Bananafish Blues

I had an epiphany in 2008, but I didn't even realize it until now. I have a degree in journalism. I graduated from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1996 with dreams of being a foreign correspondent or a national news producer or something of that ilk. It did not work out. However, I've had a good career in audio-visual work in various parts of the country. In Las Vegas, I have worked for the tourism bureau for years, getting behind the scenes video of the many historical events in the city. One of these events was in 2008 at the Democratic Presidential Primary debate in Las Vegas.

The debate featured Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and, yes, John Edwards. Who would have thought years later Edwards could be considered the most moral and ethical of the trio. Anyway, I had my camera crew out getting the action: supporters in three groups out in the parking lot; news engineers laying down cables and scurrying between satellite trucks and the stage; and reporters or "journalists" backstage getting ready and shooting the shit.

One of those was MSNBC's Chris Matthews. While a stark-raving liberal who would soon begin a chaste love affair with Obama, I kinda liked Matthews in the 90s during the Clinton era when he didn't kiss Bill's ass and often had political strategist Pat Caddell on his show who would rave that the Clinton had turned the Democrat Party into a group of gangsters. How right he was.

Matthews was standing there alone with his drink, some kind of juice I think, and staring off into space. I was maybe 10 or 15 feet near him and doing just the same. The natural inclination would be to go up to him and say, "Hi Mr. Matthews, how are you?" or "So what do expect from tonight's debate." But I didn't. I just stood there thinking about what else we needed to shoot and kept my distance.

The epiphany I had then is now clear. He had nothing of value to offer me. In fact, no mainstream national or local journalist working today has anything to offer me. We've all shouted from time to time, "Journalism is dead!" but more accurately, journalism is intellectually dead. There is nothing left to learn or say.

If I was standing next to a movie star, same thing. What are they gonna tell me? "I'm super rich and famous and hate my fans."? A novelist? Yeah, maybe. They are certainly thinkers and are often studying the culture with great acuity. A scientist? Absolutely. There's always more in science, whether it's the never-ending struggle to cure cancer or search for the Higgs boson. But journalists...no thanks.

Journalism is an act, not a profession. I will argue that point to the grave. That's why we have the word "reporter." Relaying what was written on a press release is not journalism. And telling the public what you want them to think is definitely not journalism.

Mind, you I'm not being a semantic extremist here. People who actually commit journalism on a regular basis are more than within their rights to call themselves journalists, but to fully earn that title you have to also do everything you can to save your profession. That means taking risks. Losing that dream job if it means keeping your ethics and your integrity. Some do, and they are the people I would love to have a conversation with.

A popular question in English literary is the equivalent of the "Who wore it best?" on insufferable Hollywood red carpet shows. The question here is who got (or is getting) it right about our dystopian future, Huxley or Orwell? Put simply, Huxley's Brave New World predicted a future where the government essentially sedates the public with drugs and sex and creature comforts to the point that citizens have no interest in or will to fight an all-controlling central government. Orwell, on the other hand, in 1984, predicted a future in where the government controls the population with the proverbial jackboot along with never-ending war and an ubiquitous surveillance state. Orwell opined:


“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”


While it seems like a cop out, the answer to the question is that they both were right. More specifically, Huxley's vision serves as the beginning stage while Orwell's vision serves as the ultimate goal. No one can be sedated forever, especially not in a country of 330-million. The whip is the only answer to liberty. And as we move into 2021, we witness what Huxley called "permanent crisis." His words:

My first political memory was in 1976 when I was around three-and-a-half years old. Ford and Carter were in full campaign mode heading toward the home stretch of a close race for the first elected president of the post-Nixon era. I was staring at the Zenith and saw Carter at an outdoor rally waving at supporters and I think I saw the camera veer to the right a block or two to see a Ford rally nearby. I'm most likely wrong and it was a camera switch to another city. My brain was still soft as rich Nebraska soil then and the mind does like to pen fiction in the blank spots. Nevertheless, I do remember knowing roughly who they were and what they were doing. Next thing I remember, Carter is president and I'm thinking how cool it is that he had the same name as me, Jimmy. At this point, I knew nothing of a man named Ronald Reagan. That changed in 1980. Reagan would be the man to challenge Carter for the presidency. My parents were excited. He would win. The hostages in Iran would come home and Reagan would grow in popularity. Then I started to see what political hatred was all about.

My mom and dad would voice frustration over guys like Tip O'Neill, Ted Kennedy, and the news media who would say terrible things about the president and fight anything he proposed. Then I learned about communism, and then I learned about what the political parties thought about communism. Certainly my parents were a large factor in shaping my ideology, but many of my views on world affairs, politics, etc., even at a very young age, were innate. Why would the Democrats oppose helping the Contras in Nicaragua fight communists? Don't communists have a record of tyranny, mass-murder and injustice? my young self would ask in a game of inner-dialogue.

I ramble away on all this as I look at America in 2015. I find myself extremely crestfallen over the state of our culture, both political and sociological. I'm sure during Watergate, many thought the political climate couldn't get any worse. Ironically, some of those same people are our power-brokers today. Hillary Clinton herself served on the House Judiciary Committee overseeing Watergate and was fired for unethical behavior. Now she will probably be president. About what not to be cynical?

Is it worse now? I'm inclined to say yes as we live in a time where we are more distracted than ever before. We look at our iPhones and computers constantly and are barraged with gender-benders, celebrity asses (actual asses), and outrage over the latest newly-christened offensive term, all while this New Jerusalem burns every so slowly in tandem with the Old Jerusalem across the sea. I'm part of the problem, I suppose. Here I sit at a computer, and I'll be putting my iPhone to my nose for some godforsaken reason soon enough.

It's not just that you feel like the bad guys are always winning, but that you feel like this time, the wins might be permanent. But there again, history is a story of rises and falls. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better, before the masses finally say, "I'm Spartacus." Cold comfort? Pipe Dream?

Voicing my dismay on Twitter, Roger L. Simon replied with some advice. He said, quite astutely, that being cynical is easy, but also self-destructive. Then channeling Churchill, "Tell everybody you know what's happening. Never stop. Never, never give up."

He's right. We may get down, but we have to trudge on. We could keep losing for many years hence, but let's face it: there is no destination, no ultimate victory or failure. As Homer said, the journey is the thing. Cliché, yes, but nothing ventured, nothing...(damn)