"The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while."
--Steve Bannon, Jan. 25
I don't like homerism, but I understand it.
They say there's no cheering in the press box, but the reality is that people invested in a side are likely to perceive even neutral commentary as hostile and any perspective that doesn't align with their own as either dishonest or inane. And if you're trying to sell news in a competitive environment, where people can choose to attend to any number of different sources, the economic instinct might be to say what they want to hear. Is it homerism to pay more attention to the accomplishments of local folks than others? Perhaps, but maybe it's fair to consider the particular interests of a specific audience as well.
And then there's the undeniable truth that almost everyone--even the grumpy and Mencken-bit denizens of our disrupted newsrooms--likes to be liked. If I am honest, maybe one of the reasons I'm tapping away at this keyboard right now is because I'm hopeful someone will send a nice note or leave an approving comment. The psychic income in this business is not inconsiderable.
On the other hand, you people sure can say some mean things. (Hurtful, damaging things that make me want to take to my bed.)
Plenty of you have asked me to shut up over the past 18 months. I won't.
I don't think I can. Under the circumstances, silence might be a crime. The way we're going, speaking up might become one.
I've always thought the press should be the opposition. I've always been for holding people accountable and for enforcing some kind of standard. While there's no reason to step on the throats of people who just want to put on a show or exhibit their watercolors, I've never been comfortable with telling folks that the mediocre is wonderful or that their average kids are gifted. In such instances, maybe the polite thing to do is nothing--just smile and coo at the ugly baby.
Yet if you genuinely aspire to doing good work, you probably should understand that critical feedback is essential. It might sting, it might strike you as unfair, you might suspect that your critic has misunderstood you, but it's all valuable. At the very least it provides you with a snapshot of how the ungenerous mind perceives your efforts. At the very least it will remove any suspicion that you can get away with anything other than honest effort.
I worry about people who cannot accept criticism, who reflexively lash out against anyone who suggests they are the not the brightest and the best. A lot of competent people struggle with the secret fear that they aren't really competent, that they are sometimes overwhelmed by the responsibilities the world has placed on them. Who really thinks that they are equal to the enormous tasks the world sets for them--the rearing of children or the leading of men?
I know I don't feel much different than I did when I was 17 years old, that so much is beyond my ken and that the only way I can hope to hold onto my provisional place in the world is by working furiously and trying hard.
We should understand there's nothing pure in this world. No one attains any level of influence without help, and we all have our invisible, spiderly networks. The press makes lots of mistakes, some honest and some not so honest. "Journalism" provides cover for plenty of frauds and charlatans, some of whom become very high profile precisely because they are willing to sensationalize and pander to certain constituencies. There is a way to do this job that is cynical. There is a path to popularity, and even the sort of downmarket celebrity that can accrue to local heroes.
All you need to do is lead the cheers. Tell the yokels what they want to hear --they're the best and brightest and they've been held down by forces that favored the Other over them. They don't want to hear that the world is nuanced, or that at least some of their troubles have been self-inflicted, that it's their diet of junk food and junk culture has disadvantaged them more than competition from people who started life in a different part of the world under a different flag.
But the truth is, we're not always the best and brightest. Community theater is often self-indulgent and misbegotten. Your kid's artwork may be derivative and undisciplined, lacking a fundamental understanding of perspective and proportion.
Our president presents as unwell, as a dangerous narcissist given to believing the most outrageous flattery. He seems susceptible to manipulation, devoid of empathy and addicted to the constant drone of a news cycle we allow him to dominate with 140-character outbursts.
There is much that needs to be said. There is much that people need to hear. And, if after hearing--after having been given the opportunity to weigh and consider the extreme actions of a fresh administration that gained power through what could fairly be styled a legal technicality--what American jurists and legislators and regular people with a vested interest in the nation have to say about the direction this president wants to take us, they agree with that president, then we shall have the sort of country that Donald Trump envisions. A meaner and less loving land unconcerned with the pretty words that chartered it.
Because that's what America is, after all. It's not the ideals to which we give lip service, it's the people who live and work here. It's you and me, as flawed and broken and inept as we are. There are no smart people coming to save us. It's just us.
We Americans never get tired of hearing how great we are. But you can get your affirmation elsewhere. Now I need you to show me something.
------------v------------
Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.
Editorial on 01/31/2017