The Death of News?

On my list of Unrealistic Things I'd Like To Do Someday (e.g. going into outer space, becoming a pro baseball or football GM) is owning a major newspaper (in my head, the Washington Post). I would love to be a part of something that holds powerful people accountable, unifies the community, and helps readers understand their lives and the world around them.

Last Sunday in the Post, David Simon (co-creator of the greatest TV drama of all-time, The Wire) wrote about the decline of the newspaper industry. The easy take on that subject is that the Internet offers free news to readers and that it steals advertisers away from newspapers, who then have to cut back on staff, coverage, etc.

The problem with that? Simon says: "When technology arrived to test the loyalty of longtime readers and the interest of new ones, the newspaper would be offering to cover not more of the world and its issues, but less of both."

He argues that newspapers have hurt themselves by not offering a quality, worthwhile product. Instead of cutting costs and replacing veteran staffers with cheap neophytes in order to survive, Simon would prefer "high-end journalism". He assigns great newspapers the sacred role of being the ones with the resources and the duty to provide the "consistent and sophisticated coverage of issues" that no one else can. I agree with him completely.

Simon's column has attracted a lot of criticism, which I think has mostly been off the mark. Slate's Jack Shafer pinned blame for the death of newspapers squarely on economic hardships, and said that "Simon fails to appreciate that the newspaper no longer enjoys the centrality to American life that it had through most of the 20th century." Well, why shouldn't it? After all, Simon is arguing for a way to make newspapers relevant.

Then there are the critics-in-cocoons who think that there isn't a problem. The Post published a rebuttal by Sara Libby, who basically tells us anecdotally that since she and her friends read the news, that must mean everyone still cares about newspapers. Not so fast, I'm afraid. I bet her survey sample is a little biased because she's a journalist; her conclusions don't necessary match my experience in college.

At school I have a subscription to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, but I can count on one hand the fellow students I know who get their own daily national papers. Sure, like Libby says, many young people get their news online. However--and now it's time for my anecdotal evidence--I would argue that most go for basic headlines and wire stories, not editorials, columns, and more nuanced reporting.

Before I start to sound like Grandpa Simpson, I want to point out that the old fogies do have at least one thing wrong: young people don't pursue "celebrity news" at the expense of real news. Most don't pursue it at all; I do as a supplement. The important thing is that not one person I know is obsessed with Paris Hilton, while most people I know are significantly interested in the upcoming presidential election. So the "death of news" should not be blamed on the "light fare".

Ultimately, newspapers (and related struggling fare like the nightly news programs) will not be saved by gimmickry. I think they need to convey to their audience, even through explicit advertising, how important they are. People need to feel they are getting tangible benefits from the news, whether it is an understanding of big-picture issues or just items of local or personal interest. Many people don't feel an incentive to follow the news closely. Simon's vision for newspapers is the one that will prove to them that they do need the news.

The Frankenstein Candidate

Watch too much campaign coverage and candidates "debating" like I have recently, and your head will spin. There's only so much "change" rhetoric (on the Dems' side) and Freudian obsession with Reagan (on the G.O.P. side) a guy can take!

I feel like taking a step back from strategies, policies, and ideologies to instead think about what attributes I'd like to see in the President of the United States.

If I were Dr. Frankenstein attempting to create the perfect leader of the free world, here are the parts I'd like to cobble together:

* Strong management leadership

Going into George W. Bush's presidency, a lot was made about him bringing a Harvard MBA's mentality to the Oval Office. He was going to be the competent president-as-CEO. Even though this didn't quite pan out, the underlying idea is generally sound.

The president isn't an expert on every (or any) topic; his job is to surround himself with qualified, competent people, and to be "The Decider" based on the data he has. Of course, an effective manager has to also have people around who will tell the emperor when he's not wearing clothes.

Applicants to be president typically come from Congress or the state mansions. Senators aren't administrators, and their ability to manage and lead is unknown. Governors, whose experience is more in line with the presidency, typically have the inside track to the White House.

