Transparency, Tweets, Trump

The monokini, designed by Rudi Gernreich in 1964, consisting of only a brief, close-fitting bottom and two thin straps, was the first women's topless swim suit. His revolutionary and controversial design included a bottom that "extended from the midriff to the upper thigh" and was "held up by shoestring laces that make a halter around the neck." Some credit Gernreich's design with initiating, or describe it as a symbol of, the sexual revolution. (Wikipedia)

In 1968 Yves Saint Laurent presented the “see-through” look. Diaphanous fabrics had been used before, but the modern age of “transparency” had now arrived. And, though gossip publications had appeared earlier, People Magazine, which first appeared in 1974, was a success in satisfying the public's wish to hear about everything. Social media, including Twitter, more recently increased the availability of “facts,” whether true or not. (Recently it has become the method of choice for the quick transmission of political messages.) We all wanted to share everyone else's secrets – physical and intellectual.

And political – perhaps like the others not for the better.

We demand to know everything that our government is doing, disregarding the implications of sensitive actions being revealed to the world. And in response to the demands of voters, our representatives made “Freedom of Information” of most political and governmental processes, entitlements. And in the few instances when statutes tried to protect governmental secrecy in the name of security, we encouraged, and published, whatever “leaks” we could find. That the leaks were violations of the law, and potentially harmful to our country, was irrelevant. (The media, of course, defend them usually on First Amendment grounds and contend that we deserve to know. And in addition, leaks sell newspapers.)

Transparency has developed over time. And with extensive opposition. “Spin artists” have been around for a long time, and are utilized by both major parties (and advertisers of all types), to present a story told in their words and perspectives, rather than those of their opponents. Truth is not the issue – particular “information” is. We want transparency that supports our opinions – it doesn't create them, it just provides ammunition for us. If it doesn't say what we already believe, it is fake.

In the past, privacy and secrecy were respected by the media in general, and there was reporting only of generally relevant, and non-sensitive information, with “private matters” and those related to security – health, family issues, sexual proclivities and the like, in addition to secrets of state – considered to be off limits. But those days are over. We're eager to protest loudly against anything with which we disagree even if we have no information to back up our protests; however if we have anything to support our claims – and it doesn't matter if it is true or “spun” – all the better. Protests were far more limited in the past, but nowadays, with a mindset that tells us that we're entitled to have everything the way we want it, and with the promotion of group identity, they're very much in style. We refuse to countenance any disagreement with our views.

It is intolerable, then, if the information questions or contradicts our perspective. Transparency is only valid if it supports our point of view. It can only be believed if we can use it to support our preconceived notions. Otherwise it is not true transparency but spin and lies – the propaganda of the opposition – and should be akin to see-through clothing which is rejected by many as corrupting and pornographic (you “know it when you see it” – or see through it).

But voyeurs want a reason to gape. And ideologues want whatever will help them rant. And they feel entitled to it. That's what transparency is all about and that's what we deserve. It makes no difference that it was denied us in the past (probably justifiably) – even as recently as the last administration – we want it now.

If it helps us.

Happy Bastille Day.

The Law Is An Ass

Don't look at me. Those aren't my words. Mr. Bumble said it (in Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist) and, for better or worse, that's what many people think. It doesn't matter if a law is just. It's just the law. And it will be followed whatever the implications.

One of the other main complaints is that, from the public's perspective, there are too many lawyers, and that they stimulate litigation and are more interested in winning cases and making money than they are in obtaining justice. It's a question of win or lose rather than right or wrong. One of the most popular “lawyer jokes” (yes, that's a genre) describes one dead lawyer as “a good start.”

Apart from the legal documents which we can't understand, there are two primary stages for the law from the point of view of the average citizen – as it applies to him [or her]

1. directly – as a juror or, for better (he sues someone or benefits from a law) or worse (he is sued by someone or is affected detrimentally by a law) or
2. indirectly – vicarious interest in the affairs of others, fact or fiction brought to him by the media.

