possible exceptions of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, no one exemplified the Fox formula as well as Carlson. That formula, summarized aptly some years ago by NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen as "resentment news," shows no signs of going away at Fox even though it was at the root of the shoddy "journalism" that cost the network $787.5 million to settle a defamation suit with Dominion Voting Systems. Though released text messages and emails show conclusively that Carlson knew the Trump alternative universe claims about election fraud were utter bullshit, he continued to amplify MAGA conspiracies and resentments on air because "our viewers are good people and they believe it." When Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich fact checked a Trump tweet alleging voter fraud and concluded the Trump claim was inaccurate, Carlson texted Hannity and Laura Ingraham:
“Please get her fired . . . It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
Why did Fox's stock price go up during the Carlson years? A New York Times analysis of over 1,100 Tucker episodes found an "apocalyptic" world view featuring a fear instilling narrative of "they" want to control "you." "They" are the "ruling class," invoked in over 800 shows the Times analyzed from 2016-2021. It's an intoxicating narrative, one that has deep roots in what historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. As noted in the Times analysis, Carlson "often begins segments with a grain of truth or an accurately quoted study, but then he distorts a concept to fit his narrative." Apocalyptic rhetoric made Tucker the most watched pundit on cable television.
That Tucker Carlson uttered an occasional "grain of truth" and often mocked the mainstream punditocracy made it tempting for some with small-d democratic leanings to want to see him as something other than a white supremacist enabler. As noted by Lee Harris and Luke Goldstein in the American Prospect, some of Carlson's sensible populist rants reflected views not stated or emphasized on nightly news shows that reject toxic nativism. Thus, Carlson's show would be literally the only place on cable to hear such views.
For example, since making his populist turn Carlson regularly says things that used to be associated with the political left, such as: "Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite.” In 2019 he even ended up endorsing Elizabeth Warren's economic policies, telling his mostly MAGA audience that the Massachusetts Senator's critique of multinational corporations was a message abandoned by the mainstream Republican party and reflected "Trump at his best." MSNBC and CNN certainly have talking heads sympathetic to the political left, but it's more of a political left as it exists within the Democratic Party.
Carlson's populist persona even allows him to take on the National Security State, something that during the George W. Bush years was the province of mainstream Democrats. Pseudo-left, libertarian substackers and podcasters like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Briahna Joy Gray, and Jimmy Dore--all of whom make sensible critiques of how cozy mainstream media have become with security state officials--are all persona non grata at CNN and MSNBC even though their takes on the CIA/NSA/FBI attempts to infiltrate the public sphere were once common in so-called left circles. Carlson had Dore on to say something that is no longer uttered on those networks friendly to Democrats: “Your enemy is not China. Your enemy is not Russia. Your enemy is the military-industrial complex.” Even if we agree, as most people do, that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and cannot be justified on any moral grounds, do we REALLY believe that Russia is a bigger threat than the military-industrial-complex? The fact that the Russia-Ukraine war is being used by the national security state to resuscitate the images of people who gave us debacles in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places is distressing. And it's absolutely pathetic that a resentment merchant like Tucker Carlson is one of the few pundits with high visibility willing to call that out.
Tucker Carlson is not going away any time soon, and even without the backing of Fox he will continue to command a large audience. What does that mean? Should people genuinely concerned about the abuses inflicted on society by market capitalism, or worried about the national security state inching us ever closer to World War III, or bothered by government censorship--should anyone taken with those and other issues that so-called progressives used to be outspoken about give kudos to Tucker and share his videos when he espouses a sane position? Assuming Tucker reemerges with a program on which he will have guests, should people who genuinely believe in progressive causes ever appear on his show?
The short answer is, "it depends." It is true that when Tucker Carlson says something sane, just as when Donald Trump says something sane, the most logical response is that old quote dating back to the1700s:"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." I can certainly understand the school of thought that says appearing on Tucker or sharing his rhetoric, even if it is to promote a good cause, ends up providing cover for his brand of resentment politics.
On the other hand, I think Nathan Robinson in 2022 made a good point that an authentic left movement should be "ruthlessly strategic" on such matters. Robinson used the example of Chris Smalls of the Amazon Labor Union, who took much criticism from the online left for appearing on Tucker even though his appearance probably reached a significant number of Amazon warehouse workers who share his critique of the corporation. As argued by Robinson:
Carlson is indeed a truly loathsome individual, who uses white nationalist rhetoric and tries to scare white people into fearing “gypsies” and other immigrants. But in believing that Carlson’s loathsomeness should automatically preclude speaking on his show, we see a lack of attention to the kind of strategic thinking that differentiates what we might call “union organizer mentality” from “media critic mentality.” I am sure Chris Smalls is aware that Tucker Carlson and Fox News are the enemy—Smalls is a revolutionary labor organizer. The value of appearing on Fox is instrumental: there are Amazon warehouse workers who watch Fox News and listen to Tucker Carlson . . . For Smalls, the question of whether to go on Fox News is: “What does it do for the ALU?” It is not“Is Tucker Carlson a good or bad person who deserves credibility?” In other words, Smalls’ choices are outcome-driven rather than an expression of moral preferences.
Carlson may be the ultimate broken clock, but if in his post-Fox career he continues to command large audiences, then critics of the market, labor organizers and critics of the national security state need to be reflective about the consequences of appearing or NOT appearing on his program. People on the political left--whether they call themselves liberals, radicals, progressives, or whatever--should be very angry with a mainstream "liberal" media that forces this kind of strategizing. How is it possible that critiques of capitalism, rejection of the apparatchiks who gave us Iraq and Afghanistan, and critique of the military-industrial complex are more welcome on Tucker than on traditional "liberal" platforms? It's long past time for the so-called media left to reclaim those positions so that a resentment based broken clock like Tucker Carlson cannot continue to use those positions as a shield to cover for his overall apocalyptic world view.
[Note: The Ahmadiya Muslim Community in Oshkosh invited Mayor Lori Palmeri and other distinguished Fox Valley leaders to speak at their 2023 Iftar. Mayor Palmeri could not make it, and she asked me to attend in her place. The Ahmadiya leaders graciously asked me to say a few words. Below is a transcript of my remarks.]
My name is Tony Palmeri. I’m a professor
of Communication Studies at UW Oshkosh and former member of the Oshkosh Common Council.
My spouse Lori Palmeri is the Mayor of
Oshkosh, and she was recently elected as the Representative in the State
Assembly for this 54th District.
Unfortunately, she could not be here
tonight due to a prior commitment—she is at an event honoring firefighters in
our community. Her term as Mayor ends on April 18th,
and she will not be returning to that position. She asked me to remind you to
vote for a new mayor and council on April 4th!
Mayor Palmeri sends her greetings. She
wants me to tell you that she has always respected and admired the Adhmadiya
Muslim community, and her respect and admiration has grown in her four years as
Mayor.
She is especially appreciative of your
spirit of openness and tolerance, of your support for the city’s diversity,
equity, and inclusion initiatives, and your deep commitment to the values of
family, community, and civic engagement.
