Yeah, What HE Said: The Blasphemy of Expressing Opinions

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot, but when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

ALARM! ALARM! BIGOT ALERT! PSYCHO ALERT! INSANE RADICAL CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WINGER ALERT! CRUCIFY WHOEVER SAID THIS! SEVER ALL TIES TO AVOID GUILT BY ASSOCIATION! ABANDON SHIIIIIIP!

OK, OK, probably ... maybe ... peut-être I'm over-reacting a bit. I mean, it WAS an opinion show, so ... maybe ... but eek - what will people think? That's it. Out he goes!

Apparently that's NPR's idea of a defensible argument for firing one of their most renowned, long-standing employees. That's exactly what they did to Juan Williams for his O'Reilly Factor quote ... or for something ambiguously "larger" as several have suggested.

And therein lies the rub. Juan Williams has long been a bridge across many political worlds. He worked for NPR (for many years) but was happy to participate in political discussions live, in print, on air, and on TV with just about anyone, on just about anything. He has always been willing to try and expand mutual understanding. Problem: Conservative nuts don't understand the real world? Juan's Solution: Go on Conservative shows and explain the opposing viewpoint in refreshingly clear, even-keeled, non-inflammatory terms.

Was his line culturally-insensitive? Yes. Did it reflect a true bias that he ... and many others have? Yes. Did he specifically preface it with the caveat that he's not bigoted? Yes. Did he mis-represent opinion as fact? No. He clearly stated a fact: he gets nervous. In doing so, did he betray his insensitive opinion? Yes.

Even journalists are allowed to have opinions ... even insensitive ones.

In his own words (on Good Morning America this week)

"This is one of the things in my life that's shocking. I grew up on the left. I grew up here in New York City and I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant. Now, I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, as it's representing the left, is just unbelievable," he said. "And especially for me as a black man, to somehow, you know, say something that's out of the box. They find it very difficult... I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. They were uncomfortable with the idea that I was talking to the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity."

NPR's differentiating advantage is that they're like Juan: Clear, non-inflammatory, diverse, and comprehensive, if a bit left-leaning, in their reporting. When I want to get a (much) deeper understanding of an issue than I can get from the talking heads on TV ... and a (much) clearer understanding than I can get from the cacophony of the internet ... I turn to NPR.

And I want to hear Juan.

Follow Up: Less is More

As if responding to the Kramer and Greenspan quotes I blogged about here in December, folks on today's Talk-Shops had the following to say:

"That's what I think people beyond the beltway find so hard to believe. Why can't you find things that they agree on and pass that into legislation? But somehow that never seems to happen." - Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation 1/31/2010

Okay, Bob, but now we have Hope and Change, right?

David Brooks tackled the same core issue from a very different angle:

"If you ask people, 'why aren't you investing? Why aren't you lending?' it all comes down to uncertainty ... If bankers and entrepreneurs don't have any sense of certainty, they're just not going to invest ... We've not only got this economic problem, but its compounded by a psychological problem, magnified by the fact that distrust of institutions is at its highest level in history." - David Brooks, Meet the Press 1/31/2010

Exactly.

I'm frequently asked, "As someone in finance, what do YOU think of the government's proposal on ... "

• New bank taxes
• New windfall taxes
• Bailouts
• Evil banker hunts
• Prop trading bans
• Goldman Sachs
• Too big to fail
• The National Debt

My uniform answer, no matter what topic they bring up: "I'm against it. Whatever 'it' is." Does that make me the exemplar member of the Party of No?

Nope. I'm against that too. And I'm in good company.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not a solution to our problem. Government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Bloated bureaucrazies, by definition, separate pieces of the incentive mechanism. He who makes the decisions is never he who must implement them, nor he who pays for them, nor he who is impacted most greatly by them. This problem is no less present in large corporations than it is in governments the world over. To me, the only cure for bureaucratic inefficiencies and mistakes ... is LESS bureaucracy. Second best is a paralyzed bureaucracy. That, at least, leaves individuals and businesses the liberty they crucially need to maximize their own happiness/wealth/utility/economic value. Least best is an erratically spasming bureaucracy.