Direct involvement is generally a hassle. The further one stays from the legal system the better. Win or lose one winds up with a major expense and an ulcer. But indirect involvement is fun. Most enjoyable are those instances when there is a trial and the individual matches his knowledge of the evidence and his “expertise” against the real or fictional jury. We know some things that jury members aren't allowed to know and, obviously, we are not party to much of the testimony they hear. And we often learn more than they about the application and the implications of the law at issue. The description of that law, and its application, are usually limited by the magistrate in jury instructions to the way they pertain to the particular case.

But that's often not good enough. Even after all the evidence is presented and the judge has described the law and the options of the jury, there are many instances when one or more jurors is uncertain about how to vote. There are “hung” juries (situations when a jury cannot reach a verdict) and mistrials based on that uncertainty. And there is occasionally an instance of “jury nullification”

when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. (Doug Linder – University of Missouri – Kansas City)

That's an uncommon result however – usually because the jury doesn't think of it. More common are the cases in which one or more jurors has questions about the case whose answers would make deciding easier. But the rules are the rules and it's often difficult to get answers that are needed. Questions must be addressed to the judge and answered by him in terms of the testimony already given or based on the specific law. Sadly that may not solve the problem. Perhaps the rules themselves are in need of modernizing with the goal of achieving a fair decision rather than a judgment of who is the winner in a legal competition; between grandiloquence and a quest for truth. There is a difference between law and justice. There are times when attorneys avoid subjects they fear would be harmful to their cases, and they are not obligated to present them.

One way to deal with what is at least a part of the problem is to let jurors question witnesses and judges. They're the ones who must make the decisions. (Depositions are available to lawyers giving them the opportunity to gather facts and decide what will and will not be presented to the jury. As a result those affected indirectly often have questions and opinions beyond what is presented or permitted in court.) Perhaps jurors' questions should be screened and reworded by judges or others, but if jurors have questions, answering them is the best way to get an informed decision. Would there be more or fewer appeals? How would it affect costs? Would it affect the number of appeals? How would it affect the interest and attention of jurors? With additional information – specifically clarification of points of fact and law – jurors might reach more, and more-informed, decisions. They might reach them more quickly than is currently the case. And by questioning the judge, jurors may learn that their concerns are covered by existing statutes, and nullification is unwise and unnecessary.

It's not the way things are done but that doesn't make it wrong. The system as it now exists allows attorneys to conceal what they don't want to say, and to use their rhetorical skills to try to convince jurors to accept their arguments – even if they are concealing pertinent information which their opponent doesn't consider, though a juror might. And the current system limits a judge to a strict set of rules, precedents, and interpretations rather than a full a full menu. He is limited to judgments of the past, and the jury generally (but not always) doesn't learn what the judge meant. And if the judge (or the lawyers or witnesses) is biased, there is no way now for jurors to determine this.

Perhaps this is going too far. As things stand, however, testimony is limited and may not reflect reality. Changing the entire legal system is not only impractical but will never be done. Perhaps smaller changes should be considered. Kibbitzers might be better jurors than those limited by table rules. A wise owl is more to be desired than an ass.

September 28, 2016

Only Two

The more I hear, the worse it gets. Neither of the major party candidates is fit to be president. That doesn't mean that one of them won't be elected, but, as I've said may times before, it's a choice of the lesser of evils – and it's a bad choice. Unfortunately, only two narratives are available – one by a candidate who can only demonstrate ignorance and specializes in negative campaigning, and one who hides past activities and spends time primarily explaining why what is documented and reported is of no consequence. And the media take them seriously.

Below is a letter, variants of which I sent to several papers. As far as I know it hasn't been published, but that's not a big surprise. It deals with one of the (many) problems with our political system, and with the inability of voters to get adequate information to decide for themselves.

