Media Mobs and Making Your Own Decisions

The great American humorist, self-proclaimed early Confederate sympathizer and latter-day abolitionist, Mark Twain once said, after he was mistakenly believed to have died in 1897: “The report of my death is an exaggeration.”

If Twain were alive today, we could roll him out to say the very same thing about America’s media outlets and the state of journalism, itself, and he would, once again, be “dead right.”

It appears that the more we hear about the imminent demise of “traditional media,” such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, the more influential and intrusive they manage to become.

A recent Pew research report informs us that “nearly one out of every five journalists working for newspapers in 2001 is now gone,” and that newspaper ad revenues have declined, by about 23 percent, in the last two years. In addition, a division of one of the global advertising agency holding companies recently announced that overall U.S. media advertising revenues in the second quarter 2009 had declined by 18 percent and are expected to be down by 14.5 percent for the full year – the worst performance since the Great Depression.

If this is the end for “mainstream media,” however, they seem to be, collectively, “going out with a bang.”

In fact, over recent years, and especially over the past two, it seems that media outlets have done much more than simply report the “news.” Today, driven by aggressive cable news networks, they have begun to craft and, then, totally dominate the public agenda and to dictate the directions taken by an increasingly intimidated body of elected officials.

National legislation, it seems, no longer starts from the ground up (the voters), or even from the top down (the president and the Congress). Instead, public issues are initiated and driven to action by increasingly revenue-challenged, ratings-desperate media outlets.The observations of their pundits and analysts are cobbled together with carefully edited video clips and “sound bites” and repeated numerous times each day—all designed to move polling numbers and to influence the men and women for whom we actually vote. Anymore, this is how we, in America, determine which issues are worthy of public attention, which appointed government official deserves to continue his or her employment, which non-profit agency should continue to receive federal funds and how healthcare will be delivered to American citizens, among other things.

I’m aware that right-wing commentators have taken great issue with their followers being described as members of a “mob,” but that description also seems to be appropriately applied to some of the media outlets, themselves.


I’ve watched, for example, the virtual overnight re-branding of ACORN, a politically ambitious but fundamentally constructive advocate for the poor and for low-income housing needs. In less than two weeks, ACORN, which was founded in 1970, by mainstream community activists, was conveniently portrayed by Fox, in virtually every video clip and audio reference, as a primarily black-managed enterprise.(To Fox producers and audience members, I imagine, that made them more readily suspicious and prone to ethical lapses).

ACORN’s nearly 40 years of credible achievements were marginalized and dismissed during a legally debatable, secretly videotaped entrapment exercise and amid subsequent allegations that the organization had been involved in unethical and/or illegal activities. It was, in short order, stripped by overwhelming, media-inspired votes in the House (345-75) and the Senate (83-7) of its federal funding.

That, friends, is how mobs generally operate: frenzied, irrational, remorseless, outcome-oriented, and, sometimes, lethal. It’s been scary to watch. Today, ACORN…tomorrow, who knows?

All I do know is that, years ago, when I worked at one of the country’s largest commercial banks, there was, arguably, only one community-based organization--locally or nationally ─ that banks respected and responded to, and that was ACORN. I remember quite clearly ACORN’s representatives speaking out in defense of poor and black people who had been denied mortgages, unfairly, by the banking industry. I recall how the bank’s executive managers would get nervous and go immediately on the defensive when ACORN would show up, asking for evidence that the financial institution had been adhering to its obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act(CRA), which required banks to make loans in communities consistent with the value of deposits drawn from those neighborhoods. The banks, including the one where I worked, knew that ACORN’s people had a firm knowledge of the CRA laws and that they understood that when banks were in violation of those laws they could have expansion, merger or acquisition plans delayed or totally derailed. That was a huge, potential financial impact – and the banks didn’t like it and they hated ACORN.

