The Worm Turns

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The Worm Turns

 

The hearings drew a picture

That everyone could view

The former president was behind it

It is so obviously true

 

The loyalists who backed him

Have fully earned their shame

Though they ran from the mob

They’re still playing the party game

 

In case you didn’t see them

Here is what you missed

Instead of being worried

The president was in bliss

 

He planned the whole affair

He roused them to a fury

Now he sits in Mar-a-Lago

Afraid to face a jury

 

Secret Service Betrayal

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Secret Service Betrayal

 

The people who protect the president today

Are those who betrayed him yesterday

 

To serve and protect is just a slogan

A shallow piece of folklore

The agents sworn to the constitution

Became the president’s whores

 

You might think that’s a little harsh

You might think it’s a little strong

Take account of all the facts *

You will find you’re entirely wrong

 

They declared by their own actions

They are enemies of the state

If we leave security in their hands

We will inherit a bitter fate

 

We should retire every one of them

Let them know what they have done

But they have failed at insurrection

(for now) democracy has won

 

* Secret Service purges all January

6^th Insurrection emails

 

The Rights of Women

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Rights of Women

 

Women struggled for the right to vote

Women fought for the right to speak

Women won the right to choose

Who and when they marry

Women won the right to divorce

Women fought for the right to work

Outside the home without consent

Women earned the right to equal treatment

Under the law but not to equal wages

Women demand the right to love

And live with whom they choose

Women have won the right to achieve

In all fields of endeavor

But women lost the right to end

An unwanted pregnancy

Women had won that right but lost it

It was taken from them by

A court of supreme injustice

The question now becomes:

If the court can take this right today

What rights will it take tomorrow?

If the court claims jurisdiction

Over a woman’s body

Where then does it end?

What rights are beyond its reach?

 

The Elder

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

 

The Elder

 

(for Noam Chomsky)

 

His long white beard is full and untamed

(like his spirit and his voice)

As if he hasn’t been out of the house

Since the pandemic set in

 

He lives a life of solitude now

Alone with his intellect

Alone with his books

Alone with his writing

Alone with his thoughts

 

He is an observer of real politics

He has an ear for the truth

He has an eye for propaganda

He has a nose for bullshit

 

He tells you how it is

Without concern for how you take it

He’s heard it all seen it twice

And taken it in stride

He wrote the book on modern politics

And principled dissent

 

When the old man talks people listen

So listen to him now

 

Listen when he tells you

The man in the Oval Office

Is the greatest threat to civilization

And survival in the history of the species

 

Listen when he says without hesitation

Worse than Hitler

Worse than Mussolini

Worse than Stalin

Worse than Genghis Khan

Worse than Mao Tse-Tung

 

Look at the sincerity in his eyes

And in the lines of his face

A man without reason to lie

He has no horse in the race

 

Listen and believe

RECLAIMING AMERICA: SUPPORTING GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

LONG WAY HOME:  RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY

SUPPORT GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

By Jack Random

Mark it post and save:  On November 28^th President Donald Trump did the right thing.  He signed two bills establishing American solidarity with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement.  Curiously, he stated he was doing so out of respect for President Xi of mainland China when in fact it was directly contrary to Chinese interests.  It may prove a sticking point in the ongoing trade negotiations between the two economic giants. 

The truth is the legislation had veto-proof support in congress.  The president nevertheless should be applauded for standing up for democracy.  Only weeks before he signaled his support for a military coup in Bolivia – likely instigated and organized by the Central Intelligence Agency.  We have no way of knowing whether the agency acted on Trump’s direct orders or in continuance of long-standing policy but when he applauded the action he also forecast possible future operations in Venezuela and Nicaragua. 

In the contest between democratic and non-democratic forces, the president has not often sided with democracy.  He is proud to stand with the increasingly ruthless authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who disregards the rule of law, summarily executes accused drug dealers and declares war on the media.  He stands with President Recep Erdogan of Turkey who conducted one of the greatest purges in modern history and regularly imprisons political opponents on trumped up charges.  He stands with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a strict authoritarian who suppresses opposition voices and controls all sources of political and financial power. 

When the United States of America praises dictators and gives generous support to authoritarian despots in every corner of the world, the incentive to build and strengthen democracy is lacking.  It is far easier to establish military rule or governance by the corporate elite and hold on to power with the strong arm of oppression. 

In recent years we have had opportunities to make great progress in the cause of global democracy but we failed to seize the day.  Because of our ill-advised alliances in the Middle East, we failed to provide adequate support of the Arab Spring.  We failed to support the rise of democratic movements in Latin America because they chose to couple democracy with a socialistic economy. 

Let’s be clear, America has long earned a reputation of hypocrisy when it comes to supporting democracy in foreign affairs.  Ho Chi Minh pleaded with the United States to support Vietnam against the French in the spirit of freedom and equal rights.  The United States under Harry Truman was not interested.  Imagine if we had accepted his offer of alliance and guided Vietnam on a path to democracy.  Millions of lives would have been spared.  If we had stood firm in our support of democracy, countless military and covert operations would not have been necessary. 

America’s history is stained with the support of despots, military juntas and dictatorships around the world.  We have given lip service to the cause of democracy when in fact we have supported our own economic and strategic interests.  We have been cursed with shortsightedness.   Had we built a coalition of republics we would be far better off today.  If we are to be the beacon of liberty that our mythology describes then we must alter our course.   

Unfortunately, we seem to be embarked on the same old course without the embellishment of good intentions.  According to the Global Democracy Index, a rating of democratic fulfillment by the Economist Intelligence Unit of the United Kingdom, the state of our democracy is in decline.  Far from the shining beacon on the hill, we are no longer considered a full democracy.  Rather, given the deterioration of our fourth estate, corporate dominance of our political process, declining participation in our elections and a general acceptance of anti-democratic practices – such as mass disenfranchisement – we are now considered a flawed democracy. 

