The Prodigal Finally Likes Himself

Courtesy Bob Andres, Atlanta Journal Constitution

In the aftermath of Tiger Woods’ spectacular win at Augusta today, I think it’s important we take a look at what exactly he’s overcome in this “comeback,” as Jim Nantz so eloquently put it. I’m one of the few to write about this, because I’m one of those who understands his journey as a human being.

While we all marveled back in his heyday about how Tiger’s parents raised him to be a golfing phenom. There’s virtually nothing written about the psychological aspects of such “raising,” but it reared its ugly head 10‐years ago, when Tiger was discovered to have multiple rough sex partners that he turned to instead of his trophy wife. When his personal life collapsed, so did his golfing magic, and Tiger was forced to begin the journey only those of us who’ve been there can truly understand.

I wrote two pieces about this in 2010, The Lonely Journey of Tiger Woods in February after his public amends in front of the press, and then a follow‐up in August after the total collapse of his game, The Lonesome Valley of Tiger Woods.

In the first, I talked about his recovery and all of the public guessing taking place. No one could ever again expect the same Tiger Woods.

“The question for Tiger is not how does he get his wife back or how does he get his family back or how does he get his life back or how does he get his adoration back or even how does he get his swing back. Much more than that is on‐the‐line here, for a young man’s very life is at stake. Tiger is, after all, a human being…”

http://thepomoblog.com/index.php/the-lonely-journey-of-tiger-woods/

The second piece examined the depth of the problem, and it came in the wake of a disaster on the golf course.

“Tiger Woods’ miserable performance at Firestone this week has all the usual suspects asking all the usual questions about the man. He shot the worst 72‐hole score of his career, and finished second‐to‐the last in the field. His final score was 39 shots higher than the record he set at the tournament 10 years ago. It was nothing short of ugly…

http://thepomoblog.com/index.php/the-lonely-journey-of-tiger-woods/

…Everybody wants to say (but doesn’t dare) that his sexual dalliances finally catching up with him was too big a psychological issue for even the stone‐willed Tiger to overcome. His personal life in shambles, Tiger is hitting bottom, and that’s the sad outcome of such self‐destructive behavior. He had it coming. So there.

As I’ve written before, of all the addictions, sexual addiction is the most misunderstood, because its subsequent behavior is so culturally reprehensible. What makes a man with everything and with perhaps the most recognizable face in the world think he can get away with a bevy of girlfriends outside his marriage? Those unfamiliar with sexual addiction can only point their judgmental fingers at Tiger and reason based on their own knowledge, their own perceptions, their own explanations of such behavior.

But addiction is an evil beyond the grasp of those who don’t know it. Reasons are irrelevant to the cure. Reasons don’t matter. What does matter is that the sickness that gripped this wonderful athlete and man is deep within his being. At core, he simply doesn’t like himself very much — in fact, can’t like himself — so it is impossible, without a LOT of work, for him to accomplish greatness for himself. Impossible.”

But that’s exactly what I think he has now accomplished. Yes, he’s older, and that itself brings a certain wisdom to the way one thinks. However, he’s finally come home to the path that life has chosen for him, and it doesn’t include the constant beating he gave himself for not making everybody else happy all the time.

For more evidence, take a close look at his new girlfriend, her background, and how they met. Erica Herman is cute but hardly the trophy wife that was Elin Nordegren. Ms Herman met Tiger at the restaurant of his that she was managing in 2017, and they’ve been together ever since. In his mind, she’s more of a successful — albeit garden‐variety — local business woman, not a princess. She’s his pal in addition to his lover. He more easily trusts that she’s in it for him, and that is profound healing medicine for a man who’s always had to think of others first.

In the deep recesses of his mind, her outside matches his insides, and he is extremely comfortable with that. He needs someone who will defer to him, because he feels so strongly that only those bad girls would do it earlier. Their badness matched the badness that he felt about himself, and it was easier to overpower them with his charm and need to please. Meanwhile, he left his trophy wife home alone — as he would perhaps a nanny — and she eventually refused to take it anymore, especially when his public dalliances caught up him. The desperation with which he tried to cover it up is the best evidence of the depth of his debauchery. The panic in his voice on that tape recorded call with his mistress of the moment was unmistakable.

But, with a person with the likely make‐up of Erica Herman, Tiger is able to drop all the masks and the pretenses that accompanied his poor behavior, and that’s the best indication that he’s finding himself. The result is he is now — finally — able to win for himself. In the Butler Cabin, Tiger said what he was feeling was different and that “I like it.” To me, that says much more than that he enjoyed the feeling of winning again, which is what most analysts are likely to conclude.

If what I believe has come to pass, I think the entire world of professional golf needs to look out, because the psychological weight loss that comes with being comfortable in your own skin often produces remarkable results. He’s no longer bearing the weight of possible rejection on his back, because he no longer has to be perfect for others.

