The Washington Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness." That is intended to be a criticism of the statements of President Donald Trump, who has labeled some members of the media "the enemy of the public" and for the combative attitude the President and members of his Administration have shown toward the media. But who is really turning out the light?
If Democracy dies in darkness then presumably it flourishes in the light. And I've always been led to believe that the truth is the light. Let's use that premise and ask the question of who is turning out the lights?
I'll grant the President helps to create some shade when his excessively large ego leads him to exaggerate and overstate. I'll even concede that Michael Cohen was probably telling the truth or even understating it when he described ways President Trump may have worked to keep some stories out of the media. The President is no choir boy.
But the Washington Post is really directing their slogan toward President Trump's behavior toward the media - frequently calling out fake news stories and fake news organizations. But when the President does that is he trying to attack or impinge on the freedom of the Press guaranteed by the First Amendment? Or is he challenging the media to get their facts straight?
Sharyl Attkisson continues to maintain a rather comprehensive list of the times the media has been wrong during the Trump Era. Her list is found at https://sharylattkisson.com/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/. Notice the URL says "50 media mistakes" but the actual list is now at 73 and growing daily.
Without repeating what you can read there, let's consider the following. A media outlet reports a story prominently, perhaps on the front page of the Washington Post or endlessly throughout the day on a tv network like CNN. That story proves to be untrue. By reporting a lie, isn't that media outlet guilty of creating the darkness?
How do you undo that darkness? Wouldn't you undo it by shining the light on that by reporting the truth just as prominently as you reported the lie? But what if you don't? What if instead of a front page story you just put a small correction? What if instead of endless coverage on a broadcast network, you just move on to the next story and offer no correction at all. Ms. Atkisson documents well those kinds of instances.
If the media, the people who we expect to provide us with the truth, spread lies and then fail to undo that by provide equal coverage of the truth (or any coverage of the truth), isn't that media outlet even more guilty of turning out the light?
Maybe when worrying Democracy dying in darkness, the Washington Post needs to start by looking in the mirror.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Free Enterprise or Socialism? How about neither.
A big debate these days is Socialism versus Free Enterprise. I say neither. I say we need a new direction - Fair Enterprise.
I'd say the failures of socialism are self evident. You can look at the extremes like the experience of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the various "republics" of Eastern Europe that were satellites of the USSR, or Venezuela, where socialism was accompanied by brutal totalitarian regimes. Or you can look at the European socialism of France, Italy, and Greece, where the people would sooner bankrupt the country, paralyze the government, or commit acts of violence than give up the giveaways to which they have become accustomed.
With a history like that to point to how can anyone advocate socialism in front of an audience and not leave the stage covered with fresh vegetables thrown at them from the seats? The answer is that unfortunately big businesses in the US have corrupted free enterprise. Large companies have skewed the direction of government. They are either unregulated or under-regulated or they influence the government to pass regulations that entrench incumbent companies and retard new competition.
Consider the government's reaction to the collapse of the mortgage bond market that led to the "Great Recession" from which we are only now emerging or the actions of a large institution like Wells Fargo ripping off military veterans and others in financially less favorable positions. In the former instance, Government tossed large buckets of money to most of the very financial institutions that caused the calamity while in the latter the Government merely imposed fines.
What was missing from all that? Arrests! Holding individuals accountable for their actions. Taking down companies who were truly riddled with greed and corruption.
In 2007 and 2008, financial calamity occurs because of a widespread unspoken collusion between mortgage companies, rating organizations, and financial advisors allowing people to think a mortgage bond fund with a thin layer of good mortgages over a cesspool of bad mortgages is a low risk AAA rated fund. People were lying - bond rating agencies lied when they rated funds AAA. Lawyers and others lied when they certified the mortgage funds. Financial advisors defrauded their customers by taking money to provide financial advice and then not doing the simple action of looking at what's in the investments they are recommending to their clients. Not a single arrest occurs. (To learn more about the events leading up to that economic disaster, read "The Big Short" or see the movie.)
On the other hand in 2008, Congress passes funding used to bail out large financial institutions while average people are losing their homes and going into bankruptcy in record numbers. Then Congress passes the Dodd Frank legislation that supposedly regulates big banks but actually cripples smaller competitors by imposing on them the same regulations (and cost of dealing with those regulations) imposed on multi-billion dollar international companies.
And then there is Wells Fargo. They collect $36 billion of the aforementioned aid from the federal government while implementing a series of scams to rip off veterans, homeowners, car owners, native Americans and any one they could get away with scamming. (See this website to get a complete list: https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/wells-fargo-ripping-off-people.html/)
Heinous behavior and did anyone go to jail? No.
As long as companies can get away with behavior like that advocates of socialism will get a hearing from the public. That's why we don't need free enterprise, we need fair enterprise. Simple laws that anyone can understand and focus on ensuring people do the right thing. Laws that put the average American in the drivers seat not the major corporations.
We need laws that make it clear that if you do wrong, if you lie, cheat and steal you will be arrested. We need regulators who get out from behind their desks and go out and investigate to find people who lie, cheat and steal.
Financial penalties from companies should start with making injured people 100% whole before the government gets a dime in penalties, that will curtail prosecutors ignoring arrests in favor of headlines about how much they nailed a company in fines. Also, laws need to say to companies if we find you ripping people off and your corporate bylaws don't include clawing back every stock option and bonus dollar paid out starting with employees involved in the scam and going up to the CEO and including the Legal and Compliance Departments for not finding it themselves, and also going after former and retired employees who benefited and then left the company, then we'll quintuple the penalties you'll have to pay. Companies need to know that this is not a game where a company can determine the likely fines will be a small pittance compared to what they can make.
In return, Government repeals many of the onerous laws that impose lots of paperwork and regulatory hoops none of which prevented the economic calamity of 2002, or 2007, or the Wells Fargo scams or many of the other wrongs that have occurred in recent years.
If we're going to stamp out the proponents of socialism we need fair enterprise - where companies compete not just freely but fairly. Where companies succeed because they provide better products and services, not because they are better at ripping off the public or skewing regulations to choke off competitors. Until that happens the proponents of socialism will have an interested audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)