The Profit Motive

About fifteen years ago I got into an argument with an old friend about the battle between VHS and Beta. My point was that while VHS eventually won the day, Beta was, in fact, the superior product. It was more dependable, cheaper to manufacture and had better video quality. He argued that because VHS won the format war, it was, by definition, superior. This argument seemed so innately circular that it took me a while to even understand what he was saying.

My argument was technological, his was Darwinian. For him, a businessman, the definition of superiority was, whatever survives, which is another way of saying, whatever makes the most money.

I have been reminded of this argument many times over the years and the older I got the more I came to see that our system, the American, capitalist system, almost always equates profitability with quality.

This argument is used constantly in the national debate on the role of government & the private sector. Whether we are talking about Social Security, healthcare, prisons or the military, the argument remains the same. Public run institutions are, by their nature, corrupt, bloated and wasteful, while private, for profit, institutions are efficient, innovative and, of course, profitable. If they are making money they must, by definition be doing a good job.

Profit=Good

(Personally, I’ve always had problems with this argument as there are many well run government organizations and many terribly run private ones.)

Today, that same argument is being used against public broadcasting in the battle to eliminate federal support for NPR & PBS. The argument is simple, if people really wanted Sesame Street or Nova or This American Life, they would pay for it. Or, another way of putting it, the value of the product is determined only by the profit it can generate.

Non Profit=Bad

By that definition, NPR, PBS and a thousand other government programs and charitable organizations, from Soup Kitchens to after school programs, have no value or, at least, the services they provide could be improved by adding a profit motive.

This philosophy is not only patently false but also deeply destructive.

Most corporations will tell you that they are in the business of making money and the products and services they provide are merely the means to achieving those profitable ends. Ford builds cars in order to make money. Fed Ex delivers packages in order to make money.

Fair enough.

However, how would you feel if the doctor, who is treating your mom’s cancer told you he was prescribing a particular form of Chemo in order to make a buck? Would you trust that he is absolutely dedicated to your mother’s care or would you run screaming from the room?

How would you feel if the people who’s job it is to make sure your food is safe are the same people who profit from their sales?

Now think about our increasingly privatized military and the military industrial complex which supports it. Do we really want profit to be the deciding factor in whether or not we go to war? If this idea makes you uncomfortable, you need to take a long hard look at how America works.

It’s not that I have a problem with doctors (or any body else) making a buck. However, a doctor, food regulator or military organization who is primarily motived by profit is a danger to my mom, the food supply and the rest of the world.

Perhaps more importantly, there are some jobs which simply wont be done by people looking to make a buck. No one dedicates their lives to helping inner city kids, protecting our forests, or even charting the origins of the universe for the money. Those jobs and hundreds of others like them are made no less important by the fact that they are unprofitable. Actually they are only unprofitable in a financial sense. They are hugely profitable in other ways.

Which brings me back to NPR & PBS. I have no problem whatsoever with for profit entertainment. If you write a song, produce a show or act in a movie which captures the public’s imagination, you should, make a lot of money. However, one journey through the channels on your television or glance at the movies in your local multiplex should give you an idea of just how low the entertainment industry is willing to stoop to get your dollar.

It’s a lot like fast food. Pump the product full of empty calories, throw it in a colorful package, market the hell out of it and start counting the money. It might make people sick in the long run but short term profit is all they care about.

And, make no mistake, this is making us sick. One look at 24 hour cable news can show you just how infectious and destructive the profit motive can be to our national psyche. If it bleeds it’ leads and in the end, the ones left bleeding are us.

Perhaps even more destructive is the world of children’s programming. Remember that doctor who told you he was treating your mom’s cancer for the money? Well the digital baby sitter you trust your seven year old with has the exact same motivation.

Again, I have no problem with the profit motive. I don’t care if game shows are designed to sell cars or if football exists to sell beer. I’m even happy to have kids get toys of their favorite cartoon characters. (I certainly was happy to play with those toys when I was a kid)

What I have a problem with is that the choice of what to show us is not motivated by truth or fairness or a sense of what is important for us to know, see or feel, but by profit alone.

This is why the quality of the material on public broadcasting is fundamentally different form what we see and hear everywhere else and why it is desperately important that we, as a nation, continue to fund a tiny sliver of programming whose value comes not from a monetary dividend but rather from a societal one.

The cost of public programming works out to approximately $1.25 per person. In other words for about the cost of a single song on itunes and far less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks we get radio and television who’s only motivation is to produce programming which is good for us. Personally, I think this is a $1.25 that we can’t afford not to spend.

The Gossip Boycott

Last week, Twilight star Kirsten Stewart, made the mistake of comparing the treatment of celebrities to rape. It was a comment which spread like wildfire over the Internet and sent her publicity people into instant damage control. Within a few hours she was widely condemned, by women's groups, law enforcement and the media in general. Even the rape prevention organization that Kirsten Stewart does PSAs for came out against the actress.

Within 24 hours, Miss Stewart issued a statement of apology. She had spoken foolishly and deeply regrets her words which were both disrespectful and insensitive.

It is one more case of a celebrity getting out of hand and society, justifiably, slapping them down.

Right?

The other big celebrity story last week was that actor, Gary Coleman died. Coleman was probably the least troubled child actor of the very troubled cast of Different Strokes. The lives of these young stars read like something out of noir thriller, albeit a very dark one, with drug addiction, prostitution, armed robbery, murder and suicide all happening under the watchful eye of an insatiable media.