Tiger Woods likes himself. Thank God for that.

Postmodernism Marches On (Although Most Still Don’t See It)

Postmodernism — that is the new cultural era brought about by the advent of the internet and the web — is advancing far from the sight of those whose oxen are being gored in the process. Call it what you wish, but long after I’m gone, and on into the centuries to come, the empowering of the people will continue. Chaos will be the on‐the‐table discussion item in the years ahead, because those people who are latched onto the tit of logical and rational modernism can see only chaos with anything else. Always remember the precision of Henry Adams’ observation that the way of nature is chaos, but the dream of man is order.

Let me state emphatically, too, that chaos is in the eye of the beholder. To the postmodernist, there’s nothing inherently chaotic about this new era, only that it is a welcome change from the silos of logic and reason to the breath of creative fresh air.

Even now, the evidence of the conflict between the old (modernism) and the new (postmodernism) is everywhere. It’s in every human institution, like a slimy monster that fits itself into places where it seemingly doesn’t belong and challenges us to rethink just about everything and especially the form of personal advancement known as “credentials” or “expertise.” Jeff Jarvis refers to such as “the high priests” of culture, those who’ve managed their way to the top through their lineage, schooling, hard work, luck, and especially through the protections in place to help those already near the top and to make it difficult for everybody else. Witness the current scandal involving the purchase of bogus “scholarships” to access the best universities in the land. This is a logical behavior in a world that values credentials based on schooling.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in his commencement speech at King’s College, University of London, in 1944 titled “The Inner Ring,” once a person makes it into the inner circle, she defaults to making it harder for others to get inside.

“…your genuine Inner Ring exists for exclusion. There’d be no fun if there were no outsiders. The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong side of it. Exclusion is no accident; it is the essence.”

Protected knowledge is that which separates everyday people from the experts in a logical, modernist culture. For example, it’s what gives doctors the fortitude to suggest that their medical degree beats Google searching, but this is merely self‐preservation in a chaotic tsunami of informed patients. This will rage on, and it has already partially disrupted the authority of the physician. It’s not that she isn’t an expert anymore; it’s just that her expertise — with its incumbent authority — isn’t what it used to be. This conflict will continue until we find and accept that we’re all better off with such knowledge. The medical industry? Not so much.

We all have personal stories of how the institutions of the West have failed us in one way or another. The simple truth here is that the “push” world is being replaced by one that “pulls,” and no matter how many lawyers get involved, the rise of the people — those who’ve today known a freedom that our ancestors never imagined — will not go backwards. Look, information is power, and power that is distributed horizontally in a democracy will forever tip the scales away from absolutism at the top, much to the dismay of those at the top of the modernist pyramid.

Try to search ANY medical condition, and you’ll find at least one group of people with that condition who are ready and able to help those newly diagnosed. If one’s medical degree is, in fact, the be all and end all, then why are these groups forming? It’s because, for a great many people, medicine has its own fatted calf to protect, and its needs are not always in the best interests of patients. As long as the A.M.A. governs medical practice in the U.S., the practice of medicine will never be fully patient‐friendly. The demands on practitioners is so great each and every day now that they simply don’t have the time or the inclination to discuss or argue medicine with patients. And that is to their great shame. Higher education doesn’t make you smarter; it merely positions you for scaling the imaginary cultural ladder.

In his seminal argument, Everything Is Miscellaneous, Harvard author David Weinberger makes the case that no knowledge storage retrieval system that humans can possibly create could ever outdo basic search. This is the “pull” concept in long form. Knowledge can’t be sorted into any directory system that can compete with search. From grocery store shelves to libraries to any institutional silo, it’s impossible to even come close to the efficiency of search. And search has gotten so good that even coming close on a guess often leads to what the user is actually seeking. This is not about to go backwards, so those who insist that THEY can organize their goods in such a way that physical proximity is necessary are being quite ridiculous. After all, these sorts of organizations exist to advance themselves, and it doesn’t matter to them if consumers are inconvenienced.

But, Terry, what if shoppers need what they’re seeking NOW? Enter Amazon’s new “same day” delivery. This is a powerful game‐changer that’s getting very little publicity, but just try to imagine a downstream scenario in which such a service is thriving. Amazon has turned the entire retail system on its head already. People will soon come to accept such and will revel in the magic of it all. Imagine the time saving! Shoppers won’t have to go store‐to‐store in order to find something; they’ll simply search for it online, and it will come to them. This is uniquely postmodern, because stripping away hierarchies is the logical future of empowered people. Grocery chains offer pick‐up service, and while that’s nice, it can’t compete with same‐day home delivery via Instacart. This will change. I promise you.