Most of all, Mayor Palmeri has been moved
by your profound and simple message: Love For All, Hatred For None.
The Mayor and I try to live that message,
but like all human beings we sometimes fall short. We all fall short at times,
don’t we? In a world filled with so much negativity, with so many bad faith
actors trying to keep us divided, it is sometimes difficult to remember that we
must always have love for all and hatred for none, even when there is so much
pressure moving us off that path.
In Oshkosh we are blessed to have YOU to
remind us of that profound and simple message. Love for all, hatred for none.
And you have had impact. Allow me to share
with you just one example. In 2010 I was on the Oshkosh City Council. That was
the year the city received your request to turn this building into a house of
worship.
When your request became public, members
of the City Council started receiving
phone calls, emails, and other communications. Much of it expressed concerns
about noise and traffic congestion and other things that were sincere and certainly
not trivial, but did seem exaggerated.
As I started communicating with people who
were expressing concerns, it became clear to me that what we were at least in
part dealing with was a fear of Islam, which was not surprising given the political
climate of that time and the mostly irresponsible media coverage of Muslim
people in the first decade of the 21st century.
As the date of the vote on your request
got closer, much of the communication the council was receiving got more angry,
and some of it had a bullying or threatening tone. One person approached me in
the grocery store and said “if you vote for the mosque I will never vote for
you again.” I know some of my colleagues on the council received similar
communications.
But your demeanor in those days inspired
me.
Even though your motives were being
questioned, you did not respond with anger even though it would have been
understandable had you done so.
You had the facts and the law on
your side but did not immediately threaten lawsuits, even though it would have
been understandable had you done so.
You did not refuse to meet with
anyone, including people making irrational statements, even though it would
have been understandable had you done so.
Instead, you went out of your way to address every
concern and to accommodate concerns in whatever way possible.
No matter what was thrown in your
direction, no matter what obstacles were placed in your path, you responded
with love for all, and hatred for none.
So, in 2010 in our own little corner of
the world,
right here in Oshkosh, we had a contest between fear and love.
And love won.
Love won.
I believe Love can and must win at the
global level. The peace and security that we all seek is not possible without
love.
But the victory of love is not inevitable.
We must act. We must act.
For love to win we must practice what
political theorist Danielle Allen and others call political friendship.
Political friendship is not a shallow display of civility.
Political friendship means treating all
human beings, even strangers, as we treat our closest friends. With our closest
friends we act in good faith, we listen, we take turns, we compromise, we
problem solve, and most importantly we sacrifice individual preferences for the
greater good.
If we can practice that kind of friendship
with ALL human beings, then love will win. And we can have the peace and
security we crave.
I want to close by thanking you for the
friendship you have shown Mayor Palmeri and me, and for the friendship you’ve
shown the entire community,
Representative Palmeri wants Oshkosh and
Wisconsin to be known as places that stand for love for all and hatred for
none. She looks forward to partnering with you to make that happen.
American leaders should never minimize, make excuses for, or enable human rights abuses around the world--no matter where such abuses occur, and no matter if a nation committing abuses is a "strategic partner" of the United States. That includes China, whose human rights abuses are well documented.
Unfortunately, more often than not American leaders' critiques of foreign governments are hypocritical, self-serving, mindless, and ignorant. This is especially true when the critiques are bipartisan. Post-World War II, bipartisan agreement on the evil of a foreign adversary is typically a grotesque form of groupthink benefiting not the cause of freedom as much as bottom line military-industrial-complex interests. When foreign policy stupidity reigns in Washington, we should remind ourselves of George Washington's Farewell Address admonition to "guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
The new Cold War with China is bipartisan; Wisconsin Republican congressman Mike Gallagher (right) and Illinois Democratic congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi lead the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Gallagher seeks "ideological warfare" with China, which he claims is a "lost art."
The new bipartisan Cold War with China does not feature a morally upright United States Congress standing tall for global democracy and human rights. Rather, this Cold War is primarily an inane and paranoid theater of the absurd in which lightweight congressmen from safely gerrymandered districts think they are sounding tough when they "boldly" call for a Tik Tok ban. Remember, these were the same characters (especially the Republicans), who told us during election time they were going to be "laser focused" on inflation and jobs. Most of them worry about the Chinese Communist Party using nefarious digital means to dumb down our youth and undermine the future of democracy. But the same people either minimize or have nothing to say about an actual attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021.
One of the main offenders in the New Cold War era is Wisconsin congressman Mike Gallagher. The new Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose name appropriately enough is "McCarthy," appointed Gallagher as Chair of the "Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party." If you had a dime for every time Gallagher says "Chinese Communist Party," you would be quite rich. Gallagher refers to "ideological warfare" as a "lost art" and longs for a return to the Reagan era with big military budgets backed up by black v. white views of the world. (Note: We are already approaching a trillion dollar a year defense budget.). At a time when the United States and China should be working together on climate mitigation initiatives, poverty eradication, helping to negotiate peace in the Russia v. Ukraine war, and other initiatives that might actually benefit humanity at-large, our new Cold Warriors are getting us prepared for a new arms race.
Gallagher opposes President Biden's budget because it fails to (you guessed it) "combat the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party." He's upset that the budget allegedly "increases spending on domestic progressive priorities at more than double the rate of defense . . . and shortchanges the Pentagon at the worst moment possible." At the same time, he introduced a bill to "ban Biden from cancelling student loans."
While Gallagher's Select Committee on China called to mind the worst of the red-baiting Congressional excesses of the 1950s, for pure comedy it was no match for a recent hearing held by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Chaired by Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the hearing was called "Tik Tok: How Congress Can Safeguard American Data Privacy and Protect Children From Online Harms." Listening to and watching the hearing, you would think that Tik Tok is uniquely awful in the big tech world, or that surveillance of private data is something invented by the Chinese Communist Party. As noted media law scholar (and my former student) Chris Terry might say, "I know journalism is hard," but someone should ask Edward Snowden if the Chinese Communist Party invented private data surveillance.
The most hysterical part of the hearing, in a pathetic way, was congressman Dan Crenshaw's (R-Texas) questioning of Tik Tok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Crenshaw's comments, like so many of his colleagues that day on both sides of the aisle, represented what digital rights activist Evan Greer calls "Xenophobic Showboating." Crenshaw started off his remarks by sarcastically thanking Chew for "bringing Democrats and Republicans together." At one point Crenshaw clearly was trying to "own" Chew by pointing out that under China's 2017 national intelligence law, Chinese citizens must cooperate with Chinese intelligence and are bound to secrecy. Chew interrupted to say, "Congressman, first, "I'm a Singaporean." Did Crenshaw know that Chew was from Singapore? I don't think he did, and he tried to cover it up by suggesting that it did not matter. Crenshaw closed with a paranoid rant about Tik Tok being part of a Chinese Communist Party conspiracy to weaken America from within, through controlling our youth. A full transcript of this mostly shameful hearing can be found here.