That was the ACORN I remember – far different than the way it’s been presented by the Fox News Channel. It should also be noted that, in several conservative media outlets, the work that ACORN did as advocates for low-to-moderate income mortgages has been blamed, illogically, as the reason for the collapse of Wall Street and the country’s financial markets. Can you spell “ludicrous?”

I’m sure you’ve heard the oft-repeated and entirely unsubstantiated argument posed by otherwise intelligent economic observers that the financial markets went into a tailspin because “people who really didn’t deserve to own their own homes,” i.e., poor black people, were brought into the residential real estate market under CRA and ACORN. Even if they don’t really believe what they’ve been saying about ACORN’s work for the economically disadvantaged, these guys will never, it seems, stop saying it. They seem to be holding a grudge.

It’s been disappointing to me that people who should know a lot better haven’t publicly denounced that blatant racist, wholly inaccurate reasoning. If they really believe that it was irresponsible African Americans who single-handedly brought down the American and global economies, I can’t wait to hear their explanation for the imminent melt-down of the commercial real estate market. Too many undeserving, poor, black people owning suburban shopping malls, office skyscrapers and luxury condominiums?



It’s also been a disappointment that our Congressional representatives have been so quickly and easily led to dismiss ACORN’s 40-year history of support for poor people. It’s been a disgrace that our new president, who was so dependent on ACORN, and groups like it, to do legally sanctioned voter registration that led to his victory in 2008, has been so mum on the subject, watching as his former supporter, ACORN, continues to be unfairly vilified.

What’s happening to ACORN – at the hands of conservatively biased, ratings-challenged media-- carries unsettling implications for us all. Even if there is evidence that some people at ACORN have conducted themselves unethically, and that they, as individuals, deserve to be dismissed or adjudicated, we really can’t afford to make the philosophical jump to believing that ACORN, in its entirety, should be closed down. We shouldn’t treat that institution any differently than we have treated banks, credit card companies, investment firms and automobile manufacturing companies, whose executives have violated the public trust and enriched themselves, inappropriately and unethically.

The final decision for ACORN, the “mob” notwithstanding, should be no different.

Recently, the public editor of the New York Times, in a column in that paper, apologized to readers for being late in its coverage of Fox’s version of the ACORN story. He also disclosed that the Times was assigning an editor, now, to monitor “opinion media,” to ensure that the newspaper won’t miss out, or be late, the next time the journalistic mob is being formed.

As if all of this hasn’t been outrageous enough, two weeks ago, Saturday Night Live (SNL) presented a sketch in which one of its cast members, Fred Armisen, played the part of President Barack Obama. During the bit, Armisen/Obama looked out at the audience, sitting presidentially behind his desk, and said, “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far – and that is nothing.”

The sketch was not so much notable for its humor--it was just marginally funny ─ as it was for the fact that it showed that the network, through its comedy writers, has apparently decided to publicly communicate precisely what Obama’s critics have been saying among themselves, for awhile now.

While that kind of political humor has been a staple of Saturday Night Live for years, the disturbing thing about the sketch was the tone of national media coverages it produced the next day, most of which marked their outlets as anxious to join “the mob,” if they hadn’t done so, already.

For example, the headlines on the CNN website read: “SNL Obama Sketch Marks End of Honeymoon.” As Syracuse University Professor Robert Thompson curiously explained, the SNL sketch indicates that Obama is “vulnerable to more serous damage.”

Let me make sure I understand this: In November 2008, more than 130 million people went to the polls to vote for a president of the United States and 52.9 percent of them (69 million people) voted for Barack Obama. Now, however, because the cast of Saturday Night Live told a joke about him, the media seriously consider him to be “vulnerable…” I don’t get it.

This is all starting to feel really uncomfortable. Let’s be careful about getting caught up in the growing, reactionary mob mentality that we’re seeing from so many of our media outlets and their most loyal followers.

At times like these, it’s especially important to do your own thinking, to “connect your own dots” and to make decisions that are within the best interests of your own family and community.


####