But I would take the head of a major multinational corporation. Give me a Fortune 100 CEO, give me someone who has led, delegated, dealt with pressure, juggled people and egos and diverse opinions. Give me someone who understands business and economics, someone worldly, someone with a track record of success.

Wait, does this sound like I'm asking for...Mitt Romney? I can't deny that he had a tremendously successful business career, and his background in management consulting (the field I will soon enter) and investments mirrors my own.

* Worldly, diplomatic, and inclusive

Given the ramifications of our foreign policy and our role in an increasingly integrated global economy, it would be nice to have a president who has traveled abroad and/or been exposed to different perspectives. We need someone who appreciates cultural differences and forcefully decries xenophobia. The Republican Party needs to divorce itself of Islamophobia immediately.

I want a candidate who has in-depth knowledge of conflicts around the world, someone who has the ability to have a dialogue with world leaders. I am a huge proponent of a strong military and defense, but that doesn't mean the art of diplomacy can't flourish.

At home, we need a president who realizes that there any many different kinds of American voters, each with their own priorities and needs. The president should not just be tending to a narrow base but should try to be as inclusive as possible. Policy should never be made at the direct expense of a certain group (e.g. Latinos, homosexuals). At the least, I appreciate Mike Huckabee saying recently that his religious beliefs are his own and that he does not expect or want anyone else to be compelled to share them.

* Down-to-earth

I want a candidate who, to put it succinctly, isn't full of himself. Granted, political life is not typically for such people, and the ones who run for president typically have the biggest egos and messiah complexes. Surprisingly enough, while watching several Republican debates in the past couple weeks, I've been thinking that only Fred Thompson doesn't come across as thinking of himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Is it so hard for the candidates to at least occasionally seem like real people? During tonight's Democratic debate/lovefest, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards flubbed a basic job interview question: "What is your greatest weakness?" They both answered with variants of "Aw shucks, I just care too darn much", and I fought the urge to vomit. I'm crossing my fingers hoping that Barack Obama doesn't fall in love with his own hype in the coming weeks and months.

As a practical consideration, I don't want a leader who is so sure of his own infallibility--look where that's gotten us recently.

* Willingness to think unconventionally

I haven't mentioned Ron Paul at all on my blog, and while I disagree vehemently with a lot of his views, I definitely respect the guy. It pissed me off when Fox News tried to exclude him from the debates, and when they relented, they treated him like a lunatic. I mean, c'mon, the guy isn't Dennis Kucinich--Paul's been a fundraising juggernaut, and while he's never, ever going to win an election, his primary showings have been more respectable than Thompson or Rudy Guiliani.

And I think his presence is good, because it forces people to take a look at familiar issues in a completely different light. We all need that kind of reality check, even if it's only to assure us of our own positions.

More broadly, whoever becomes the next president is going to inherit a host of problems that need to be dealt with. Whether it's dealing with the deficit or the financial markets or the environment or foreign policy, creative new approached need to be concerned. Sacrifices may be required. Compromises are a certainty. Ideological purity is the antithesis of successful leadership.

Is there any wonder then, that "change" has resonated so clearly as a theme for both parties? John McCain has that bi-partisan appeal and Obama promises post-partisan politics. Whether either can actually deliver remains to be seen.

* More...?

There are certainly other elements that go into being a successful leader. A president won't be able to anticipate all the challenges he or she will face, so hopefully we elect someone who can deal with the unexpected and adapt to ever-changing circumstances.

Say No to Fuzzy Economics

Heartland voters in Iowa rewarded the populist candidacies of Mike Huckabee (R) and John Edwards (D) this past week, giving the former a commanding win on the Republican side and the latter a solid 2nd-place finish among the Democrats.

In a devastating column in today's Washington Post, George Will assails both men for "encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria", and counters many of the beliefs that form the bedrock of the candidates' arguments. For example, concerning the much-bemoaned plight of the shrinking middle class, Will busts out this interesting fact:

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder."