And now comes Amazon Prime Wardrobe, where the company will send a box of clothes pre‐selected by the user along with a handy convertible box which is used to send that which the customer doesn’t want back to the company. This eliminates the need for the store and the booth in which we try on clothes and moves the whole process to the living room or bedroom (or whatever). So, the customer gets a box of clothes, picks out what he wants, is charged for those, and returns the rest at no cost to him. This is designed to further destroy the value proposition of retail clothing shops, and for Amazon, it’s a way to say “anything you can do, I can do better.”

Those who fear that this horizontal empowerment itself will lead to future hierarchies are stuck in the past and fearful of Orwell’s 1984. The problem with this thinking is that the web provides the same opportunities to Aunt Helen that it does to Big Brother, for the web views them as identical. This is just one of the many reasons we fought so hard for net neutrality. The internet belongs to the people, and although we lost the first round on the issue — it’s a modernist response to the loss of control — we’ll be back and better prepared for what happens next.

Postmodernism is moving power to the base of the pyramid, while institutional power must be at the top. When people at the bottom seize the power given them through the net, they’ll never give it back willingly. So, we’re in for turbulent times as the culture groans in reaction to what it views as an assault, and there’s nothing new to this. The same thing happened with the dawn of the printing press and for the same reasons. At that time, the power was with Rome and the church. When Gutenberg had the audacity to print a Bible, the shit hit the fan, for the priests knew well the danger of putting “the word” in the hands of everyday people, and they were right. The reformation would never have happened, if only Rome held access to the book’s contents. It was John Wycliffe’s common language translation that led him to say, “This book shall make possible government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The same concept is alive and well today.

In fact, it’s fair to say that the years following Gutenberg produced the same kind of Western response that we’re seeing today. Erotica was one of the first genres to be printed. Rome wanted to establish a licensing arrangement where only they could approve of those who wanted to print the Bible. It didn’t work, and the power of the Vatican in all matters cultural slowly but steadily slipped away.

Christian institutions ignore the web today and press for top‐down control, which is kicking against the pricks of culture’s progressive but steady march. It’s not hard to understand, because all they know is a stage and the audience. They want little to do with the work of a more horizontal experience, because they simply cannot trust people who aren’t on the podium. “They’ll never get it right,” the thinking goes, “if they don’t have a group of educated higher‐ups holding their hands.” Such nonsense. Look where we are today with Christian leaders saying that Donald Trump was ordained by God in the manner of the ancient Persian King Cyrus. This flagrantly false and misleading reference is so dangerous that we’ve become a people tripping up a step that isn’t there.

The hue and cry over fake news is another example of the modernist crowd screaming for control. I don’t deny this is an area that needs our attention, but it’s nothing more than a Trojan Horse foisted upon us by the top‐down and right‐wing crowds in an attempt to frighten us into submission. The originators of fake news came from the law and order right wing of American politics. In olden days, we used to call this “propaganda,” but it reached new pinnacles with the horizontal nature of the web. The right wing’s response to the clamor was simply to label opponents “fake” in order to hide their own mischief. In the wake of New Zealand, we now have people demanding that we regulate social media. This is akin to swatting a fly with an atomic bomb. We wish to shield our children from everything we went through (or “could” have gone through), and in so doing we’re preventing them from experiencing the very things that shaped our own character. It’s like beating our kids over the head with a 2x4 rather than giving our permission for them to scrape their knees.

The managers of the status quo come from two different groups — the lawyers, those rule‐bound grifters who suck the life out of everything they touch and turn it into profit for themselves and those they represent — God bless ’em — and the world of business, where players sell their souls for profit and suppress anyone who stands in the way, including the government and especially the poor. The more people become aware of this, the more they’re going to object, and nothing will be impossible for them.

After me, there will be a sweeping constitutional convention to address all of this, because our government was formed in a previous cultural era and is insufficient to govern people who are connected horizontally. Traditions will be given more weight than today, perhaps even equal to laws, for traditions can be discussed and argued whereas our laws are currently given to us by lawmakers, those who exist at the pyramid’s top and therefore have their own self‐centered wants and needs. Influence will slowly move to the bottom, although new forms of hierarchies are quite likely. The buck still has to end somewhere, at least that’s the way I think today.

Much is given to the politics of those who have the final say in our laws, the Supreme Court. The law says there shall be no litmus test for the selection of those who make it to this upper bench, but that is just lip‐service. And, while we are kept busy with arguments about, for example, abortion or religious freedom, the most glaring political difference in the selection of nominees is the extent to which each supports business or the rights of workers. This is the real differentiator, because real power in our culture is a struggle between the top of the pyramid and the bottom. Everything else is a side show.

The Bible says the poor will always be with us, and it’s our reaction to this truth that is the great determinator of our response. If it gets in the way of those at the top, then it’s thought to be a nuisance to be ignored or even made worse, and this is another revelation that comes with empowering the bottom. Civil war in America today would not be political nearly so much as it would be class‐motivated, and this energy has grown, in my view, during the Trump election and administration. So far, Republicans (the silk stocking crowd) have been successful at keeping the truth from their bottom supporters through arguments about religion and abortion, but that will not last forever.

