Reversing The Moral Compass (or Trickle Up)

Who do you worry about more, the rich or the poor? The powerful or the disenfranchised? The man in the Rolls Royce or the man working three jobs to send his kids to college?

The answer should be obvious but, for some reason, it isn’t.

Somehow we have been convinced that the wealthiest Americans are under siege by the poorest and that the future of our nation is directly dependent on the greediest and most selfish of its citizens.

It shouldn’t really be surprising. Whether it is Feudal lords viscously taxing their farmers, Imperial Russia and their serfs or America being built on the backs of its slaves, the rich and powerful have always stood with their feet firmly planted on the necks of the poor and they justify their actions with racism, classism, social Darwinism and every other rationalization.

While every major religion lists charity, compassion and sacrifice among its virtues, there has been, of late, a conscious distortion of morality. Today, more than half of our deadliest sins, Pride, Gluttony, Envy, and, of course, Greed, are seen as admirable. In fact, our so called, “consumer” economy, is predicated on the idea that Greed consumption and selfishness are not only good for us but good for everyone.

This is a lie.

Unfortunately, it is also a very successful lie.

One of the cornerstones of that lie is “trickle down” economics. The idea, pushed by the Reagan administration in the early 1980’s that tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy would stimulate the economy and eventually those benefits would “trickle down” to all Americans, even the very poor. This economic philosophy has been called many things over the years including Reagannomics and Supply side, but I still think the best name came from George H.W. Bush when he called it “Voodoo economics”.

I wont argue about whether or not lower taxes on the richest Americans encourage investment in the economy. Give a rich guy more money and he will invest more money. The question is, does it benefit anyone else? Even a cursory glance at the last 30 years of American history should tell you that the answer is, unequivocally “no”

The rich have certainly gotten richer in the last 30 years but the poor and middle class have only gotten poorer. In 1981 (at the beginning of “Trickle Down”) the average CEO in this country made 43 times more than his average worker. Today they make somewhere between 185 and 263 times more (depending on where you get your statistics) Doe that sound like wealth is trickling down?

In the last decade income for the bottom 90% of Americans has increased 3.9% (well behind cost of living) while income for the wealthiest .1% has almost doubled. The rich are getting much richer and everyone else is getting killed.

But what about all that money we gave to the wealthy so they could invest in our economy? What happened to all the jobs they were supposed create? Where did they go?

Again, the answer should be obvious. They were outsourced.

You see, the problem here isn’t just economic. It is cultural. Once you say that greed and selfishness are good, then anything you can do to make more money is absolutely justified. If unionized American workers are too expensive... Fine. We can find cheaper workers where they don’t have unions or safety regulations or child labor laws. That call center in Tennessee is costing you an arm and a leg... Fine. You can build a new call center for half the price elsewhere.

Cheaper workers mean more money, but not for everyone.

Still, we all know that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will hurt the economy, right?

Wrong.

In the late 1940’s and 50’s tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were above 60% (approximately twice what they are at today). Did the economy collapse? No. It boomed. It was, in fact, one of the greatest periods of growth in American history. The difference is, in the fifties, that growth was across all economic classes, with the middle class benefiting the most. We were also able to use that revenue to build the interstate highway system (which further helped the economy), vastly increase the national parks and launch a space program.

Am I saying we need to go back to 60%? Absolutely not. However, the people that are telling you that asking multi-millionaires to kick in a little more will wreck the economy are lying to you.

Lies, in fact, are one of the major investments they’ve made with their tax breaks. Billions have been spent through news media, through advertising and through high paid lobbyists to spread the gospel that greed is good and that our wealthiest citizens are also our best citizens.

First they took aim at the poorest among us, the ones least likely to fight back, the welfare mother, the juvenile delinquent, and the illegal alien. (all of which are disparaging titles given to those people by the wealthy elite)

The poor are characterized as lazy and dishonest, unworthy not only of assistance but even of compassion. They are, in fact, what is dragging America down. The suber-rich on the other hand, the ones who bankrupted our nation with their greed, the ones who we have spent trillions to bail out, they are characterized as our nation’s saviors.

That is the message that dominates our country today and it is that message that we must defeat at all costs.

Because now, it’s not enough to demonize the very poor and disenfranchised. Now, they are moving up to the middle class (or, more accurately, what used to be the middle class) Apparently it is the civil servants who are the real problem. The policemen, firemen and teachers.

FUCKING TEACHERS!!

The Wealthiest 1% of Americans receive 700 Billion dollars in tax cuts last year but the people who dedicate their lives to helping children, people who have already endured multiple salary and benefit cuts, people who have seen their responsibilities and class sizes grow while their text books age and their supports dissolves are being greedy when they ask for a living wage and a few benefits.