Only a handful of members of congress, including Wisconsin's Mark Pocan and New York's Jamaal Bowman, had anything rational to say about Tik Tok. They rightly condemned the "hysteria" over Tik Tok, and argued--correctly in my view--that discussions about the platform should be placed in a larger context of data manipulation by Big Tech in general. These points are reinforced by investigative journalist Julia Angwin:
But when you dig into the national security allegations against TikTok, it is telling that most of the charges could just as easily be levied against the U.S. tech giants. And most of the tech companies’ exploitation of data has not been curbed by the government . . . [Yet]securing data from internal threats has been a problem for all the Big Tech companies. Google has fired dozens of employees for data misuse, including obtaining user data. Microsoft admitted to snooping in a blogger’s Hotmail account to see who was leaking internal documents. At Twitter, internal controls were so lax that an ex-employee was convicted of using his access to spy on Saudi dissidents, and a whistle-blower said that the company had hired an employee in India who had used his access to spy on Indian dissidents.
Evan Greerargues that the red scare is no substitute for better data privacy laws: “TikTok uses the exact same surveillance capitalist business model of services like YouTube and Instagram. Yes, it’s concerning that the Chinese government could abuse data that TikTok collects. But even if TikTok were banned, they could access much of the same data simply by purchasing it from data brokers, because there are almost no laws in place to prevent that kind of abuse. If policymakers want to protect Americans from surveillance, they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone.”
What is the role of big media in the New Bipartisan Cold War? Not surprisingly, but still tragically, big media are allowing xenophobic nonsense to be put forth as a legitimate political position. What we need from big media (and from all media, actually) is an independent spirit that calls out human rights abuses on all sides, and refuses to be the stage on which xenophobic showboating performs. As I've written about before, during the McCarthy period of red baiting in the 1950s, only a small group of journalists and commentators (especially Edward Murrow of CBS, Bill Evjue of the Madison Capital Times, and independent journalist George Seldes) had the backbone to take on McCarthy and his enablers throughout the government. We need a new generation of principled journalists and commentators to do the same today.
My friend and mentor, Dr. James Simmons, passed away recently at the age of 76. Jim was a widely published scholar in the field of Political Science, a UW Oshkosh campus leader, a community activist, and much loved by his family and friends. Through his example he inspired me in many ways, some of which I will describe in this post.
When I arrived on the UW Oshkosh campus in the fall of 1989, three people made an immediate impression on me: Doug McClain, Barbara Sniffen, and James Simmons.
In the 1990s and 2000s I produced and co-hosted (with former Oshkosh Mayor James Mather) a public affairs television program called "Commentary." Jim Simmons was a regular guest. In the picture are (from left) Jim Simmons, me, local author Dan Rylance, and Mr. Mather.
The late Doug McClain was an Assistant Dean of Students. A deeply spiritual man with an infectious smile who could not say a bad word about anyone, Doug taught me that academia at its best stands for the love of great ideas and the love for all humanity. On the basis of just a few short conversations Doug recognized in me a passion for helping people to become their most authentic selves, and so he recruited me to work with student leaders on developing their communication and leadership skills. Doug passed in the late 1990s, yet to this day whenever I find myself getting cynical about the prospects for positive change, I remember Doug's radiant optimism for the inspiration I need to get back on track.
The late Barbara Sniffen was as close to a Mother Jones figure as I will ever meet. A History professor by trade, Barb was a first class hell-raiser. Passionate about labor union activism, she was known for her assertive recruitment of faculty and staff to join the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers. By assertive I mean "in your face." Though they would never admit it, UW administrators walked in fear of Barb; she was the gadfly who stood up to them on all major issues, all of the time. After I was in Oshkosh for about a year, Barb chased me down on campus and said, "Tony you're smart and a good public speaker. You need to do more to fight for justice around here." At first I was offended, but then I realized she was right. When she passed away in 2003 I called her a fighter, mentor, and friend.
And then there was Jim Simmons. He also arrived at UW Oshkosh in fall of 1989, and from the first time I met him (at a new faculty orientation) I was blown away by his vast knowledge of history and politics, two topics that I've always been consumed with. In one of our earliest conversations I happened to mention to him that I had recently seen a picture of the Ku Klux Klan marching across the Main St. bridge in Oshkosh in the 1920s. Jim proceeded to give me a lengthy, awe inspiring lecture on the history of the Klan in the Midwest, which was fascinating and terrifying at the same time. People who know Jim will remember that intense sparkle he got in his eyes whenever he riffed on something he had a good deal of knowledge about. I remember leaving that interaction--and dozens of future interactions--thinking that I needed to do a hell of a lot more reading just to keep up with him.
Around 1996 Jim and I became close friends. That year the city manager of Oshkosh announced he was retiring. The form of government in Oshkosh always appeared strange to me, in large part because placing executive power in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat seemed to run counter to the basic principles of representative government. Given that the city manager was retiring, I wondered if it might be a good time to change the form of government to be more like Appleton, Green Bay, Madison, and many other cities that place executive power in the hands of an elected mayor. Changing the government at that time, I reasoned, would not require firing a city manager.
I had absolutely no idea how anyone would go about changing the form of government, so as was typical for me at the time, I called Jim Simmons. He responded to me as if he had been waiting for the call for years, providing me with an incredibly detailed overview of the history of government in Oshkosh. Inspired by our conversation, I wrote a letter to the local Oshkosh Northwestern arguing that the City Council should hold off on starting a search for a new city manager, and should instead ask the voters if they wanted a stronger mayor position instead. Within days, I received numerous emails and phone calls from people who had been involved in previous attempts to change the form of government. They were mostly older men who in their lives had been everything from city workers to assembly line workers to small business owners, and they told me how they had been condemned by the local media as "two percenters" every time they tried to expose the problems with the government.
Jim suggested that we arrange a meeting at the Oshkosh Public Library to see how much interest there was in the issue. About twenty people showed up at the first meeting, which shocked me. We ended up calling ourselves "Citizens of Representative Democracy" (CORD), and put in place a process of getting the thousands of petition signatures necessary to put a change of government referendum on the ballot. Jim put an unbelievable amount of work into that effort, not only collecting signatures, but also developing promotional literature, wording the referendum so it would pass legal muster, and handling all media inquiries. His wisdom and eloquence kept all CORD supporters motivated. It was really in this time period that I began to see Jim for what he was: a Populist Political Scientist with a genuine love for people at the grassroots level. His interaction with the CORD activists--few of whom had college backgrounds--was grounded in a deep respect for the "little guys and gals" whose names rarely get mentioned in the press, but who are the true salt of the earth.
The change of government referendum came close but did not pass. For his efforts Jim took a beating in the local media (which supported the manager form of government), but he gained the admiration and respect of many for the way he spoke truth to power. For me, he did something even more important: he spoke truth to the power-less, which is not something the typical academician does. Jim was a public intellectual in the best sense; guided by political science theories and scholarship, he helped people at-large solve practical problems. He was acting in the best tradition of what has been referred to in the UW as the "Wisconsin Idea."