As we all know, investors and entrepreneurs make a risk-vs-reward decision every time they choose what to do with their capital (money, ideas, and energy). As I've explained in past blogs, risk is equivalent to unpredictability. The more able one is to predict the future, the lower the risk and the more confidently one can make moves today which create a nice return tomorrow. Conversely, when the rules of the game may significantly change tomorrow or next year, risk is dramatically increased. This raises the risk-vs-reward bar such that fewer investment options are viable.

Governments can increase or decrease this risk. Those with the discipline to stick to a stable, sensible, transparent industrial policy over a long period build tremendous "trust equity" with investors. The benefit should be self-evident to the most causual observer: stability reduces perceived risk, which encourages investment, the fuel of economic activity. Ideas become businesses become economic value. Govermnents, too, reap the benefit by being able to borrow cheaply.

Unfortunately, being based entirely on intangibles (consensus expectations), this trust equity is a very fragile thing. Governments can quickly sabotage themselves, their economies, and thus their citizens by giving off even the whiff of erratic or ill-advised behavior.

Don't take my word for it. Look at successful economies the world over. There is ample empirical evidence that, while stability is not the only factor of economic success, its absence is certainly a factor of economic failure. Contrast North and South Korea. Contrast Argentina and Costa Rica. Contrast Greece and Germany. The success stories plodded quietly for decades, one reassuring yet boring step at a time, to amass their trust equity.

Let's be clear: governments do not create economic value. Governments limit (regulate) its creation in order to make sure one person or business doesn't take advantage of another. We grant them permission to exert this control based on some stew of goals which we've set for them.

Here's another one. Goverments don't own any economic value. Governments are simply temporary stewards of value which they've taken (taxed) from individuals and businesses. By definition, this regime of regulation and taxation reduces economic activity to the extent it limits and dis-incentivizes investors and entrepreneurs. Sometimes we accept this reduction because we understand that we're trading it for our social goals, such as stability, security, equality, or fairness.

But let's combine this with my earlier point. The dis-incentive of regulation and taxation is multiplied by a risk factor which captures its future volatility (=unpredictability). When the future amount of this dis-incentive cannot be confidently predicted, risk is higher and thus fewer opportunities are worth the risk-vs-reward dice roll. Money drifts to the sidelines and the whole economy slows down.

Sound familiar?

So, here's something I'm FOR: minimizing the risk multiplier while maximizing the return ... financially, socially, environmentally, and any other -ly.

Tawdry Tiger

Everybody loves a hero. I get that. Heroes do the impossible when we need it most. Heroes reaffirm our belief in humanity. Heroes set the example. Heroes motivate. Heroes save the asses of the meek.

Apparently, the only thing we love more than a hero is a fallen one. They reaffirm our fallibility. They set a nice low bar for everyone to stoop to. They make the meek feel not-so-bad. They're a backhanded self-esteem boost ... I assume. I don't get it.

To me, raking the country through Tiger's muck is disgustingly counter-productive. If someone craves tawdry drama, they should pick up a Jane Austen novel.

Strike that - they should feel dirty and trashy and embarrassed. C'mon people - we have better things to spend our brainwaves on than TM-goddamn-Z.

Sports Newspeak: Things Coaches, Athletes, and Announcers Shouldn't Say

Look - there are some people in sports who can do and say no wrong; Madden could read the Federalist Papers and it would be just as hilarious-slash-wtf as his MNF commentary. Cosell, Albert, Berman, Vitale, Carey - every guy has his list of classics who defined the trade. They can do no wrong. Nor can the old standards who are there to keep your focus on the sport, not the color commentary like Costas and Michaels. Nor can the big personalities like Deion, Tiki, and whoever shouts GOOOOOOOOOAL! On the other side of the mic are the golden-tongued coaches/managers (Holtz, Bowden, Torre, Riley to name just a few) who get away with saying the craziest things.

