Commentary: What's a candidate-journalist?

 

By: Bob Carney Jr. - 6/29/10

 

D-R-A-F-T

 

I describe myself as a candidate-journalist. You could say this invention, like most, was born of necessity. But in reality, this isn't an invention at all -- I'm really doing something similar to what American politicians and statesmen have done since America's original webmaster -- Ben Franklin -- published "Poor Richard's Almanac". Americans at the time of the Revolution were avid readers, aided in the North by winter (what else to do?) Our tradition of political publishing includes Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", and periodicals of the early Federalists and Republicans. During the Progressive era, Robert La Follette of Wisconsin (Senator and Governor), founded La Follette's Weekly, as a means of getting his message out to the people of Wisconsin -- going around newspapers that were dominated by the Republican political machine of that day. Our own Progressive Republican Congressman Charles Lindbergh of Minnesota -- the aviator's father -- wrote Banking and Currency and the Money Trust. Lindbergh condemned the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the Federal Reserve bank. Here are some quotes from Congressman Lindbergh:

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." --1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — 1913

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board... The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money." -- 1923

From the get-go, American politicians have been writers, and -- I submit -- journalists in a broad sense of the word. They have reported on their own ideas, and the ideas of others, directly to the public. During the Progressive era, politicians like Lindbergh and La Follette undertook this direct communication in large part because they believed most newspapers were dominated or controlled by economic interests. In proclaiming myself a "candidate-journalist", I am following in this tradition. I use the term "Money Media" to characterize all media that is paid for, and driven, largely by advertising. My motto is: "simple words for simple thoughts." My simple thought is this: that the "Money Media" is controlled by, well... money! Advertisers, business interests, and our two-party, two-winged, bird-of-prey political system (Pat Buchanan's metaphor) have a collective, aligned, and fundamentally conservative agenda: don't upset our apple cart!

By contrast, let's consider what I call the Free Media. The distinction is a simple one, and it turns entirely on the economic question of fixed costs vs variable costs.

As a basic business refresher: fixed costs include everything a business must pay regardless of sales volume. By contrast, variable costs go up or down according to sales volume. For a store, fixed costs include the building, the equipment, utility bills, and so forth. All of the merchandise,... food,... clothing,... whatever the store sells, and the employees hired by the store, are variable costs. Variable costs go up and down with sales. When the store sells more, it must hire more people, as sales decline, the store must lay off people. The cost of merchandise is called the "cost of goods sold" -- and obviously this must also go up or down directly as sales volume goes up or down.

A classic formula for business success is based on "economies of scale" -- as sales increase, fixed costs remain fixed, and total cost drops. If you think of fixed costs as a packet of Kool-Aid, you'll have less Kool-Aid in each drink if you mix it with a gallon of water, than if you use a half gallon. In effect, the higher sales volume (one gallon) dilutes fixed costs (the Kool-Aid). But as sales volume declines, fixed costs can also kill a business. When fixed costs are spread over fewer units sold, the cost per unit increases, and the price per unit must also increase.

What I call the Free Media -- the internet, e-mail, youtube.com, has this fundamental characteristic: the (almost) total absence of fixed cost. We can put up a web site and host it for ten dollars a month. We can upload videos to youtube.com for free. We can send e-mails to thousands of people for free. This means if you are able to devote time and energy to launch a Free Media operation, you literally cannot be put out of business. Because you're willing and able to work for free, and you have no (almost) no fixed costs, you have effectively no costs at all. My term -- Free Media -- is intended to be a simple, literal, descriptive term: it applies to media operations that have literally no expenses. There is nowhere to go but up!

Unlike the Free Media, the fixed expenses of the Money Media are enormous -- and nowhere is this more true than for newspapers. It is this segment of the Money Media that I want to focus on for the rest of this commentary. Here are some recent trends affecting newspapers, based on an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report:

• U.S. newspaper revenue fell 30% from 2007 to 2009.

• Less than half of Americans read newspapers in 2008.

• Advertising contributed 87% of U.S. newspaper revenue in 2008. By contrast, advertising contributed about 50% in Britain and Germany, and 35% in Japan.

The fundamental point is this: given the trends we are seeing for newspapers, the Money Media, as it is currently organized and structured, is under tremendous economic pressure. In particular, as newspaper circulation declines, there is effectively no place in the operation where cuts will make a real difference in the fixed cost structure. You still need the giant printing presses and the fleet of trucks running early morning routes. Newspapers face the danger of a death spiral -- circulation declines forcing higher advertising and subscription costs, and ultimately making it economically impossible to maintain the operational infrastructure necessary for print based newspapers to continue.