Information is power, and power has a way of opening eyes.

Look, I know we’re in a season of cynicism and confusion, but please do not underestimate — under any circumstances — the power of the masses in determining their own government. This was Wycliffe’s point back in the 15th Century, and it’s the point today in the wake of the web.

If I had any influence on the Democrats, this is the message I would pound home to the people. It’s the money. It’s all about the money. Modernist thinking, however, forces the discussion to the box of “what new policies will you put in place instead?” This moves the narrative away from simply fixing what’s wrong to providing solutions ahead of time, so that they can be analyzed and dismissed by those at the top. That’s the cart before the horse and the source of our current gridlock.

If the base of the pyramid crumbles, the top will have no backs on which to stand. Think about it.

The thin ice of censorship

Jeremy Littau
Jeremy Littau

Journalist, professor, and internet culture expert Jeremy Littau offered a Twitter rant last week in the wake of the New Zealand shooter posting a live video on Facebook. I’ve put together his posts, so that we can all study this in its entirety.

So this is probably going to get me in a lot of trouble with the free speech wing of my corner of academia, but …. it’s time we have a serious conversation about what social media regulation looks like. The past two years I find myself favoring it more than I used to.

Early in my academic work I was drawn to the power of self‐publishing. In many ways I still am. It’s important to remember that giving people a platform with a microphone gives ordinary people a type of power they don’t have in a world of big media. I still believe in that.

But those were ideals at early stages. Scale reveals flaws and problems of design. And some of these mass shootings the past few years have revealed some serious holes in the free‐speech argument.

To recap, we have a live video here, spread by social networks, and a manifesto that is imminently linkable. The flow from self‐publishing to attention to news brings attention to the source material. The goal for the terrorist here is publicity, and he’s getting it.

News gonna news. Its job is to cover things. But the system of news production we have is based on a pre‐internet world where there are no links to the source material. You got everything through the journalist gatekeeper, filtered in a world without hyperlinks.

But in a social‐internet world, news is publicity. It’s an invitation to google or search social media for the video or manifesto. Not everyone will do it, but many will. @zephoria has talked about this extensively, that it is an unwitting engine for recruitment of radicals.

Unleashing social live video is akin to experimenting on ourselves. Like many things that were done by the internet’s early builders, we did it because we could. And so we did. Clearly there are a lot of good things being done with live video, but at what cost?

I don’t even know how to weigh this, so don’t ask me how. I just know my kids are growing up in a world where they’re going to hear about and be able to search (or be unwilling viewers of) live shooting videos because our tech simply can’t keep up with extremists.

This is too fast for any system, human or otherwise. There’s only one choke point we can reasonably put in the system, and that’s to deplatform extremists. But not after they spew their filth, but before it. I can hear you “what about“ing from here.

The example I keep hearing is whether we want Facebook to decide. I think that’s the wrong framing. We are currently letting Facebook’s audience decide and they’re the ones spreading it. The enemy isn’t Facebook; it’s us.

If your car has faulty brakes, you recall the car, fix it, and put it out on the road. Live video is a broken system and enables some of the worst abuses on social. Put this thing back in the garage until we can design a system that doesn’t tear at our social fabric.

I am not an expert on the tech/code side of this. My sense, though, is we’re using things like algorithms and machine learning to deal with abuse post hoc. Social science can help here. We know abusers have certain patterns. We can stop the horse before it leaves the barn.

I can hear your objections: it sounds Orwellian. But we we are not designing solutions to meet a serious threat. We can’t have a social media shooter making their sick version of a live documentary every month and expect it to not damage society in profound ways.

MASS SHOOTINGS HAVE A WAY of making the theoretical talk about Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their role in spreading hate all too real.

https://twitter.com/JeremyLittau

Mr. Littau makes several good points here, and when Jeremy speaks, we of his tribe tend to listen. I think his fear is well‐stated, and I agree we need to have a discussion about this. BUT. The post‐modern era is decidedly horizontal, and censorship of any form requires a hierarchy administering what’s acceptable and what’s not. Frankly, that scares me a whole lot more than innocent eyes seeing man’s inhumanity to man.

Today’s news is the newsgathering process made public, and as those of us who’ve been around for awhile know that the process can be very ugly and messy at times. We’ve decided as a people that this freedom to make up our own minds in that process is the pinnacle of the freedom offered by the First Amendment, because WE ARE THE MEDIA today.

It took us a long time to get here, and we should not give it up easily.