Some years after the CORD movement, I wrote a Media Rants piece for the SCENE newspaper called "Deonstructing Don Kettl." Jim was always a fan of the Media Rants column, and in that particular year (2004) he happened to be the editor of the Wisconsin Political Science Association Journal. He liked the Kettl column, and asked me if I would be willing to write an expanded version of it for the WPSA journal. I was honored that he liked the piece and of course said yes, but I asked him if he was concerned about possible pushback. Professor Kettl after all was Republican Governor Tommy Thompson's favorite UW professor, and a respected scholar at UW Madison. My problem was not really with Dr. Kettl as much as Thompson's use of him to provide a kind of intellectual cover for his "reforms" of state government--most of which were supported by the monied interests that run the state capitol. I remember Jim saying, "don't worry about pushback.It's a good piece and it belongs in the journal."
Well, after the piece came out a few University of Wisconsin Madison faculty went apoplectic. The main argument of my piece was that professor Kettl had become a symbol of the tendency of the modern professoriate to become tools of power as opposed to challengers of it. The critics could offer no rational response or counterpoint to that argument. Instead they called on Jim to resign as journal editor, and launched a number of personal attacks at me. It was a bizarre display of a kind of academic thin skin that made it painfully obvious why governor Thompson--who brought big money and big business influence to Wisconsin--did not fear the professoriate. Of course Jim Simmons did not resign as journal editor, and he pointedly defended his own and my integrity throughout the process. Jim truly had my back, something I will never forget.
Jim Simmons' book "What Government Can Do," co-authored with Ben Page in the year 2000, argued that government can and should create policies to reduce poverty and inequality
If an honest history of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh campus is ever written, Jim Simmons should occupy a prominent place in it. He was a master of faculty governance who could cite complex handbook language from memory. He took on administrative bullies, and never compromised the shared governance principles that are supposed to frame administrative, faculty/staff, and student interaction. He kept reminding university employees--including the faculty--that they were WORKERS with interests that must be fought for. Jim had a great career, but he was not a careerist; it was more important for him to search for truth and lend his expertise to worthwhile causes than it was to gain academic status or rewards.
Thank you James Simmons for all you did to make Oshkosh a better community, UW Oshkosh a better campus, Wisconsin a better state, and the United States a better nation. You will not be forgotten, and your legacy will continue to inspire generations of future scholars and activists.
[Note: This obit was originally written in 2003. UW Oshkosh is currently in the process of revamping their website, on which this piece appeared. I'm moving pieces from that site to this blog. Barb Sniffen is still greatly missed.].
November 4, 2003
Barbara Sniffen, UW Oshkosh Professor Emeritus of History and passionate TAUWP (American Federation of Teachers) advocate, died in her sleep last Thursday night while attending the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers Convention. "Shock" does not even begin to describe the feelings of everyone who knew and loved Barbara. Though we knew she suffered from a variety of ailments including a bout with cancer, her energy and enthusiasm always made it difficult to imagine that she might someday leave us. I know I speak for all TAUWP members in offering the deepest condolences to Barbara's husband, son, and the rest of her family and friends.
I suspect my history with Barbara Sniffen matches that of many others: I stood in awe of Barbara the fighter, sought guidance from Barbara the mentor, and was comforted by the warmth of Barbara the friend.
There will never be another fighter like Barbara Sniffen on the UW Oshkosh campus. When I first arrived at the campus in 1989, like most faculty recently out of graduate school I was naive about the realities of university power and politics. I had great faith and belief in the idea that the American university really was a place where students, faculty, staff, and administrators stood united in the search for truth. Barbara Sniffen understood, more keenly than most, that administrative power trips, unfair workplace rules, and double standards blocked the truth search. There's a famous quote by the great African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass that always reminds me of Barbara every time I hear it. That quote says, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Most people who met Barbara were shocked that this tiny, outwardly reserved looking older woman could be so brazen and forceful. I think Mark Twain explained it best, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
Two short stories, both from the last two months of Barbara's life, I think illustrate her fighting spirit. A little over a month ago I returned to my office after teaching one morning and saw a message on my telephone answering machine. It was from Barbara, saying there was something "urgent" she wanted to tell me. Between meeting with students and doing assorted other odds and ends, I did not return her call. When I got home that evening, there was a message on my home answering machine from Barbara: "Tony, you really do have to call me. This is extremely important." I called her early the next morning, and what she wanted to tell me was that Kay Neal (who followed me as chair of the department of communication) had finally joined TAUWP. You see, Barbara had been recruiting Kay for years and years and years to join the organization. Barbara aggressively recruited faculty to join the organization, and she refused to accept "NO" from anyone. When a faculty or staff member finally joined, Barbara considered it a great moral victory and a significant stride toward attaining justice for all members of the campus community. I used to laugh at how seriously Barbara took the whole issue of membership recruitment, at how she would religiously come to every campus opening day ceremony in September and place TAUWP membership cards in the hands of everyone who wanted one and especially in the hands of those who did NOT want one. Now I cry wondering how we will ever replace that exuberance and persistence that really is the lifeblood of any organization or community, be it a university community or any other.
Then just a few weeks ago the UW Board of Regents met on the UW Oshkosh campus. Our new Wisconsin Federation of Teachers TAUWP representative Kevin Kniffin (Barbara loved the fact that the WFT hired someone whose name was so similar to hers) and staff organizer Andrew Cantrell had been busy taping TAUWP signs on the doors of the Reeve Union building in which the Regents would be meeting. But Barbara went one step further: she placed the signs in the women's' rest rooms, an act that drew the ire of the Reeve Union management and the campus police. When Kevin, Andrew, and I broke the news to Barbara about the authorities' displeasure with this evil act of civil disobedience she had committed, she was just beaming. She was like an energetic teenager who had moved the minute hand on her parents' watches back so as to extend the curfew. Nothing gave her more pleasure than tweaking the establishment, even if it meant placing--gasp!--unauthorized flyers in their rest rooms
Barbara was always chastised, even by many of her friends, for being overly confrontational, exaggerating problems, and personalizing issues. Often I would say to these critics, "look, I don't always agree with Barbara's style of communicating, but on the other hand if I were taken hostage somewhere and allowed just one phone call, I'm pretty sure Barbara Sniffen is the person that I'd contact. She'd set the wheels in motion to get me released in ways that no mellow and non-confrontational diplomat ever could."
I think Barbara was amused by the criticisms aimed at her, and saw them as signs of the discomfort that most of us feel when someone urges us to confront power. She got a big kick, for example, at how some members of the university faculty would claim to throw her caustic "TAUWP Comments" newsletters right in the trash, yet they somehow were able to engage in point by point refutation of every claim in the Comment.
If there are angels in Heaven, I can see Barb right now organizing them to confront God about all the violence and misery on Earth. I can hear her telling them, "Look, there's all this talk about love and peace around here and yet the boss tolerates wars, natural disasters, hunger and disease. Let's demand that this Great Spirit start acting like one."