All those guys could make knitting interesting with the the force of their huge personalities.

This blog series is for everyone else. As the theory of multiple intelligences tells us, people can be really good at some things and not so good at others. There's no causal link between one type of intelligence and another. Athletes get recognized based on their physical "intelligence." Some are lucky enough to also have strong interpersonal and verbal "intelligences." Others ... not so much. Sadly, that doesn't stop many from trying to overcome stage fright with big words and fancy phases when presented with a mic. Often, they end up just parroting stuff they've heard other people say, even if it has little to do with the topic at hand ... and even if they don't really know what it means. At best, it's inane. So, why say it?

I suppose it's because we listen with baited breath to everything they say. We're all obsessed with these guys. Since the days of gladiators ... OK, probably genesis ... we have idolized and venerated physical prowess leading to victory. Unfortunately, we over-do it. Victory is not always directly ascribable to some dude's super-human aptitude.

Here's my own personal list of peeve phraseology that just makes us dumber, football edition:

Take Care of the Ball (v): The ability to not mess up. Just say "don't fumble."

Movement in Space (adv): Usually referring to an athlete's awareness or acuity in finding gaps in the opposing team's formations or plays. Just because the guy got a few yards doesn't necessarily mean he has some genetic mutation giving him radar-vision. So just say "good job running to a place where the opponent wasn't."

Good Feet (n): Another attempt to ascribe a specific success to an athlete's overall endowments. Just say "Good. He didn't fall down."

Hard-Fought (adj): Passive-agressive method of complimenting yourself via complimenting your opponent which can be used irrespective of whether your team won or lost. Just say "I think we're super."

I'm not Thinking About the Future... (ic): A thinly-veiled attempt to convince yourself that others believe you when you say that you're truly incentivized by the joy in the hearts of your fans, as opposed to the eight-figure contract your agent is negotiating or your mom says you deserve when you get to the pros.
Also: I'm just looking ahead to Sunday.
Also: All that matters is beating our next opponent.
Also: One game at a time.

Game-Time Decision (n): A way to avoid announcing a stupid decision you've made in the hope that, in retrospect, it will appear much smarter or will get forgotten.

What Will Tomorrow Bring: Moving Magazines

Right out of the pages of Popular Science: Entertainment Weekly will pilot embedded video screens in some of its magazines next month.

Sadly, its only for ads not articles right now, but hey - somebody's gotta pay for it ... might as well be those evil corporate world dominators over at Pepsi. Too bad we haven't nationalized the magazine industry yet ... I'm sure Barney Frank coulda seen to it that such essential live-giving technology would be used for more worthy causes like subliminally convincing inner-city youth to save less and consume more ... in the name of national progress, of course.

Oops ... did I go politico again? Damnit, I keep doing that.

Photo Credit: Caroline McCarthy/CNET

What Will Tomorrow Bring: Death to Paper Dinosaurs!

On Chris Matthews this morning, a bevy of career journalists held a pity party. Boo hoo, the world is coming to an end! We're headed off a cliff!

Were they talking about the economy? Politics? Healthcare? Afghanistan? No, all that was over on Meet the Press.

These highbrow muckrakers were singing the dirge of the whole "all the news that's fit to print (and most of it that isn't)" industry. RIP Rocky Mountain News. RIP Seattle Post-Intelligencer. RIP New York Sun.

The quotes were just so ridiculous to me:

"The Internet doesn't have the fact checking."
"The Internet dumbs people down because it's so targeted." "You'll never get that out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye story about haircuts in Cambodia."
"We're losing the group sensibility that creates stories."
"We'll just never have those good ole days of newsroom collaboration. Blogging is very solitary."
"Everyone loses when a newspaper shuts down."
"There's just something special about freezing your butt off going outside in the morning to get the paper in your jammies."