On the one hand, I believe this results in a posture of accommodation to what I generally characterize as "the establishment", and earlier described as "our two-party, two-winged, bird-of-prey political system." In bygone years, the high fixed costs of print based newspapers gave them the power of oligarchy. There could be a real separation between the news department and the rest of the business for this reason: advertisers and interest groups had no choice but to use the newspapers as an essential means of commercial and interest group speech. High fixed costs forced everyone to share the same newspaper, and to be exposed to a variety of ideas (subject to "establishment" constraints). Fixed costs still function as a constraint today, but the effect is opposite. Because newspapers can't offend anyone, the constraint is to be bland -- to avoid controversy whenever possible. Lifestyle and sports sections abound. The two-party duopoly -- with it's own internal filtering system -- is accepted. But what the parties can themselves accept is driven by what the media can accept as "in bounds" controversy, or "beyond the pale" controversy. Our modern Orwellian Oceania navigator's chart is like an ancient mariners map -- but instead of "there be sea monsters", the chart for the right wing just says "there be birthers"..., "there be conspiracy nuts." On the left wing end of Oceania, we see "there be socialists"..., "there be eco-nuts".

This kind of an idea filter is a danger to any free society. But I also believe the collapse of a physical, print-based news and information delivery system represents a threat to freedom and to national security -- for this reason. The internet and electronic media generally may be vulnerable to attack and control in ways that we don't fully understand. I personally prefer to have what amounts to a "back-up" system, and to maintain norms within that system regarding how crucial the free exchange of opinions and ideas is to a free society.

The Federal Trade Commission has commissioned a study of possible federal subsidies of news organizations, including changes in copyright law, anti-trust exemptions, and various possible taxes. While I disagree with all of the subsidy proposals I have seen so far, I will also be advancing a proposal for what amounts to a subsidy of Minnesota news organizations. My plan is designed to maintain physical, print based news organizations, for the reasons described above.

Let's return now to consider the Money Media "idea filter", and the opportunity the Free Media presents for better politics and dialogue. As we go forward, I think candidate-journalists can transform this opportunity in to new possibilities and new realities for our society.

 

Candidate-journalists and the opportunity for better political discourse

Candidates like La Follette and Lindbergh wrote at various lengths and depths, from brief articles to books. Of course, one of the features of the Free Media is that there is no effective length limit on content. Youtube.com requires you chop things into 10 minute segments -- but what's the difference between that and a movie broadcast on TV with commercial interruptions?

One opportunity is for more in-depth consideration of issues. In my own candidate-journalism, I have taken advantage of this. My news releases -- I have always considered them news articles -- typically have unusually long headlines, and are longer than typical news releases,... sometimes a lot longer. I generally write a short section at the top presenting the main points, and then develop each one in more depth.

Another journalistic innovation I am introducing in the course of this campaign -- and I maintain it is journalism -- is a documentary series called Tom and me. This is partly along the line of Michael Moore's Roger and me. However, I think there are four significant differences:

1. This is being done "real time" during the 2010 Minnesota primary election campaign.

2. The video episodes (about 10 minutes each) are being put on youtube.com as they are produced (enter "bobcarneyvideos" in the youtube.com search box.)

3. The "me" -- Bob Carney Jr., is on the Minnesota Republican primary election ballot. This is a reality series: Minnesota voters can vote Tom "off the island" -- or can vote Bob "on the island".

4. I think I have a more clear idea than Michael Moore did of what to do if I catch Tom.

In 2008, I wrote at book length on the question of whether candidate (now President) Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve, if he had been born in Kenya. This was a unique approach to the issue -- the conventional wisdom was (and is) that if he was born in Kenya he would be Constitutionally ineligible to be President. I went into the project with an open mind, and reached conclusions that I found both surprising and inescapable. The book is available on Amazon (October Surmise: Might our Constitution bar Bar?) A 40 page "sampler" is also available on www.republicancontract.com -- including some extensive excerpts. I believe this issue is likely to emerge in the 2012 campaign. This is an example of my book length work as a candidate-journalist -- I am currently working on another in the context of my current candidacy.

Of course, as a candidate and a journalist, there is a certain assumed bias in my reporting. I have an explicit agenda as a candidate -- and I don't claim to be a separate being, or to have a multiple personality. My candidate biases are also my journalist biases. But more generally, the whole notion of "objective" journalism must be called into question. This model was more valid when economic forces made a separation of news and the business end of newspapers possible. As discussed above, I think the constraints on newspapers today have changed fundamentally, and I see this as showing through in how newspapers cover politics and candidates.

My current plan is to continue with my candidate-journalist activities, and to hold a news conference sometime in the next two weeks to introduce my Minnesota subsidy proposal for what I call the Money Media. I'm also planning a re-write of this commentary, and probably a separation into a shorter version and a longer version.

As Mark Twain once said: "I'm sorry to have written such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one."