But Barb was not only a great fighter. She was a tremendous mentor and friend.
I believe the greatest gift a mentor can give to a mentee is the confidence to use their talents and abilities for a cause bigger than themselves. In my 14 years at UW Oshkosh, Barb Sniffen was one of only a handful of people who steered me away from the narrow careerist agenda that plagues so many people at a modern university. Barb kept reminding me that someone with my abilities was obligated to join the centuries old struggle for justice and human rights. She showed me the folly of trying to curry favor with people in power if they do not respect basic principles of democracy like due process and equal opportunity. She showed me the necessity of exposing those who abuse power and demanding accountability from them, even if that means great personal discomfort and sacrifice of many of the rewards available to people who remain silent in the face of injustice. In her personal example she showed me the truth of Margaret Mead's declaration to "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Barbara Sniffen never let me forget that I could be that ONE thoughtful citizen who could change the world.
Ultimately, Barbara Sniffen was a friend. In her one sensed a deep love of humanity in general and a genuine care for everyone in her immediate environment. In Barbara's presence I always felt like I was around a modern version of Mother Jones, the great late 19th and early 20th century champion of the rights of children and the oppressed. Mother Jones told us to "pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." Barbara told us the same thing, loud and clear.
I think the best way for us to pay tribute to Barbara Sniffen is to pledge to continue that fight. I only hope that in my fight I can display the passion and dignity that Barbara modeled for us so eloquently.
In the early 1970s I was not like the typical urban middle-school boy. Most were into wiffle ball, rolIler skates, etch-a-sketch, two hand touch football, super elastic bubble plastic, collecting baseball cards, an occasional game of checkers or chess, wheelie bikes, and playing bottle caps. Some even displayed spectacular feats with hacky sacks, hula hoops and jump ropes.
Me? I enjoyed some of those activities, but they all seemed to pale in comparison to my fascination with political rhetoric. My parents looked at me strangely when I sat in front of the rabbit ear TV fixated not on Bugs Bunny (pardon the pun) or the Banana Splits (Google them) as much as Meet the Press or William F. Buckley's Firing Line.
For a kid like me, and for millions of Americans, the Congressional Watergate Hearings of 1973-1974 were an eye-opening, transformative experience. President Nixon in November of 1972 had been reelected in one of the biggest landslides in history (he carried 49 states and 60 percent of the popular vote), yet barely two years later the corruption exposed by the Congressional Hearings pushed Tricky Dicky into resigning the office.
The Watergate hearings were educational--anyone following them closely learned a great deal about how government "works"--and had enough surprise and suspense to keep even a middle school kid glued to his seat. Because the hearings occurred before the age of cable news, no one had to suffer through hours of hyperpartisan corporate media telling us who among the committee members and witnesses to love or to hate. There was not the equivalent of a Fox News doing whatever it could to defend Nixon and undermine the process, nor was there the equivalent of an MSNBC treating Democrats on the Committee like trusted old friends.
In their testimony before the committee, Nixon's henchmen like John Ehrlichman, H.R. Haldeman, and John Mitchell tried to defend a theory of executive branch power that would justify pretty much any of Nixon's actions--a theory that's been referred to as the "imperial presidency." Watching both Democrats AND Republicans joust with Nixon's henchmen and challenge the theory made me feel that I really was watching government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Fifty years later, I watched pretty much all of the hearings conducted by the Select Committee to Investigate the Attack on the United States Capitol. Even though a line from congresswoman and committee co-chair Liz Cheney's opening remarks should be included on the Wikipedia page of pretty much every Republican member of Congress ("Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain"), the hearings as a whole did not convey the sense of civic emergency as powerfully as the Watergate committee did decades earlier. Indeed, through most of the hearings I kept asking myself how 12-year-old Tony would be reacting to the proceedings, and I concluded that he would be disappointed that the hearings seemed to be a "made for TV moment" in a literal sense.
In the opinion of this blog, Liz Cheney's call out of GOP cowards should be featured on all of their Wikipedia pages and should be a permanent part of their legacy.
In fairness to the January 6th Committee, they faced a set of constraints that their Watergate era ancestors did not. For one thing, the Republican Party in 1972-1974 was not dominated by trolls for whom "owning the libs" was more important than protecting the institution of government or even protecting just their personal integrity. For another, the Watergate Committee did not have to deal with a 24-hour a day "news network" (i.e. Fox and even more right wing outlets like One America News) that spent most of its on-air time undermining the investigation. Finally, even though Nixon's cronies were morally compromised and complicit in his crimes, none of them had the audacity to ignore congressional subpoenas like Mr. Trump's enablers have done.
The January 6th Committee admirably refused to be deterred by the constraints and ended up producing an 845-page final report that is kind of like the USA Today in how it includes scores of colorful photos to help our attention-challenged culture stay focused on the seriousness expressed in the printed words. Unfortunately, the Committee took its desire to make the events of January 6th "accessible" to an extreme, and that's where they erred. Though he would have not used this exact language to describe it, young middle-school Tony would have been frustrated by (1) the slickness of the production, (2) the fact that all the politicians on the panel seemed to be acting as if they were in a movie about the government's investigation of January 6th, and (3) that the entire series of hearings seemed to be guided by some kind of "narrative arc" leading to an already established conclusion. Young Tony was intrigued by the Watergate hearings in part because they seemed radically different from almost everything else on TV at the time. The January 6th hearings, on the other hand, seemed to go out of its way to be like a big budget media production.
My feelings about the January 6th committee's obsession with producing a made-for-TV spectacular were confirmed by a lengthy December 23, 2022 New York Times piece called Inside the Jan. 6 Committee (behind a paywall). Turns out that the Committee hired James Goldston, former president of ABC News, to handle media production efforts. Working closely with Goldston was Melinda Arons, former ABC "Nightline" producer. According to testimony received by the Times' reporters, the nine televised hearings that aired from June - October 2022 were "meticulously choreographed." One senior staffer said that "Every word was intentional . . . nothing was spontaneous."
Goldston and Arons treated the committee members as if they were actors: "Each hearing was preceded by at least two rehearsals held in the Cannon Caucus Room on evenings or weekends. Each monologue was timed with a stopwatch usually held by [Timothy]Mulvey, the communications director. One rehearsal lasted five hours, and the script of the hearing had to be cut nearly in half." Somehow I cannot imagine old Sam Ervin or Howard Baker participating in something like that.
The January 6th Committee literally hired a former TV executive (James Goldston) to help make the hearings more viewer friendly.
Because the Committee was concerned with constructing a compelling narrative that would keep viewers engaged (like a 20/20 broadcast), they had to invent provocative characters. Gripping true crime narratives always feature heroes, villains, and those who have "seen the light." That latter category of characters were what I found to be most repulsive; it included gaslighters like former Attorney General Bill Barr and former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, both of whom were allowed to rebrand themselves as somehow deserving kudos for telling Mr. Trump that he lost the election. That they had enabled and even propagated Mr. Trump's bullshit for years was politely ignored.