And, of course, the cast from Different Strokes is far from alone. The child stars who manage to escape the trauma of their celebrity and live relatively healthy lives are definitely in the minority.

Usually, our response to these stories, when we think about them at all, is that those child actors sure are crazy. However, when you hear the same story over and over again, particularly, when we are talking about children, the only rational conclusion is that the system itself is not only crazy, but incredibly cruel.

We take these kids into hearts, Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap, Cory Haim in The Lost Boys, Danny Bonaducci in The Partidge Family, and then, when things start falling apart, we just keep on watching as if it is still part of the show.

Watching Arnold on Different Strokes was fun but it's even more fun to watch him sue his parents, lose his fortune become addicted to drugs and end up working in mall. It's just another piece of entertainment for our consumption.

Personally, I think any parent who is even considering getting their kid into the entertainment industry, should be forced to sit down and watch a marathon of Behind the Music and E True Hollywood Stories. Picture your kid in 20 years because if they are lucky enough to find real "success" the odds are, this is what they are in for.

Of course, shows like that are not just the documentation of the disease. They are also a symptom. After all, not nearly as many people tune in to see the biography of Ron Howard, one of the few child stars who seems to have escaped his celebrity adolescence unscathed, as watch the inside scoop on Michael Jackson.

The truth is, it's the dirt we can't get enough of. The more they fail, the better we like it.

During one celebrity feeding frenzy (I can't remember which one) George Clooney was asked why we love celebrities so much and his response (I'm paraphrasing here) was that this is not how you treat someone you love. This is how you treat someone you hate.

After all, nobody did a piece on CNN about how Kirsten Stewart was doing PSA's for a rape prevention organization. That wasn't news. She only became news when she said something stupid.

And it was stupid. There is no doubt about that, but we all say and do stupid things all the time. The only difference is that we don't have 50 members of the press following us around 24/7 waiting for us to slip up.

And, it's not just limited to child stars. We love all the dirt.

Movie star picked up a prostitute? Tell me more.

Rock star got arrested? Let me see the mug shot.

Professional athlete slept around? Let’s hope there’re pictures. Or eve better. Video!

President got a blow job in the oval office? Well, I can spend at least a year on that.

Of course, most people would say that they asked for this. They wanted to be celebrities and now that they have fame, fortune and success, now that they are living the glamours lifestyle we all wish we had, all they can do is whine about it.

But Britney Spears didn't lay in bed dreaming of being chased by photographers for the rest of her life. She wanted to be a singer. Tiger Woods, didn't practice putting for hours every day in order to have his personal life exposed to the world. Ben Aflek and Jennifer Lopez didn't start dating so that they could become the center of the gossip universe.

But let's say, they did ask for it. They wanted to be big stars, drive fancy cars, and hobnob with the elite, and this is just the price of fame.

Fine.

Because the truth is, I'm not just worried about them. I'm worried about us.
There are serious things going on in the world, real problems, that require our attention but like rubberneckers on the freeway, we just can't stop ourselves from looking at the wreck on the side of the road, and the news media (for lack of a better term) is in the business of giving us what we want.

So, when they are trying to decide whether or not to spend an hour on an in depth analyses of the situation in Gaza which will bring in a few thousand viewers or an expose of the latest celebrity debacle which will bring in millions, they will chose the debacle every time.

We are the ones who have to stop it.

It's time to boycott the gossip.

So, next time you hear, "Teen star caught drinking at..."

Change the channel.

A link pops up on your twitter feed about the latest sex scandal?

Don't click on it.

Your favorite talk show can't stop gossiping about some celebrity's bad hair day?

Stop listening to them.

We've become a nation of addicts and it's time for us to go cold turkey.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an addict too. I read those stories, click on those links and even get sucked into the despicable TMZ, but I'm tired of supporting an industry which destroys people's lives and distracts all of us from the really important stuff. I'm admitting I have a problem.

It's time to stop.

It's time for us to demand that the media show us the news that matters and if they don't, we're simply going to change the channel.

The only exception to the gossip boycott is when the scandal represents a particularly vile form hypocrisy. If the story is about a politician who is caught with a gay prostitute after campaigning against gay rights, or a pundit who wants the border closed but doesn't want to lose his housekeeper who is in the country illegally. Those scandals represent substantive, issues that need to be discussed and their hypocrisy should be exposed.

So I say let them have it.

As for the rest; the child stars going nuts, the rock idol struggling with drug addiction, the athlete who's marriage is falling apart, let's give them a break. Please.

Afraid, you're going to miss out on all the juicy bits? Well, here's a cheat sheet for you.

1.People from all walks of lives, not just celebrities, use drugs and alcohol. Some of those people will become addicts. The process of addiction is never a pretty one and it's not made any easier by having a camera in your face.

2. People with the talent and dedication to do something really, really well, are probably a little bit crazy and that crazy will often manifest itself in destructive ways.

3.Power and fame corrupt. Telling someone they are great, isolating them from criticism and reinforcing these believes for years will warp even the most stable of personalities.

4.The corrupting influences of power and fame are magnified a thousand fold when applied to the fragile psyche of a child or an adolescent.

In other words musicians, actors, athletes, politicians and, most tragically, child stars, are going to sleep around, do drugs, go into rehab, get arrested, get divorced and generally fuck up their lives.

It's going to happen.

Now stop watching!