26 Jun Newsroom Mad Libs
If you happen to look at the “About Us” section of our website, you will see a brief paragraph explaining why we believe that “alternative” political, economic, and social analysis and commentary is invaluable in our present age:
In brief, The Political Forum Institute believes that the contemporary approach to American business, markets, and economy largely ignores the history and philosophy that underpin American and Western culture and drive current events. There has never been a greater need for deeper understanding and informed discussion of the interconnection of capital markets, government, and culture in society. This lack of intellectual foundation is reinforced by the 24-hour news cycle, which exacerbates the decline of thoughtful analysis and discussion. Additionally, the increasing power of government and the concentration of control in the hands of a very few large institutions at a time of major political turmoil, social unrest, and economic volatility means Main Street and individual freedoms are being disregarded or sacrificed.
Long-timers may recognize that this statement – or some formulation of it – has been part of our self-description for 20 years now, dating back to the first days of The Political Forum. And even before then, it was part of our ethos. Indeed, the sentiments expressed in the statement may well have been part of the stock quote Mark used to give to Institutional Investor magazine every year when our shop was named the #1 Washington Research provider in their annual “all-stars” survey.
In all that time – some three decades in total – never have we experienced an event that proved our point and made our case more compellingly than we did this past weekend. As you may have heard, for about 20 minutes this past Saturday, Vladimir Putin fled Russia, took up asylum in Machu Picchu, traded in his judo gi for a Peruvian poncho and chullo, and left Russia under the control of Yevgeny Prigozhin and Wagner Group of mercenaries. And then, apparently, he went home everything went back to normal.
If you think we’re exaggerating what was being said by the so-called “experts” during this brief and bizarre coup, then you are lucky, in that you have a life and therefore didn’t pay much attention to the events in Russia until they were over. We’re not sure we should use this phrase in a family-friendly publication like this one, but what comes to mind is the term “sh*t-show.” And no, we’re not talking about Russia and Putin and Wagner. We’re talking about the media and its coverage of them.
The following two examples of the media ridiculousness surrounding the all-new 2023 Mini Coup are perfectly representative of the competence and expertise extant in the modern newsroom. These particular examples are, we’ll concede, likely more absurd than most of the media coverage this weekend. But they are nevertheless considerably LESS absurd than some of that coverage, which is sadly telling.
The first is this tweet from CNN’s Oliver Darcy, a senior media reporter:
One notable thing about this rapidly developing international story: Since Elon Musk took a sledgehammer to Twitter’s verification system, the platform is far less useful during breaking news events, and so people are depending on traditional newsrooms for verifiable information.
Most of the responders to the tweet appear to believe that Darcy was bragging, that he was saying, “Ha! Twitter is garbage! Traditional MSM rules!” We didn’t read it that way – largely because CNN didn’t know any more about the situation than the twitter-sphere did and its experts were no more expert than those on social media. In context, we see Darcy’s tweet as a complaint, a plea to Elon Musk and Twitter to reinstate verification. After all, how is CNN to know who is and who is not an expert without the blue checkmarks to tell them? How is Gloria Vanderbilt’s kid supposed to know what questions to ask, if he isn’t guided by the certified, “acceptable” voices of Twitter? “People are depending on traditional newsrooms for verifiable information,” but those newsrooms are staffed by “journalists” whose best attribute is looking good on camera and “experts” whose ONLY attribute is that they denounced Donald Trump in a public struggle session. How is CNN supposed to look good and smart and helpful, if Elon Musk makes that hard to do?
The second example is from London’s Daily Mail and is …perfect:
Prepare for ‘deeply dangerous and unpredictable’ Russia if Vladimir Putin is replaced, says security expert who wonders whether the country will ‘go full on fascist’…
Heavens! That’s a frightening bit of “analysis!” Did it come from the “Mad Libs – Newsroom version, Vol. 2?” “Prepare for ‘(adjective) and (adjective)’ (Place Name) if (Proper Noun) is replaced says (adjective) expert who (verb) whether the (noun) will ‘go full on (political ideology).’”