When Journalists Accept Confusion

As regular readers here know, I have Palestinian in‐laws and grandchildren, for my oldest daughter is Muslim (of which, I highly approve) and is married to a man who was born in Palestine but was forced to relocate to Jordan in the wake of the six‐day “war” in his homeland. This has forced me to do my own study of the history of the conflict in the region, because my window to the world is likely quite different than yours. I’ve nothing to “sell” in this regard; I’m simply being the journalist I was trained to be and practiced for 45‐plus years in the industry.

Image result for activist Alison Weir
Alison Weir

In viewing videos from California activist Alison Weir (and Executive Director of If Americans Knew) via YouTube, I’ve found a kindred spirit whom I wasn’t aware existed until now, thanks to my son‐in‐law. And, her explanation of the ignorance she once knew is very similar to my own. The timeframe for this quote is the mid‐2000s:

“Five years ago, I guess it was, I knew almost nothing about Israel and Palestine. I skimmed the headlines on the topic. I accepted the confusion of what I read, and like most people, I just moved on. It seemed distant and really irrelevant to my daily life.”

After seeing images of children throwing rocks against Israeli tanks during the second infatata, Weir began to take it seriously and wonder what was really going on. Her research as a journalist lifted the veil of ignorance and opened her eyes to the truth, that American media provides only a HIGHLY propagandized — and therefore one‐sided — version of reality in the Middle East.

I’ve had the same revelation, and I’ve come to believe that this is available to anyone who searches for it. It begins with this statement by Ms. Weir:

“I accepted the confusion of what I read.”

This is a remarkable admission for any journalist. What is it about confusion that favors our just giving up on it? Accepting confusion is a terrible habit, especially if that confusion is fed by somebody’s lies, but if I’m to be truthful, I must admit to the same acceptance prior to 2006. That’s when I visited my daughter’s family in Amman, Jordan, where my confusion was multiplied by stories of oppression and violence by the Israelis that bordered on the unbelievable. No wonder I was confused. Among these seemingly preposterous exclamations was the story of armed Israeli settlers who roamed the roads in the West Bank in automobiles, shooting and killing Palestinians at will. I simply couldn’t bring myself to accept what I was being told.

Confusion, it seems, is a balm given to those who look the other way in the face of evidence to the contrary. I’d rather be confused than accept that reality is really quite simple. I need it to be confusing, because I need to embrace Israel as the birthplace of my faith. Poor, innocent, lovable Israel.

After I returned stateside, I began investigating the particular claim I’d heard. I found that the NBC News Bureau in Israel was run by a former coworker of mine during my years in Milwaukee, so I called him one day. To my utter amazement, he confirmed completely the story I’d been told in Amman, that cars filled with armed Israeli “settlers” regularly drove around the West Bank killing Palestinians with impunity. How, I asked him, was it that I’d never heard of, much less seen, such a story? Why, I asked, didn’t he do stories on such things? “We do them all the time,” he responded, “but they get spiked in New York.”

So there it was, right in front of me, and I still had trouble believing such atrocities. I began to look deeper and seek out sources of information beyond the mainstream. My family was a great help, for the entirety of the Arab press wrote about such. I found Mondoweiss, an online publication specializing in stories about the Palestinian crisis but told from the perspective of non‐Israelis. It is quite an eye‐opening experience to subscribe to the daily Mondoweiss newsletter. There’s little attempt at balance here, but reading it helps me realize that there still is a remarkable “other side” to the story we are fed by Netanyahu, the Israelis, and the American press.

The confusion lifted, and my view became clearer and clearer the more I investigated via the web. One thing that had colored my view was my history working with Pat Robertson and The 700 Club. We owned a radio station in Lebanon and gave aid to the Marjayoun Hospital (of which the IRS was concerned). We were “with” the Israelis every step of the way, but not because we were in the least concerned about the conflict involving Palestinians. Rather, we were in for a pound, because we preached (as did other evangelicals) that 1948 was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy regarding the return of Jesus Christ for his 1,000 year reign (depending on your view of the Rapture). Israel had to return to Jewish Nation status before this would happen, so we preached that the end was near. Moreover, his return has to be in Jerusalem, which is why Christians are so happy with Donald Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol.

Zionism, the political movement, and Judaism, the religion of the Jews, are not the same thing, no matter how the Netanyahu government presents it in discussions of antisemitism, the expressions of those who “hate” the Jews. Israel is not a theocracy, and its government is certainly of man. It’s okay to criticize Zionism without being automatically labeled anti‐Semitic, although Netanyahu wants the two connected for propaganda purposes.