Just as appalling were the characters the Committee transformed into principled public servants just because they resigned as a result of the insurrection. This group includes deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews, deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, transportation secretary Elaine Chao, education secretary Betsy DeVos, Northern Ireland special envoy and former acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, acting chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Tyler Goodspeed, deputy assistant secretary of commerce for intelligence and security John Costello, and White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham. Given Trump's erratic and shameful behaviors long before 1/6/21, the idea that January 6th was the "bridge too far" for these people was laughable. Unlike Jeb Stuart Magruder, Nixon's deputy director of communications who came clean to the Watergate Committee and famously said, "Somewhere between my ambition and my ideals, I lost my ethical compass," Trump's "principled public servants" made no such mea culpas. Instead they simply reinforced the Committee's narrative that the primary ethical villain in this entire travesty was Mr. Trump himself.
As important as the January 6th Committee's work was, and as sincere as most of its members appeared, the panel was ultimately a classic example of what happens when we get government of the media, by the media, and for the media. The committee's work resulted in viral videos, social media trends, and enough video to be used in dozens of the inevitable documentary films, podcasts, and a myriad of additional media products that will be coming from all ends of the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump has been allowed back on Twitter and Facebook, his main competitors for the 2024 GOP nomination are running on Trumpian themes, and the mass media is once again providing the former president with free advertising that candidates dream of. If the situation were this dire in 1974, middle school Tony would have probably backed off on the political rhetoric and started taking Bugs Bunny and the Banana Splits more seriously. At least Bugs and the Bananas didn't pretend to be anything other than entertainment.
Like millions of his fans, I am still in shock at the passing of the great Jeff Beck. Especially for baby boomers, Beck was the epitome of the Rock Star; the essence of COOL, kind of like The Fonz of guitar players. Along with his contemporaries Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck defined the classic rock guitar sound and the guitar player image. He had an uncanny ability to adapt his style to a variety of genres including blues, rhythm and blues, rockabilly, jazz, reggae, techno, classical and more. He wrote many influential tunes, but when he chose to cover someone else's music he always found a way to give the song new life.
Below are ten of my personal Beck favorites, organized chronologically:
*Groundbreaking Guitar Style: "Shapes of Things" (1966). Rock historians all agree that The Yardbirds were one of the most important bands of all time, as they laid down the foundation for what became "hard rock." Beck's playing on The Yardbirds' "Shapes of Things." which is one of the earliest examples of the feedback sound that became the trademark of guitar giants like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page, expanded the possibilities of the instrument for an entire generation.
*Reveling in Ravel: "Beck's Bolero" (1966). One of the most influential instrumental tunes of the classic rock era, an opus that actually has members of the Who (Keith Moon) and what would become half of Led Zeppelin (Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones) playing on it. My guess is that the French composer Joseph Maurice Ravel (died 1937) would have been intrigued by this treatment of his famous score. Maybe he and Beck are discussing it right now in some alternative universe. The version below is from Beck's 1968 album "Truth."
*Jam Master Jeff: "Rice Pudding" (1969). Beck recorded two albums with vocalist Rod Stewart in the late 1960s as the Jeff Beck Group, "Truth" and "Beck-Ola". Stewart claims that this band was actually the biggest influence on what became the wildly successful Led Zeppelin. I think that that is probably true, though ironically the influence is most clearly shown in the sprawling, raucous instrumental "Rice Pudding." The tune is exactly the kind of jam that found an audience largely due to the risk taking and general excellence of early FM radio.
*Wonderful Cover of a Signature Stevie Wonder Tune: "Superstition." (1973). After the break up of the Jeff Beck Group, Beck experimented with a "super group" formation. He recruited drummer/vocalist Carmine Appice and bassist Tim Bogert, both formerly of the legendary Vanilla Fudge, to record an album with him. The resulting "Beck, Bogert, Appice" album is a minor classic, even though Beck had suggested over the years that the album was a bit of a sell out in that he was aiming for commercial success. I think every song on the album is amazing, but the cover of Stevie Wonder's "Superstition" is a rare and intoxicating example of a metal/soul hybrid.
*Not Quite Jazz, Part I: "Freeway Jam" (1975). In the mid-1970s Jeff Beck recorded and released two mostly instrumental albums ("Blow by Blow" in 1975 and "Wired" in 1976) that I think have mistakenly been called "jazz" by generations of music fans and critics. Oh there are certainly jazz elements in each, but there's much more going on. In fact I would argue that these records represent a jazz, rhythm and blues, soul, rock hybrid that was unprecedented for the time and remains unique.
*Not Quite Jazz, Part II: "Blue Wind" (1976). Beck always had a way of bringing out the best in other musicians. On the album "Wired," he seemed to liberate legendary composers/instrumentalists Jan Hammer and Narada Michael Walden from pure jazz, working with them to create a more soulful version of jazz-rock. I love the live version of "Blue Wind" performed at the Hollywood Bowl in 2016 at a concert celebrating Beck's 50th year in music.
*Spiritualizing MTV: "People Get Ready" (1985). By 1985 Music Television was dominated by Michael Jackson, electro-pop, and misogynistic garbage. Ironically, two old school rockers (Jeff Beck and Rod Stewart) added some spirit to the channel with an amazing version of the Impressions's 1965 Civil Rights era hit "People Get Ready." No one will ever top Curtis Mayfield's original vocals on that track, but Stewart actually comes close. Meanwhile the video introduced a new generation to Jeff Beck's soulful guitar playing.
*Techno Vibe: "What Mama Said."(1999). In 1999 Beck released his first album of original music in ten years, "Who Else!" On it he collaborated with the great Jennifer Batten, a superior guitarist in her own right who played on Michael Jackson's world tours in the 1980s. The album calls to mind "Blow by Blow" and "Wired," but it has a techno edge to it not found in those earlier records.
*Showin' 'Em How It's Done: "Behind the Veil" (2007). The Crossroads Guitar Festival was founded by Eric Clapton to provide a space for showcasing the greatest guitar players in the world. Jeff Beck's 2007 appearance featuring bassist Tal Wilkenfeld remains as one of the most mesmerizing performances in the history of the festival.
*Getting Back to the Roots: ""Live in the Dark" (2016). In 2016 Beck recorded an energetic, socially conscious set of tunes with indie British rockers Rosie Bones and Carmen Vandenburg. The album "Loud Hailer" is actually one of his greatest accomplishments, showing truly how you are never too old to rock and roll.
This post was just a small taste of Jeff Beck. Search his catalogue and you will not be disappointed. Thanks for the memories and inspiration Jeff, and rest in peace.
Welcome to the 2022 Tony Awards for excellence in media. Just as I was finishing up this post, the news reported on the death of the legendary Barbara Walters. While she was a bit too establisment friendly for my taste, there is no doubt that she helped shatter the glass ceiling for women broadcast journalists. She always seemed fully engaged with her interviewees, a quality that influenced me greatly over the years when I've had the opportunity to interview people on television, radio, podcasts, and even in this blog. I'd like to dedicate this year's Tony Awards to the late Barbara Walters.