Thus far, John Edwards' campaign storyline has fixedly been about economic inequality, and it should be treated with skepticism. Whereas at least Mike Huckabee's message is largely about social and moral responsibility, I have been increasingly dismayed by Edwards' one-track focus on "corporate greed". I fear his message, divisive at the least, incitation to class warfare at its worst, is reflective of an incorrect understanding of economics and an underestimate of America.

David Brooks, writing in the NY Times a couple months ago, had an excellent column decrying what he dubbed "Dobbsianism"--a view that holds the rest of the world as a threat to our economy. It is a view that has manifest itself as a growing backlash against liberal immigration policies and free trade, one that sees the rest of the world only as responsible for "lead-painted toys, manipulated currencies and stolen jobs." It is a dangerous, wrong, pessimistic, backward attitude.

Our economy is not under siege from the rest of the world. China and India are getting plenty of headlines in the news, but there is plenty we are doing right (as I first mentioned about two years ago). The U.S. leads the world "in a range of categories: higher education and training, labor market flexibility, the ability to attract global talent, the availability of venture capital, the quality of corporate management, and the capacity to innovate." Furthermore, the U.S. is the productivity leader in almost every industry. America has a high standard of living, high birth rates, a younger population than much of Europe and Asia, and low unemployment.

Brooks goes on to counter the outsourcing Chicken Littles:

90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004). Meanwhile, the number of jobs actually lost to outsourcing is small, and recent reports suggest the outsourcing trend is slowing down.

He concludes, correctly, that "The U.S. still has much more to gain than to lose from openness, trade and globalization."

With regards to the upcoming election, here's my take: The anti-capitalist, anti-free market views that are gaining in traction are in the economic interest of a very narrow segment of voters. Everyone else should be looking for a sober, non-alarmist candidate who understands current economic realities.

Hate Us or Love Us

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Anne Applebaum points out that while the recently-assassinated Benazir Bhutto was a pro-Western leader with a lot of support in our hemisphere, she was also mired in corruption and a promoter of the Taliban. Significant elements in her own society were not enamored of her, whether for her liberal agenda (which the West focused on) or for her domestic failings (more noticed in her home country).

Applebaum links Bhutto with a long line of Western-backed foreign leaders unpopular in their own countries. Often times these leaders are "associated with domestic issues that we [the West] either don't know about, don't care about or don't understand." Unfortunately, their domestic unpopularity leads to anti-Western (anti-American) sentiment amongst their people, and thus Applebaum suggests it would be "wrong to invest too much" in them.

I think her point is only valid in some cases. Before getting into that, it's worth reflecting for a minute on how America is perceived in those countries. This summer, Moshin Hamid wrote a superb Post column entitled "Why Do They Hate Us?", in which he said:

"Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be."

So of course we can't please everyone. But before we pat ourselves on the back, check out what Hamid also noted:

"But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies...They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences."

I conclude that there are certain foreign leaders who, based on their positive agendas, we have a moral imperative to back. In clear-cut circumstances, it is not a question about being concerned about our likability. If we believe in the universality of such values as human rights and representative government, then of course we support leaders who fight apartheid or authoritarianism. If we are promoting a good cause, then we shouldn't be concerned with stoking anti-Americanism.

Of course, many of America's most important alliances are with foreign leaders who are not easily seen as "good guys", so the U.S. has to avoid giving off the impression that it is benefiting at the expense of the local populaces. Realpolitik (practical considerations) dictates that we have to deal with corrupt dictators. So our goal is to show that first and foremost, we are not wedded to the leader, and we are not against the interests of the people of that country.

To do that we have to be always vocal in support of things like free speech and press, due process, and a government accountable to its citizens. We also need to show off our wealth and power through economic and humanitarian aid. Good example: after the devastating Asian tsunami a few years ago, American ships, helicopters, and personnel descended on the region--to help. We provided invaluable and inspiring assistance, and I don't doubt that we won many friends in the region who won't forget our contribution.

Other countries around the world don't have to like us, and it's OK if they don't. While acknowledging that, we should make sure that where we are disliked, it's for a good reason.