The defense of Zionism begins with the Holocaust, and Israel’s right wing is quick to reference it and to do so with regularity. Zionists need the connection to maintain any semblance of moral high ground in denying Palestinians any rights whatsoever. Consider the IDF celebrity Elor Azarya, who served just nine months in prison for the extrajudicial execution (a.k.a. murder) of Palestinian teenager Abdel Fattah al‐Sharif. He was convicted of manslaughter, but the people of Israel refused to accept it. Here’s a part of what I wrote in December of 2017:

The people of Israel — not just the government, the people — want Azarya released, because they view him as a hero and his extrajudicial execution of a Palestinian teenager in the streets of Hebron last year as completely justified. I’m serious. Azarya was 19‐years old when he blew the brains out of an incapacitated and bleeding Palestinian who was lying prone on his stomach in a pool of blood. Azarya pulled his rifle, walked a few steps to get close to his victim and shot him in the head. All of this was caught on videotape. This blatant murder was reduced to manslaughter with Azarya sentenced to 18 months in prison, four months of which was immediately suspended. The people of Israel want him released, and the latest news is that Israeli President Reuven Rivlin might just pardon him. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called Azarya, “Everyone’s son” in calling for his release. You should also know that there are questions about the belief that Azarya’s victim was, in fact, the man who attacked an Israeli soldier with a knife on the day he was executed. The whole mess stinks, and yet Azarya’s smiling face is plastered all over the country as a symbol of the fine young men who defend Israel and her government.

Forensics revealed that it was Azarya’s bullet that killed al‐Sharif, but it didn’t matter. This is a blatant example of Israeli treatment of Palestinians but by no means unique. Many of these murders have been captured on videotape, but no one in the West is moved whatsoever. It’s just too darned confusing.

Americans ARE confused by events, because everything we read is driven by the Israelis and their propaganda practice, hasbara. Although Zionism has been around since the 19th Century, it was the 20th Century and the German Holocaust that energized it in such a way as to bring about the modern nation of Israel. For Israel to be justified, it must continue to lean on the Holocaust in such a way as to present itself as a lamb surrounded by wolves.

It is hardly that. Israel has nukes. Israel has a powerful military with cutting edge technology and weaponry that’s the envy of the world. It also receives from the U.S. $10 million each and every day (weekends included) to sustain its edge in controlling its corner of the world.

And, so, the question that needs to be asked most is “what do we get out of this?” It’s a fair question and one that journalists shouldn’t be prohibited from asking. And, perhaps if that happened, we wouldn’t be nearly so confused as we are.

Big J Institutions Ignore the Digital Truth

January 2019 was another tough month for media companies struggling with ongoing revenue declines. Layoffs came in bunches as Gannett, Buzzfeed, Verizon, The Huffington Post, and others tried to balance the books against losses on the inbound side of the ledger. The problem, however, isn’t those always‐evil “market forces;” it’s now and always has been an inability to correctly read the declines and respond accordingly. To use a very old illustration, if the railroads had known they were in the transportation business, they would’ve owned the airlines. But, no; they assumed they were in the railroad business, which allowed the disruptors in. Same with media: they’re not in the news business; they’re in the advertising business.

The digital advertising market is far bigger than local media companies understand, and this remains the top obstacle in all efforts to “save” local media (and “media” in general). The most baffling element of this is how these companies refuse to even compete for all the dollars locally, choosing instead to compete only for dollars already spent on their models. As a result, the local digital media market is only 15 percent of what’s available totally. And, the saddest part of all of the indictments of media managers is that the market is growing while the traditional forms of advertising are shrinking, so you’d think these corporate managers would want a different business model. They don’t.

Nobody knows this better than Gordon Borrell, the man who provides the measurements for how well or bad these companies are doing. Borrell provides details sliced many ways, but perhaps the most revealing is his recent data on what he now calls the “addressable” digital market. This is a percentage of the total digital advertising market that believe the local media company sales pitches and spend money with these companies. This figure is the share of the market that media companies serve, and it has been shrinking for as long as I’ve known Gordon. What media companies don’t seem to understand is that their model is inefficient, because it’s based on the archaic marketing rules (reach/frequency) governing mass marketing. Meanwhile, digital pure play companies (those who exist to provide targeted ads to individual browsers based on those browsers’ history) get 85 percent of the total market.

In a webinar last month, Borrell provided data about this “addressable” market, and while it remains a big number, it’s nowhere near the overall marketplace. Here’s a snapshot of that (provided to us by Borrell), and it shows the futility of chasing only those dollars spent with a mass marketing model.

Data provided by Borrell Associates

This graph reveals that all of these media companies today are competing for only 15 percent of the total market. In Texas, they call this “dumber than a bucket of hair,” but Borrell is much more circumspect, calling this obvious failure a product of the environment in which local media companies operate. That’s fine, but shallow industry thinking is never created by “the devil made me do it;” it’s a question of knowledge, tools, and the intelligence on how to proceed.

Many years ago — before I went to work for AR&D in 2006 — I was invited to make a presentation to a media group in Tampa. Sweeping changes were just beginning to impact their business, and they wanted a summary of those changes, so they could figure out what to do. At the end of my session, I was asked a question that completely altered my focus on “the problem” they faced. “This is all great, Terry,” the top dog said, “but where’s the money?” I didn’t have a very good answer for them, so I spent the next 10 years studying the question. The conclusion I reached early on was that if these companies continued to proceed with only mass marketing as their model, they would soon fade from relevance altogether.