Before you vote for the lesser of evils, look elsewhere. More Americans oppose Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton than trust them, but perhaps there are other possibilities. Because candidates lacking 15% support are excluded from the debates, however, they can't make their views known. (Like Governor Gary Johnson -- who piques my interest as a "none-of-the-above" candidate.) It's important, therefore, that those polled express a preference for third-party candidates and increase that "support," irrespective of how they are likely to vote on election day. The polls are not binding, but if we don't hear what other contenders have to say we're doomed to choose between the major party candidates. It is possible that the devil we don't know isn't a devil. But unless we take steps to give others a voice, we'll never find out.

Rather than using the vote for the purpose of choosing our leader, let the referendum be about the Congress that will work with a new president, who would be selected by our trust, and by the confidence that our future is secure in his or her hands. There are many issues at stake that might benefit from a divided government, forced to bargain, rather than single-party leadership and a president who lacks our credence. For example, who will choose next Supreme Court Justice? It's possible that a third-party president will make a less doctrinaire choice than a chief executive bound by a party's dogmas. And a new head of state who has less partisan baggage than those whom he or she opposes might be better able to lead us while dealing successfully with the rest of the world as well. But we'll never get a chance to make an educated decision if we let the networks decide whom we can hear.

The American people will make a bad choice in the election. That's a foregone conclusion, because the choices they have are bad ones, and the means of getting the information necessary to improve on it is limited by sources that have a vested interest in the decision.

Some nations have many more parties than we. It's messier, but they allow for the presentation of more points of view. It's hard to know if that kind of arrangement would work here or if it would change anything, but it would provide the opportunity for more opinions to be expressed.

Belief

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”

All The News That's Fit To Print

 

Who, what, where, when, and how. They're supposed to be the basis of journalism – the information, the points most important when writing an article for publication. And they must play some part, but certainly not the most important, in the process. If information were the primary consideration they might be – but it's not.

The most important criterion in journalism nowadays is selling the newspapers,ⁱ not the significance of the story or its completeness and accuracy. So there's only one question to be answered now: “Will it sell?”ⁱⁱ

In that respect there are several determinants that play a part. People are certainly interested in news, but even more so in news that feeds their biases. So, for example, if Palestinians butcher an Israeli familyⁱⁱⁱ it will play well in papers that serve Jewish populations and in papers that specialize in sensationalism.^iv For others it will be a one-shot affair, appearing, but hidden, because it cannot be completely ignored, but it's not something an editor with a contrary agenda or mandate wants to dwell on. And, of course, it will play well in those media serving populations that cheer the event, only in those outlets the slant will be different.^v

One criticism of a free press and the First Amendment is that it exists primarily for those able to pay the bills.^vi If you can afford to publish, hire editors and reporters, and control editorial policy, you'll be able to exercise your constitutional rights to the hilt.^vii You can give news space to advocacy journalists who don't hesitate to use loaded language and opinion in articles nominally labeled as news, and their bias – what they promote in those articles – is your bias. After all, that's why you hired them.

But there are other considerations. How do readers see themselves?; what are the characteristics by which they define their lives? Are they conservatives or liberals? Do they view themselves as intellectuals who look for articles with big words that won't be understood or appreciated by their “inferiors,” or are they simply interested in easy reading?^viii How big and how colorful should the pictures be? And how catchy the headlines? Do readers want to be surprised or given stories that fulfill their expectations?^ix In the unlikely event that Israelis were to slit the throats of Palestinian children there would certainly be detailed and well-illustrated front page stories, for prolonged periods, around the world – especially in Arab countries and in Europe. And in “liberal” papers everywhere.^x In fact, had that been the story recently, it would have blown reports of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident in Japan out of the water, and it would have dominated the United Nations Security Council debates, making Libya a second-class crisis.