Barbara Walters' 1977 interview of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin featured the engaged style that has impacted generations of journalists.
People often ask me how I decide what media to recognize for Tony awards. The answer is that I operate from no strict set of criteria, 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 OR that speak truth to the powerless.
humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time.
local works that promote community and civic engagement.
It's important to recognize excellence in media for a few reasons. First, recognition helps increase the chances that those honored will produce even more. Media producers are human, and like all of us they respond to positive reinforcement.
Second, it's become too easy to trash modern media in an overly simplistic, vulgar fashion that makes it sound like EVERYTHING is now nothing more than clickbait or hyperpartisan trash or otherwise compromised. Wallowing in that negativity makes it easier to justify not supporting ANY media, which is unfortunate because most of the great work being done today will not survive without grassroots support.
Finally and most important, it's no secret that our society is in a civic crisis that is the result--at least in part--of the population being chronically underinformed, misinformed, and/or disinformed. By recognizing and sharing quality works, we are doing at least SOMETHING to help rectify the civic crisis.
And now without any further adieu, here are the 2022 Tony Award recipients for excellence in media.
*Song of the Year: Neil Young and Crazy Horse, "Love Earth." At the age of 77, Neil Young shows no signs of slowing down as a singer/songwriter or activist. Early in the year Young got into a well publicized spat with Spotify over the company's choice to platform Covid misinformation, so he left the streaming service. Late in the year he released a new album with Crazy Horse called "World Record." Produced by the legendary Rick Rubin, the album is classic Young and Crazy Horse, filled with provocative doses of personal and planetary insights, whistle worthy melodies, and an occasional soaring guitar.
The song "Love Earth" pretty much sums up Young's philosophy of life:
Love Earth, we can bring the seasons back Love Earth, a place where all the children can live Love Earth, can you imagine that? Love Earth, your love comes back to you So I’m calling out, I’m calling out to you
One YouTube viewer/listener left this comment: "In everyone's lifetime, there are maybe 4 or 5 songs that feel like an invisible hand reaching into their body and caressing their soul. This is one of them." I'm not sure I would go that far, but compared to what wins Grammy, MTV and VMA awards these days, the song rates very high.
*American Glasnost Award For Outstanding Historical Reporting: "More Than 1,800 Congressman Once Enslaved Black People. This is Who They Were, and How They Shaped the Nation" by Julie Zauzmer Weil, Adrian Blanco, and Leo Dominguez in the Washington Post. "Glasnost" was the Mikhail Gorbachev era policy in the former Soviet Union that encouraged openness and transparency about the historical wrongs of the government. The United States has never had an offical Glasnost; in fact attempts to tell the truth about our past usually get met with fierce pushback, including attempts to prevent school children from hearing the truth.
The first woman to serve in the United States Senate, Rebecca Felton of Georgia, was appointed to the position by the governor in 1922 after the unexpected death of incumbent Thomas Watson. Felton was an outspoken white supremacist who with her husband owned slaves before the Civil War. The Washington Post report is filled with stories like Felton's that need to be more widely taught in schools.
The Washington Post investigative report (registration required) on the extent to which members of Congress exploited and profited from slavery is must reading. The report destroys the myth that Congressional slave holders were only from the south. As the report notes, "enslavers in Congressrepresented 40 states, including not just the South butevery state in New England, much of the Midwest, and many Western states."
*Best Coverage of Donald Trump's 2024 Campaign Annoucement: "Trump, Who as President Fomented an Insurrection, Says He is Running Again" by Isaac Arnsdorf and Michael Scherer in the Washington Post. If political journalism in America had any collective integrity, then literally EVERY report on the Trump '24 campaign would paraphrase Arnsdorf and Scherer's introductory and concluding paragraphs in their November 15th, 2022 story on Trump's announcement.
Introductory Paragraph:
Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former president who refused to concede defeat and inspired a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election culminating in a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol, officially declared . . . that he is running to retake the White House in 2024.
*Best Revival: Creem Magazine.If you came of age in the 1960s or 1970s and were a rock and roll fan, then most likely Creem Magazine took up space in your head. Based in Detroit, the original magazine circulated from 1969-1980, with its high point the early 1970s when legendary music critic Lester Bangs served as editor. The magazine was known for its irreverence, humor, and celebration of this thing called "rock culture."
In 2022 JJ Kramer, the son of Creem founder Barry Kramer, relaunced the magazine with a website, oversized print edition (released quarterly), and weekly newsletter. I subscribed to the oversized print edition, and was impressed at the attempt to rekindle the old energy. The print edition includes lots of great photography, information about old and new bands, and stories for all generations of rock fans.
I keep my print edition of the new Creem Magazine with my Beatles' Yellow Submarine lunch box. I mean where else would you keep it?
Will the print edition of Creem survive the digital era? Probably not, but I plan to enjoy it while it's around.
*Twitter Thread of the Year: Michael Harriot on the Jerry Jones Photo. Jerry Jones is the billionaire owner of the Dallas Cowboys football team. In 2022 the Washington Post unearthed a photo of the young Jerry Jones, taken on September 9, 1957. In the photo, the 14-year-old Jones is part of a group of white students trying to prevent six Black students from trying to enter North Little Rock High School. Jones and his buddies prevented the Black students from reaching the top of the stairs.
Jones admitted that it was in fact him in the photo, but claimed ignorance of what it portrays. And while the national press did not sweep the photo and its implications under the rug, the attention given to it--and the consequences for Jones personally--was minimal compared to what happens whenever an athlete of color does or says something controversial. (think Colin Kaepernick or Kyrie Irving).
Michael Harriot showed one of the good uses of Twitter: using it as a space to challenge mainstream media minimizing of the bad acts of certain powerful people.
Michael Harriot, senior writer for theroot.com, got tired watching mainstream pundits find ways to rationalize Jones' actions and came with an insightful thread that got to the root (no pun intended) of the problem. Here are some excerpts:
The point is not that Jerry Jones was a violent segregationist. The point is that he can watch something like this and never MENTION IT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. The point is not that Jones has never hired a Black head coach . . .
It's about how people can rationalize racism with fantastical excuses that have no basis in logic or reality.
Jones not knowing what was going on that day is as unbelievable as the CEO of a company with an 80% Black workforce saying "I can't find a qualified shift leader."
And the crazy thing is, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT . . .
But this isn't about 1 day 65 years ago.
It's about NOW. It's about WHY this inequality persists.
But I truly understand why some people ALWAYS seem to land on the side of defending whiteness: I even understand WHY some people will stand and watch and do nothing.
We are all just trying to reach the top of that stairs.