So, to me, the issue wasn’t about content, because while media content was certainly being disrupted, the blow to their business model was the only one that really mattered. Nobody listened, in part because these companies are run by mostly older men, who seek first to help themselves and their families in a comfortable retirement. Rocking the boat isn’t conducive to that end, and this is another part of Gordon’s “environment” that contributes to making foolish decisions at the top.

On another occasion, I was making a presentation to the top managers of an east coast media company. Among the strategies I recommended was to get into the local search business. The owner of the privately‐held company was present, and he asked me, “You really want me to compete against Google?” I said, “Of course. Google is competing against you.” The company tried a couple of things I recommended, but their need to move every innovation into their mass media business model proved me right.

I simply couldn’t convince anybody that targeting individual browsers in the community was the Holy Grail of digital advertising and abdicating this to the pure plays was corporate malfeasance. At core, the problem begins with executives believing they’re in the news business. They’re not. They’re in the advertising business, and that’s where their focus should be.

And, here’s the most chilling aspect of this: local media companies are unable to see the impact the disruption to advertising is having on the local communities they serve. Here’s another image from Borrell’s addressable market presentation:

85% of digital advertising money that originates in the community goes to pure play internet companies. That money leaves the market forever. These companies pay no local taxes, employ no local people, contribute to nobody’s community chest, and are a net drain on the economic well‐being of the community. This money drain is staggering compared to what local media companies are getting, and it shows no sign of a reversal any time soon.

Finally, I had a telephone conversation once with a guy from an ad exchange about the possibility of partnering with local media companies. In what was an embarrassing reality, this sales executive told me, “We don’t need to partner with anybody, Terry, because we already have access to 100% of the browsers in any market anyway.” 

You can ask Borrell about all of this for yourselves at his annual Local Online Advertising Conference March 11–12 in New York.

If I owned a local business, I certainly would want my money to go where it’s the most efficient and effective for growth, and all the evidence loudly screams that targeting local browsers is the way to go. The sales pitch of the account exec representing my favorite TV station seems shallow and archaic in comparison. There are no secrets that media salespeople can manipulate to their advantage anymore, and maybe that’s the real problem.

Regardless, managers who wince as if I’m calling their baby “ugly” have only themselves to blame, because the things I preached back then have certainly all come to pass. It ain’t rocket science, folks, and here’s a final prophecy for consideration. Either local media companies band together to attack the problem at the local level, or there will only be room for one “winner” in each market in the not‐so‐distant future.

The Management Culture

Abraham Zaleznik, 1924–2011

My newest topic of study and writing (another book) is one that I’ve touched on many times in prior works, and that is the idea that managers and leaders are completely different personality styles. In 1977, Harvard Business School psychologist Abraham Zaleznik published his brilliant essay, Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?. This paper set forth a line that separates the two personalities, and this has been a seminal document in the education of Terry Heaton.

The reason this is so important is that the managers have had their way since the invention of moveable type, which gave managers the ability to sell their beliefs to wide audiences. Slowly, but surely, the idea that you can manage your way to just about any goal (a management term) has led to disillusionment and frustration, because it’s just not possible to continually manage without the creative innovations provided by leaders.

This is why the financial laws that ancient Israel were given by Moses included checks and balances to prevent anyone from gaining massive wealth or to place any person into poverty. The Sabbath Year and the Year of Jubilee were designed to keep everything honest between people when it came to their financial well‐being, even to the extent of recovering lands they might have lost in the years prior to the Jubilee. The Israelites may have practiced this in the beginning, but clearly they gave it all up centuries ago and turned to profit‐based hegemonies.

What we have today in the West is a management culture, one that’s built on hierarchies and rules, all of which serve the top of the pyramid and not the base. Oddly, the vast majority of the population agrees with this and even votes for those who make the rules that keep them forever at the bottom. Each institution of the human existence offers a process‐driven solution to a problem that’s based on, amazingly, their own core competencies, but this is a public mask for private manipulation. Banking is the most obvious example. Banks hold our money “for” us, but that’s just marketing doublespeak. Banks exist to only serve banking, and the clearest example of that is how those least able to give their money to a bank are punished the most for not playing by the rules. We accept that this is “the way it is,” and the management culture advances.

When managers reach the inevitable wall that such formulaic adherence to rules must produce, those who pay the actual price are the rest of us. What awards managers is growth, and growth has limits. Always. There will come a day when these rules force a stoppage of growth, but to managers, this is just another hinderance that needs correction through management of the bottom line. People identified as “expenses” are summarily dismissed in order to help the guy who managed the destruction get his bonus. There is zero incentive for such people to not step all over others in the name meeting the money needs of the owners (who, by the way, managers have convinced us are the good guys).