Puh-leaze. I won't rebut line-by-line; I have enough windmills. I would write it off as a generational gap, but sadly, even some younger journalists bemoan the change.

I feel almost silly making the following self-evident statements. The Internet is the salvation of journalism. It puts news on steroids, going wider AND deeper. It enables new levels of cost efficiency and simultaneously new levels of democratization/decentralization. It's vastly lower bars to entry increase entrepreneurial participation. The spectrum of available viewpoints is broader, and can be communicated more effectively via richer multimedia. Rather than damaging credibility, democratization actually ensures that sharp minds and good ideas gain much better (and quicker) visibility. They are self-propelled by the level of interest they generate. No need to support the massive old "launch" infrastructure.

These journalists need not worry. Democratization does not erode their credibility ... as long as they continue to earn it ... and invest some new synapses in figuring out what's going on.

This guy, certainly gets it. He's an Ivy League math/econ major who calls print media "the dead tree and typewriter industry." Yet he's the Web Editor-in-Chief for The Daily Pennsylvanian and is avidly pursuing a career in journalism. Why would such a smartypants peg his future to such a dinosaur? He's not afraid. He understands the new business model. Why does it not surprise me he's a first generation American?

He's not alone. Fellow Ivy-leaguer Jason Kilar is closer in age to the talking heads on Chris Matthews, yet he's not scared either. He's dragging print and TV into the 21st century kicking and screaming ... and making big bucks at it.

Sam Altman, a poster child for a bright future, and Inc. Magazine's #4 "coolest entrepreneur", told Charlie Rose that when he wants to know the most important thing going on right now, he checks Twitter. "It always scoops traditional media."

Even Al-Jazeera isn't complaining ... and in this case, that's a good thing.

Killing 2 Birds with 1 Stone

I am pro death penalty, pro abortion, pro assisted suicide, pro regular suicide. I'm for anything that gets the traffic moving.
- Bill Maher.

Yeah, What HE Said: Lee Edition

Even a good Republican will agree that mistakes have been made by the current administration. Mistakes are made by EVERY administration. But this time around, 99.9% of the world is enjoying making a sport of blaming Bush for every evil and ill. We can thank the talking heads on the irritainment-news for spurring this on and on. In response to them, I give you another vilified man, Robert E. Lee.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact." - Robert E. Lee, 1863

Apparently, talking heads are not a recent a phenomenon.

Meet the Whaa?

I recall being a high schooler trying to make my first presidential ballot choice and realizing I had no context for the decision. Print news was arcane and wordy. TV news was superficial. Reporters and pundits seemed unreliable sources. I wanted to know, from the horses' mouths what was important. It was an age at which the press was only present when invited. I found that very thing early on Sunday mornings. Not much gets a teenager out of bed before noon on Sundays, but I was hooked. Watching Meet the Press and Face the Nation has been one of my most persistent habits.

I've always appreciated the relative lack of punditry: the ability to raise contentious issues without political agenda, the ability to and ask uncomfortable questions with respect and civility. The gentleman's agreement seemed to be: we will ask you pithy, direct questions about weighty current issues. We will not engage in gotchas. We will give you time to fully answer the question without shouting or interruption. We will not allow you to misdirect the conversation.

Apparently Brokaw didn't get the memo when he recently took over MTP. In a few short weeks, he has dumped the show's winning format as if to pay homage to Tim Russert by showing no one else could fill his shoes ... kinda like saying the JV pays homage to the Varsity team by sucking. Certainly, it's still civil ... to a fault. He makes sure he won't offend his guest by asking only milk-toast softball questions. He's done away with such trifles as requiring on-topic answers. Indeed, he doesn't even bother to quote the press anymore, substituting nice platitudes like "people I talk to are saying..." or "my friends have asked me ..."

He'd best be careful, lest NBC get sued for false advertising. Perhaps they should pre-emptively change the show's name. They could go with a nice unoffensive "Meet Tom Brokaw" or "Talk to Tom" ... but my personal preference: "Softball with Tom Brokaw."