*Best Elon Must Explainer: Alan Macleod's "Elon Musk is Not a Renegade Outsider--He's a Massive Pentagon Contractor" in Mint Press News. Speaking of Twitter, one of the most depressing stories of 2022 was the purchase of the platform by a billionaire who appeared to be most interested in using it to work out his midlife crisis before an audience of billions. That billionaire, Elon Musk, presents himself in public as some kind of Deep State critic. He would have us believe that he is somehow standing up for the right of little guys and little gals to exercise unlimited free speech without fear of cancellation. His hypocrisy on the free speech front has been exposed.
If Mr. Musk actually follows through on the directive from his unscientific poll, that will only give him more time to do what he does best: figure out ways to get money from taxpayers.
While most people are now aware of Mr. Musk's hypocrisy and managerial incomptence, his actual participation in the swamp culture that he decries remains largely unknown. That's why Alan Macleod's reporting deserves wider exposure. He shows how Musk's public image is largely a fraud; the tech "genius" has received billions of dollars in government contracts, tax breaks and subsidies. According to Macleod, Musk "is not a crusading rebel challenging the establisment: he is an integral part of it."
*Best Political Substack: Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters From an American." Heather Cox Richardson is a Professor of History at Boston College. She's an excellent example of how scholars can use the independent publishing Substack platform to communicate with engaged citizens in a scholarly yet accessible manner. Letters From An American is one of the most useful sources I consult, as Professor Cox Richardson writes about history in a way that helps make sense of current events. That's something I've tried to do on occasion with this blog, but without nearly the amound of wisdom and eloquence found in Letters From an American. Her piece on the Biden Administration and Congress' actions in response to the dispute between raiload workers and management is a great example of how she elucidates current public policy by expertly linking it to policy decisions made in the past.
Professor Heather Cox Richardson is a public intellectual in the best sense: she explains the historical forces impacting current events in a way that is engaging and accessible.
The remaining awards go to Wisconsin based media.
*Wisconsin Focused Investigative Report of the Year: Natalie Eilbert's "As Domestic Violence in Wisconsin Surges, Shelters Unable to Keep Up With Need." Ms. Eilbert writes for the Green Bay Press Gazette, which is part of the USA Today Network (Gannett) in Wisconsin. The article (unfortunately hidden behind a paywall) compiles and interprets data from a number of sources to reach a disturbing concludsion: "What is clear is that Wisconsin has a domestic violence problem unlike just about anywhere in the country." Disturbing data from the story:
--Wisconsin was ranked No. 8 in women killed by men in 2020.
--Wisconsin had 17% of all domestic violence deaths in 2021.
--Not since the Great recession have domestic violence cases been so high, which may indicate economic strains in one of the root causes.
Poet and journalist Natalie Eilbert: "What is clear is that Wisconsin has a domestic violence problem unlike just about anywhere in the country."
The story also reveals a shockingly high number of domestic violence deaths in the state are the result of gun violence, in part due to the "boyfriend loophole" which keeps guns in the hands of physically abusive, threatening partners because they are not married to their victims.
Stories like this should create a sense of urgency in the state government to do something to address the problem. Don't hold your breath waiting for the most gerrymandered legislature in the nation to do anything.
Natalie Eilbert is an award-winning poet and journalist. Her forthcoming book of poetry and reporting called Overland elaborates on the theme of violence against women and a number of other imperative topics.
*Local Television Feature of the Year: Small Towns With Jeff Alexander. Finally, FINALLY, a media depiction of small town folks that does not portray them all as gun obsessed, liberal hating Trump toadies. WBAY-TV reporter Jeff Alexander and videojournalist Michael Bergman spent the year profiling small town residents who display inspiring humanity. My favorite feature in the series was the story of Iraq War veteran James Overesch, whose nature photography is not only spectacular for us to look at, but for him is a way of healing the scars of war. James' website can be found here.
Small Towns with Jeff Alexander is a rare example of mainstream media covering small town folks in a way that defies the conventional stereotypes.
*Best New Wisconsin Substack: Mike McCabe's "More Verb Than Noun." I've been a fan of Mike McCabe since his days of leading the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Post-WDC he's been involved in a number of grassroots organizations, ran a spirited campaign for governor in 2018, and published two books. Whenever I am in doubt about how to frame an issue facing the state, I look to see how Mike is framing it and that usually guides me in the right direction. Here is Mike's rationale for More Verb Than Noun:
The blog is named for what its author has been saying for years . . . that democracy is more verb than noun, which is to say deeds we do more so than a possession we have. If we don’t do it, we won’t have it. Same goes for morality. It’s been said that God is shorthand for good. More an act of doing and a way of living than a person, place or thing. Love is like that too. It’s not something we can keep as a pet or store in the attic, it’s a way of being treated and treating others. Again, more verb than noun.
Mike McCabe's "More Verb Than Noun" substack explores issues related to how we do this thing called democracy.
*Watchdog of the Year: Wisconsin Watch. Wisconsin Watch is the news outlet of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Journalists with Wisconsin Watch published 60 stories in 2022, every single one of which upheld the organization's mission to "Protect the vulnerable. Expose wrongdoing. Explore solutions." My favorite was probably "Democracy on the Ballot," a multi part series showing the real threats to democracy in Wisconsin. To see all 60 stories, click here.
Dee Hall is Managing Editor of Wisconsin Watch. One of Wisconsin's premier investigative journalists, Hall has helped make Wisconsin Watch into a key player in the effort to hold the powerful accountable.
*Best Midterm Election Coverage: Dan Shafer's The Recombobulation Area. Dan Shafer is an award-winning Milwaukee based journalist. His "Recombobulation Area" substack is chock full of well researched reporting and opinion on all things political in Wisconsin. I found his coverage of the midterm elections to be an invaluable source of information that helped me see through the hyperpartisan crap I was seeing in the mainstream news.
Shafer sent out 97 newsletters in 2022, which is pretty amazing even for someone who dedicates full-time hours to the task. Check out Dan's summary of 2022 and please consider subsribing.
Dan Shafer "recombobulates" Wisconsin news in a way that's refereshing for anyone trying to get a grasp of what is truly going on in the state.
*Best Oshkosh News Site: Miles Maguire's Oshkosh Examiner. This is Miles' 6th consecutive Tony award for excellence in journalism. There simply is no news source in Oshkosh that covers local news with as much depth and clarity as The Oshkosh Examiner. In 2022 Miles added "The Other Side," an engaging debate on difficult, divisive issues between retired UW Oshkosh professors Tom Herzing and Barry Perlman. I'm sure in the future he will provide space for even more voices.
Miles Maguire continues to produce some of the most in-depth reporting on local reporting in the city of Oshkosh.
A subscription to the Oshkosh Examiner is only $5 per month. It's hard to see how Miles can continue to produce the volume of material he does without more support from the community. To subscribe, go here.
Be sure to check out the Oshkosh Examiner to get Miles Maguire's take on the top stories of 2022.
There you have it: another year of Tony Award winners. Disagree with any of my choices? Cool. Write up your own!
Congratulations to all recipients and Happy New Year to all!
.jpg)