It makes you wonder who they will come after next.

Our Veterans?

No, the soldiers who served our country “with the last full measure of devotion” have already seen their health benefits cut, their pensions destroyed and the GI Bill stripped down to nothing.

In the end, that wealthiest 1% will come after all of us because once you declare that Greed is good everything that serves greed is, by definition, justified.

If you hate the idea of people living and benefiting off the public dole... Fine. But ask yourself this, who is more worthy of your condemnation, the Mother who has to stretch her welfare check to feed her children, or the profitable corporation which receives billions of dollars in federal subsidies.

Last year the oil industry received sixty billion dollars in federal money while earning record profits.

This moral shift has manifested itself in another way as well.

Things which can make money for someone are valuable. Things which pay non-economic dividends are not. Government services which can be monetized such as prisons, social security, the military and health care should be privatized. Services which cannot be monetized such as the FDA, EPA, education, national parks and, of course, public broadcasting should simply be cut.

The wealthiest Americans have used their power and influence to turn our moral compass upside down. They have succeeded in casting themselves in the role of victim while transforming the poor, the hungry, the sick, the veteran, the civil servant and the teacher into the villain.

I am not saying the rich are all evil or that Americans shouldn’t strive to improve their economic position. I am merely saying that we can choose where to invest, not only our dollars, but our care, our compassion and our empathy.

We have spent the last thirty years believing that wealth could trickle down only to watch that wealth pool in the hands of the few while the many only grow poorer. It is time, I believe, to reverse that trend and see if wealth can trickle up.

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.

Why we should Kill the Networks

(and maybe take a big chunk out of the cable companies while we are at it.)

Here’s what I want to do. I want to turn on the TV and watch whatever the hell I want to watch whenever the hell I want to watch it and I’m willing to pay for the privilege (but not too much)

Most of you probably feel the same way.

A few years ago, this would have been completely impossible but today the technological roadblocks have been solved. Unfortunately, the powerful corporations which run our media system are too myopic, inflexible and, often times, too greedy to change.

Well run companies use advances in technology to make their products better, cheaper and more efficient. Poorly run companies cling to outdated ideas while calmly denying all the evidence of their own imminent demise.

The American auto industry is an excellent example of this. For decades they used their considerable political and economic power to make big inefficient cars. While this policy led to huge profits in the short term, their failure to adapt to changes in technology and the market led them to near collapse in 2008.

The same can be said of the music industry who saw digital distribution, not as an opportunity to deliver their product more efficiently, but as a threat to their status quo. The result has been more than a decade of instability.

Hollywood today faces many of the same issues and yet they seem to be even more deeply entrenched within a labyrinthian system that is inefficient, often counter productive and completely outmoded.

One of the objections to a purely online TV system is that consumers don’t want to pay for their content. What we fail to bring in to this equation is that we are already paying for content. In fact, we are paying quite a bit.

The American consumer, pays an average of $58 per month for cable or satellite TV (not including fees for Broadband internet access) And, frighteningly enough, that average consumer watches approximately 26 hours of TV per week. If we round off the numbers that works out to around fifty cents per hour.

Of course, that’s not really all we’re paying because the vast majority of television we watch is, so-called, “free TV”. Free TV means that the costs of the shows themselves are paid for by advertisers. During the Golden Age of TV that worked out to about 5 minutes of commercials per hour. Today, we see somewhere between 16 and 22 minutes of commercials per hour.

In other words, we are spending fifty cents to buy around forty minutes of programming and twenty minutes of commercials.

The question is, “Is it possible to spend the same money (or even less) to get better content delivered in a more efficient manner?”

Most media experts today would tell you that the answer is “no”. However, they are basing that conclusion on the way that Hollywood is run today, rather than on how it could be run tomorrow.

What if it were possible to streamline (even a little bit) the morass of bureaucracies, lawyers and red tape of the studios, networks, agents, managers, sponsors, cable & Satellite companies, local affiliates and production companies that make up the television system.

To do so we must first distill this complex system down to the essential service it is supposed to provide. That service, as I see it, is this:

(and yes, I know this model is over simplified)

There is a product, “The Show”. A method of distribution, “The Pipe” and a consumer, “The Viewer”. As in any industry, the variables of success are the quality of the product and the cost at which it can be produced and delivered to the consumer. The only thing left after that is for the consumer to decide if the product is desirable.

Here is what actually happens (and this too is vastly over-simplified) A filmmaker wants to make a show. He takes it to his agent who tells him how to mold the show to what a studio might want. After reworking the show he takes it to the studio (who will produce the show) and enters the development process. In development the studio tries to shape the show into one they can sell to a particular network.

