Who You Callin’ Jarhead, Squid?

In the previous post, John, a FOBI (Friend of Big Ink), asked a good question about the long-delayed putting together of two and two in the mainstream media, as regards Osama and the post-9/11 era:

Seriously, though, is there anyone who’s been paying attention to which these points are not already totally obvious? They may not be to the general public, since the cowardly media institutions we have would probably portray such assertions as leftist propaganda, but I’ve known about this for years (as I’m sure you have).

So what’s so great about saying it now?

I started responding as a comment, but then I remembered a story and I thought it was worth bumping up to the front page.

The story is about my friend Joe. Great guy. Beautiful wife; three lovely daughters; nice house in the suburbs outside Seattle. Back in the day, to try and get out of his young and foolish phase, Joe joined the Navy. Never one to pass up a good time, he became a rescue swimmer; you know, the guys who jump out of helicopters in category three storms to save people. (You can see the Costner movie about it this fall… if you, like Costner, are still trying to recreate that Bull Durham feeling.)

So Joe was gutsy, to say the least. And he didn’t think a lot about odds. One night, Joe’s out drinking at a bar with a buddy of his, and they’ve had more than a few. In fact, they’ve had a several few too many. So, like good Navy boys, they’re spoiling for some action. Against all logic and the laws of evolution, Joe looks over to his right and mouths off to a Marine sitting at the bar next to him. Calls him a “Jarhead.” (This is back in the days before Jake Gyllenhall, when jarheads could call jarheads jarheads, but no one else could, especially not a squid.)

So, the Marine turns around real slow, like he can’t believe what he just heard. And he stands up off his bar stool. Thing is, where most normal guys would stop standing up, this guy continues to stand up until it’s obvious he tops out at about 6′3, and mean all the way to the top. Worse yet, once he gets up, a whole bunch of other Marines get off their barstools and turn around to see what’s the fuss. First two, then two more, then three guys, then a couple of other guys from the back. So now there are about twelve guys all looking down at Joe and his (suddenly former) friend.

Joe sizes up the situation. Stands up as straight as he can. He holds out his index finger and starts counting Marines, all the way up to twelve. And in a moment of purest cojones, he looks right at the big Marine, shakes his head with a little regret, and says:

“You’re gonna need more guys.”

So why did this story come to mind? Well, starting about, oh, right now, I’m wading into a lot of reseaerch around the idea that — much more than “objectivity” or “truth” or “liberty”, all slippery constructs at best — news content is guided by external factors like political pressure (which can be subtle or overt), commercial considerations (both favorable and unfavorable, and also linked to political interests), and the attitudes of the public (which may or may not be accurately perceived and understood).

There are reporters who manage to keep their eye on the ball and can maintain a steady gig in which they can call it like they see it. (Waas, Hersh, and Conason, to name a few; others?) These guys (and those others) are doing crucial work. But there sure aren’t many of them. In general, it’s a mess and we need people coming into the business who want to see reform and improvement.

But what does that mean? Part of the problem is that the system itself contorts the communication of facts and implications. The product — news — is socially constructed, but it’s as though the people doing the lifting don’t know what they’re buillding. Here’s what I mean by that.

The system isn’t getting at whole truths and yet, when you talk to journalists, you realize they’re usually passionately dedicated people making tough compromises under incredible pressure. It’s rare among non-politicized media to find a journalist who will believe, “Yeah, we planned that hit piece and totally hung the poor sap out to dry.” The problem is much more subtle and, if I might talk crazy talk for a second, we need to start a constructive conversation between the academy and the newsroom. (And continue any that are already taking place.) Both sides would benefit from the other’s perspective and I think that when we have those conversations, we can better understand why the news is compromised the way it is.

In journalism school, a phrase gets tossed around: “We have to give the readers what they need.” Which is true, but there’s then rarely any discussion about what that is (and who “they” are). With a relatively weak ethical/conceptual infrastructure, the “bottom line” dimension of any news operation (or every news operation) becomes the defining construct. Truth may be the light, but the advertisers pay the electricity bills.

So how do journalists “do the right thing” and stay employed/employable? Fortunately there are still examples of things going right. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be going the other way. Later, I’m going to blog a CJR article I just found about James Steele, the legendary Time reporter, who lost his job in a rough round of layoffs in May. Sometimes that kind of thing can have positive consequences (Moyers is probably doing feistier work now). But in general, it’s a loss for the industry and for the democratic public.

[A great reference on this is Robert McChesney's "The Problem With The Media". (How's that for a title that gets right to the point?) It brings together several threads to argue against a money-dominated media.]

So corporations are huge and getting huger, with news operations becoming more like auto showrooms all the time. The worst kind of politics have taken over a large chunk of the airwaves and are selling out the public with flags and fear. A good portion of that public is tuning out or zoning out, removing themselves from the process. Press freedoms, along with other pillars of the Constitution, are being hammered at and carted away, bit by bit. Basically, it doesn’t look good.

Which brings us back to my friend Joe. It’s an image that pops up for me from time to time, when things get bleak. (True, I’ve never stared down twelve Marines, but, I’ve had me some bleak.)

Now, technically, if you want to be all picky about it, that was the night Joe and his (former) friend got the worst ass-kicking of their lives. It was brutal, apparently. Those Marines broke things Joe didn’t know he had. But that’s not the point.

The point is that, in that second, while that giant jarhead was crinkling up his caveman brow, trying to figure out what Joe meant when he said, “You’re gonna need more guys,” in that one second, Joe had just enough time to haul off and drop the sonofabitch with one clean shot. It’s not really the most circumspect approach. But it’s maybe not a bad way to face long odds.

We’ll talk more about all this in the coming months. In the meantime, John, you and your collegues in the reporting game keep doing the good work.

And remember: “You’re gonna need more guys.”

Explore posts in the same categories: Foreshadowing