Can we try?
Prepare for ‘stinky and smelly’ Nova Scotia if Justin Trudeau is replaced says butt-faced expert who smells whether the fart will ‘go full on kakistocracy…’”
A few things worth noting here:
First, unlike the good folks at the Daily Mail, we haven’t played Mad Libs since 3rd grade, and we suppose our word choices reflect that. Our apologies.
Second, yes, yes. We know. Justin Trudeau already represents the pinnacle of kakistocracy.
Third, there is no way to disprove our statement because…well…it could happen – just as the scenario laid out by the Mail’s “expert” could. That doesn’t mean either of them will happen or that there is even a decent reason to believe they might happen. But so what? This is what “experts” get paid to tell us these days. So, we should prepare for any and all eventualities. Or something.
Fourth, the biggest part of the problem here is the cable news and its print-media counterpart, which is not really news at all. It is the personality-driven equivalent of gossip column that provides little or nothing of value in terms of journalism or expertise. In turn, when breaking news actually happens, these “news” providers have no choice but to turn to “outside” experts, which is why they keep a whole stable of them on retainer. The catch is that these news providers wouldn’t know a real expert if he bit ‘em on the backside. Instead, they hire “experts” whose main qualification is that they either hold the proper ideology to appeal to the relevant audiences, or they have generated name recognition by publicly scolding all the right people.
Seriously. Who gives a tinker’s damn what Alexander Vindman thinks about Wagner and Russia? Who cares what Adam Kinzinger thinks about anything? What qualifies these people as “experts” other than the fact that they hate Donald Trump and he hates them right back?
Fifth, by relying on these “experts” the contemporary newsrooms (where people like Oliver Darcy “work”) do the nation and the practice of journalism enormous disservices. They present wishful thinking and politically biased opinion as “expertise,” and then wonder why the overwhelming majority of Americans trust them less than the ancient Greek fabulists trusted foxes. For a full 24 hours, we were all told that it was over for Putin, that the Wagner “coup” would be his end, that he expected his tanks to arrive in Kiev but that they would, instead, arrive in Moscow, to displace him. It was all garbage. And it was all garbage based on nothing more than wishful thinking. We’d say the word “embarrassment” doesn’t do it all justice, except for the fact that they’re not embarrassed at all and continue to ply us with the thoroughly unknowable conclusion that the “peaceful” end to the coup is proof that Putin is weaker than Westley was after leaving Miracle Max’s. It’s still all garbage.
So…what IS going on in Russia? And what can we expect from that country in the near future? We’ll be damned if we know – and at least we have the decency to admit as much. What we can say, however, is that you should expect the worst – because that’s what history and careful analysis would suggest. We’re not sure how “full-on fascism” would differ terribly from what exists in Russia right now, but we do know that further consolidation of power and further collapse into totalitarianism is the likely path the nation will take – and always has been. Or, as we put it almost exactly 25 years ago just after the Russian Ruble Crisis:
The rampant corruption that permeates Russian society is just as likely to lead to some form of modern-day fascism, as the citizens seek a “strongman” to “restore order” out of the chaos that reigns there….
The idea that some form of totalitarianism can result from economic and social chaos is not a novel one on our part. For all practical purposes, Hobbes promoted it as a means to keep people from killing each other.
That’s what Leviathan was all about.
Burke also foresaw that one consequence of unbridled “freedom,” unchecked by a moral order, would be social decay, leading to chaos. As a result, he correctly predicted, almost a decade before Napoleon appeared on the scene, that the people of post-revolutionary France would eventually rally behind a strong, military leader, who would promise to substitute order for their much-cherished new-found freedom. Burke put it this way.
“In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time mutinous and full of faction, until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself. Armies will obey him on his personal account.”
Prigozhin turned out not to be that guy. Putin, by contrast, may yet still be. Or there may be another, “if Putin is replaced.” And we say that because we trust Burke – not because of what some butt-faced expert smells.