The Shirky Principle is even more telling, for it states that “institutions will always try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution.” Drug companies are a great illustration of this, because it’s not always in their best interests for their medicines to provide cures. The pharmaceuticals industry is a terrific example of how the managers at the top get filthy rich in the name of “research” to help the world, but the sheer size of the salaries of drug company CEOs makes such a position utterly false. As a result, the entire industry is rampant with shame while touting the good they do for the community.

The paradox of prosperity, it should be noted, is that discontent increases with opportunities for acting on it.

In the world of music, the management culture inserts itself in a couple of ways. One, managers determine who gets money and who doesn’t, and it all depends on their ability to manufacture (a management term) hits. And, since managers are risk averse, this results in the homogenization of music that sells. Let me be the first to say that the purpose of music among humans is not to make money, but this is the fruit we have from the management culture. Two, the method of teaching music has adapted to the management culture by eliminating the ear from the making of music. In bluegrass music, for example, the invention of tablature puts the complex and fast notes in learnable form on paper. This has produced some phenomenal new 5‐string banjo talent, but everything sounds the same. Pickers that stand out are guys like Jim Mills, whose right hand work can’t be completely transferred to paper. His ear‐taught methods are unique, even though he can play the same songs note‐for‐note that the tab players use, yet sound dramatically different, because his ear tells his right hand to “punch” certain notes and play others softly. This produces a loyalty to the song instead of the notes, and that’s the nuance that’s lost with only tablature.

Consequently, originality in music has become a niche and not the main market, and this benefits only those willing to be “managed” to prosperity.

Happy with the music industry? Read Joel Rose’s recent NPR article, Why Is The Music Of 1968 So Enduring? ‘It Was Allowed To Be Art’.

“I realized that I was part of the rebellion, and not part of the establishment,” says (author John) Simon, who earned a degree in music from Princeton University before getting a staff job at Columbia Records. “Part of being the rebellion is, you could rebel musically in the studio. You didn’t have to be as formulaic as in the past.”

The management culture copies formulas for success in every walk of life, including, believe it or not, the church. Here we have an institution with little incentive to overcome cultural evil, for that would take them out of business. Instead, the message is always “you need us” in your life for protection against the culture and the possibility of going to hell.” We are taught to believe this is “truth,” so we behave as instructed, which helps the other managers stay on top and in charge. Ask yourself this: if churches aren’t a part of the management culture, why is the goodness of churches heaped on only those that are growing?

The management culture put Donald Trump in the White House. It was inevitable and predictable.

Another institution fully involved in the management culture is medicine. Doctors today are troubled by patients educated by other patients via patient websites who question both diagnosis and treatment. They don’t have time to argue, because other patients are jammed into a queue that’s part of the profit process from other managers. The authority of the doctor is rightly challenged by the spread of formerly protected knowledge, and I always point to the story of Lorenzo’s Oil and a statement by Lorenzo’s father: “The needs of the doctor are different than the needs of the patient.” Healthcare in the U.S. is an enormous mess, thanks to the fine work of the management culture.

I can’t help but think this way after reading The Education of Henry Adams, who notes in the book that “The way of nature is change (chaotic); the dream of man is order.” Order is truly an unreachable dream, because human nature gets in the way. The only way to produce a form of it is to apply force. Self restraint requires sacrifice, and that’s not a hallmark of the human condition, and absent an internal governor, order requires the use of some form of bayonet at our backs. It’s good for the culture, right? Maybe not so much.

The world desperately needs Zaleznik’s leaders, people who are comfortable with a little chaos in the mix. For them, problem‐solving isn’t always based in what worked before. They are fearless in that sense, and can’t be tied down to a specific set of rules to follow. They must have freedom in order to innovate, and the management culture has a serious problem with that. And since progress is judged by those who play by the rules, very few institutions are run by leaders.

And the most ridiculous idea that the management culture perpetuates is that one can follow certain systems or processes to “become” a leader. Zaleznik tried (because the demand was there) with his book You can call a manager a leader, if you’d like, but that doesn’t make her a leader in the Zaleznik style.

The problem is that absent contributions from both, the culture can’t really function as free, for there is a grave difference between the liberty of free people and the license demanded by those at the top of the tower. Can we overcome it? Perhaps, but given the nature and depth of the hierarchy, they won’t give up their positions without a fight, and that conflict could be very, very deadly.

I want to end this with a Bible verse that speaks to the core of this dichotomy, because it strikes at the motive of managing and being managed. It’s from the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter four, verse four (NIV):

And I saw that all toil and all achievement spring from one person’s envy of another. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Don’t ever think that managers aren’t aware of this. They exploit it to their own ends, and we just go along.

After all, it’s a management culture.