Frequently, shaping the show to sell, also means making it better. There are some absolutely fantastic development executives in the industry who are committed to producing great television. They are, however, in the minority and all development executives know that a great show that doesn’t sell is worthless.

“Sell” is the key word here but we are not talking about selling a product to a consumer. We are a long way from that. Junior executives must sell to senior executives. Producers must sell to the studios. Studios to the Networks and the Networks to advertisers and local affiliates. Only after passing through this incredibly complex and expensive crucible does the show have a chance to sell to us, the consumers.

By this point, the number of people commenting on a project, from marketing consultants, to product placement experts and even toy manufacturers is absolutely mind boggling and naturally all those cooks have offices, lawyers, assistants and benefits packages. In other words, they cost money.

Dozens of scripts are bought but most are never made into pilots. Of the pilots that are made only a handful are ever actually aired. Of the shows that get picked up, half of them will not make it to a second season and many don’t make it to the second episode.

Maybe the project wasn’t marketed well, or maybe it was placed in a terrible time slot. Maybe the show needed more time to hit it’s stride or maybe it just plain sucked. The problem is, that in a system as complex as the one used to create TV shows it’s almost impossible to go back and trace what exactly went wrong, which means there is no guarantee that the network wont make the same mistake next season or even over and over again.

What we do know is that this system is extremely inefficient and expensive making it even more difficult to succeed in a market which is already incredibly speculative.

It is this wasteful and inefficient system which costs you, the consumer, 50 cents and 20 minutes of commercials an hour.

If you could eliminate, or at least reduce, a few of the middlemen you could also reduce the cost of the show and, in my opinion, improve the quality.

Let’s start with the network.

These are the guys who really run the television industry. They take the biggest slice of the money and exercise the largest share of control over what you see.

There is a reason for this. Back when everyone got their content over the air you needed a network because the only way to distribute a program nationally was through a network of local affiliates who had access to the big broadcast towers in every major market. In fact, that’s where the term “Network” comes from.

Today, however, only 13% of American’s get their content over the air from local affiliates. The rest of us pay cable and Satellite providers. In other words 87% of Americans do not need a network of local affiliates to get their content. So, why are we giving the lions share of both creative control and profits to the big networks?

The other middlemen are the cable and satellite companies. As I said earlier, the average American watches about 26 hours of television a month but they are actually paying for thousands more. Today, our cable and satellite systems are clogged with 100s of channels we never actually watch. Why? I don’t want to pay for the golf channel or the home shopping network. Maybe you don’t want to pay for comedy central or Sci Fi. Is this an efficient system?

Efficient or not, it is a system which you have little choice in as most US markets are serviced by only one or two providers.

Compare this Network/Cable model to a simple broadband system.

More than 58% of Americans have a broadband connection capable of streaming HIDef video directly to their TV. This number is growing every year. Why then are we still paying a cable company and a network of local affiliates to deliver content to us?

Why don’t we just pay the people who make the content and have them deliver that content over our broadband connection? Why can’t those people make deals directly with advertisers if they want to distribute that product for free or at a reduced cost?

Remember that fifty cents an hour? Remember those twenty minutes of commercials? Both of those represent big money and without the networks and cable companies taking a huge slice out of that pie, I believe that all the TV in the world you want could be delivered for that much money or even less.

A fringe benefit of the online model is that it eliminates the power of the time slot. Today, if a show gets put up against a juggernaut like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, it is almost certainly doomed no matter how good it might be. Why are we still doing this?

I also believe that by eliminating at least a few of the cooks involved in deciding what gets made and what gets broadcast we can improve both the quality and the variety of content.

The networks will claim that the American people aren’t ready for a truly digital distribution system but I believe that is changing before our eyes. Netflix and HuluPlus both deliver unlimited content for $7.99 a month. Netflix Instant is particularly successful. In fact, they are so successful that Comcast is about to sue them.

The AppleTV and Roku box are other examples of how eager we are to change the television viewing experience. Both of them have sold over a million units this holiday season.

The point is, it can be done. In fact, it’s being done right now. The main obstacles are the powers that be, particularly the Studios, networks, and cable companies who are so desperate not to change a system that is failing that they are willing to bring the whole industry down around their ears. It is also why they are currently pressuring congress to break Net Neutrality.

We often speak of “Show Business” as a world where art and commerce are perpetually at odds. However, this is an instance where I believe the goals of art and commerce are perfectly aligned. By making the system more efficient we both create greater creative opportunities for artists and more cost effective and profitable products for everyone.

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!