And it is not simply the stories that sell papers, other features^xi include such additional items as comics, puzzles, advertising, entertainment listings, gossip, and, of course, sports. The mix of all these elements is the grist which you might think is produced by the media mill, but it is actually the fuel which makes the mill run. The publisher may provide the underlying bias – one governing both the slant of the “reporters” and the choice of the consumers – but it is hardly the only consideration used in crafting a media product. Whatever the publisher's politics, left or right, he's in business to make money. (Even liberals want to make money.) So he caters to his public's other wants as well.

But it's usually not a problem – at least in locales where there are multiple outlets. And that is now becoming everywhere, since the internet is available.^xii The publishers choose the issues^xiii and the public chooses the publishers who say what particular groups want to hear. The opinion columns will generally follow the opinion preferred by the organ, although there will often be a smattering of contrary views to demonstrate “even-handedness.” And letters to the web site or paper will usually reflect the view of the outlet as well – either because the readers already favor its perspective, or the letters published are selected to reinforce what has been written.

There's another group whose voice must be heard. That is the voice of the advertisers. Readers don't pay the bills. Advertisers do. But advertisers have a far greater interest in selling products than in selling political opinions. They tend to stay aloof of issues and maintain their neutrality to as great a degree as they can. Their advertisements are certain to appear in multiple outlets with conflicting politics in order to reach as many people as possible. They're only likely to withdraw their ads, for a period at least, if they get too many angry letters about a particular position expressed by a paper – one that embarrasses them. And they don't get embarrassed easily. It's bad for business. What's good is that a lot of people see the ad. Their politics are irrelevant.

What it all boils down to is the idea that when you read your favorite source of news you are getting what you pay for. It may not be true or complete, but it will be predictable and satisfying, especially if it promotes your righteous indignation. As Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the papers.” He was, of course, being sarcastic. He was aware that the papers weren't to be trusted. But that's something that all of us should keep in mind.

Which leaves us with:

Who? Who can supply what the publisher believes and what the readers will buy? Don't waste your time with truth and accuracy. That's rarely the concern of the readers.

What? What do those readers believe already? It's worth reinforcing.

Where? Where can we hide a story we don't like but are obligated to print, and where can we place the advertisements so they won't be missed?

When? When will they be bored with the current story and looking for something new? New is more important than news.

Why? Why do readers actually take what they read seriously? But then who cares – as long as they buy the paper or turn to our internet site?

Next episode: “A Christmas Letter” – Unseasonal?

i     Actually that should read “media” rather than “newspapers.” The world is changing and with it the means of communication of information. Indeed, the nature of information is also changing, or at least the nature of what people consider information.

ii    In fact that's probably always been the case. If publications like the Weekly World News sell, it can only mean that truth and accuracy are not major considerations among the readers.

iii    As happened recently in Itamar, Israel.

iv    As they say in the trade, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

v    “Advocacy journalism,” the disguising of opinion as fact, can take any event and tailor it to the bias of the “journalist.”

vi   The same is true, by the way, for all propaganda. Whether paid for by bribes, threats, or industrial (or oil) contracts, the circulated points of view can be costly and, in the end, the consumer will pay for it.

vii   You're entitled to a contrary opinion. You have rights too. But no one is obliged to publicize it.

viii   Or viewing, or whatever.

ix    The classic, if apocryphal, example is the story titled “Man Bites Dog” rather than “Dog Bites Man” which would be more in keeping with people's stereotypes.

x    The same story, of course, would be played down in media with a different perspective.

xi    Especially features.

xii    The publisher of a local organ may be obliged to slant his news in keeping with local biases, but he is likely to have them anyway. National and international news are probably obtained from other sources.

xiii   The editors choose which articles will appear since there is not room for every story to appear. The result is that the stories chosen are usually those that say what the publisher wants said, and there is “no room” for those that might lead a reader to consider a different opinion or to focus on a different subject. Although editors usually profess independence, they will rarely disagree significantly from the ideas of whoever signs the paycheck – either because they chose the position based on the outlook of the organ, or they were chosen for the position based on their previously demonstrated slant.