We can question the methodology if we wish but the stone cold fact is that this nation, the very first sovereign republic on earth, should be rated by anyone as low as twenty-fifth on any list of democratic achievement should give pause to every citizen.  While we pay tribute to our founders and applaud Broadway shows that glorify them, we have betrayed the foundations of democratic government. 

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum.  It exists in a world where despotism, fascism, dictatorship, oligarchy and theocracy have taken control of governments and fight for ever more power and wealth.  For democracy to survive, democratic nations must join together and support each other to achieve economic prosperity and security for all our peoples.  Our trade policy should reflect our democratic values and our foreign policy should always encourage and defend the principles of democracy. 

I am not advocating war for democracy.  I am not advocating covert operations to overturn every dictator and despot in the world.  I am not advocating covert operations or military interventions at all.  As Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa once said:  “We wanted help; we did not want bombs!”  The boycott and divestiture of the government of apartheid South Africa was of immeasurable assistance in paving the road to independence.  That example should serve as a model for our foreign policy. 

We should establish an independent body – as unbiased as humanly possible – to rate governments on the scale of democracy.  Once we have improved our own standing to a fully functional representative democracy, we should invite all full democracies to form an alliance of democracies for preferred trade relations.  Each member nation would agree to impose no tariffs or other restrictions on trade with fellow nations. 

Member nations that are thriving economically should provide assistance to those nations that are striving to improve their democratic status.  Nations that discard democratic values or interfere in the democratic development of other nations should face targeted economic sanctions and trade barriers. 

Of course there will be instances where economic consequences impose hardships on innocent people.  Humanitarian considerations must always be a part of any democratic decision making.  But we must apply pressure on governments that oppress their people.  In the current state of affairs, despite strategic interests, the government of Turkey no longer meets the minimal requirements of a developing democratic nation.  Turkey should be expelled from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for its brutal oppression and democratic backslide.  Its leaders should be subjected to the stiffest penalties.  The same holds true for China and Russia. 

To the detriment of the world, we have chosen capitalism and Free Trade as the guiding principle of international relations.  We have created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to support nations that adhere to and punish those that violate the mandates of Free Trade.  In doing so we have rendered human rights and democratic values secondary or even tertiary considerations.  This is a grave error that should be corrected. 

Democracy and human rights must be established in their rightful place as the foundations of international relations – at least from an American and western European perspective.  The omission of democratic values in trade agreements has virtually assured the decline of global democracy.  Reversing the polarity of Free Trade and human rights – one of which is the right of individuals to choose their government officials – will assure the rise of democracy and lead to the rise of Fair Trade.  The principles of democracy and representation of labor go hand in hand.  One encourages the other.  The IMF and the World Bank are powerful structures that can be reformed to reflect these new values. 

Attempting to establish such a framework for global affairs would meet with stiff resistance for it would threaten the long-established dominance of corporate wealth.  Any candidate for high office who proposes such reform would be attacked with the full force of corporate propaganda.  Any political party that adopted a Democracy First approach to international trade would find itself accused of every conceivable offense: corruption, fraud, extremism, terrorism, mob rule, radical economics, communism, socialism and anarchism. 

None of it would be true, of course, but that hardly matters.  When you threaten the core sources of international power, you will be tarnished by all means and methods.  Democracy is in fact the most radical and dangerous concept on the planet.  True democracy is a threat to the very foundations of global wealth. 

Of course, this is only a dream and will remain so as long as our own political system is dominated by two parties that both answer to the same overlords of corporate affluence.  Advancing global democracy is not possible as long as our government neglects its own democratic values.  This is not what the better of our founders intended. 

Granted, our democracy was flawed from its inception.  But the more enlightened of our founders knew it was a work in progress.  The better of them knew that women would one day be granted the right to vote.  They knew that slavery was an economically motivated abomination that would tear the nation apart.  They knew that the wealthy and privileged would attempt to control the masses by controlling the flow of information.  They knew that foreign nations would try to influence our elections and sway our electorate.  They knew that the press would be biased and politicians would be corrupt. 

They knew that the system they prescribed was seriously flawed but they trusted that those who followed them would be dedicated to the principles of democracy.  They trusted us to build upon their work.  They trusted us to correct their errors and make changes that would move the nation forward toward a more perfect democracy.  They had a dream and they placed that dream in our hands. 

It is up to us to take that dream and move forward.  Once we have repaired the damage to our own republic and fortified its defenses, we can begin to lead the world in progress toward the establishment of worldwide democratic principles. 

As the revolutionary founder Thomas Paine once wrote:  “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”  Let us not neglect that solemn responsibility. 

“United States Doesn’t Even Make Top Twenty on Global Democracy Index.”  By Andrea Germanos.  Common Dreams, January 11, 2019.   

Common Sense.  By Thomas Paine.  Circa 1776.   

RECLAIMING AMERICA: EDUCATION REFORM IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

THE LONG WAY HOME

NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM

By Jack Random

As a former educator I have long defended public education.  I have argued that teachers are among the most dedicated professionals in the nation.  They are underpaid and too often underappreciated in that they are made scapegoats by far too many politicians who have little to no understanding of the difficulty teachers face. 

I stand by that position but the election of a president who is by every measure unqualified for the responsibilities of high office compels me to realize that our educational system has failed.  Until the election of Donald Trump, I would not have considered it possible that the American people as a whole – even with systemic flaws in campaign financing, foreign interference and the Electoral College – would elect an obvious con man who rejects the basic tenets of democracy and acquired knowledge.  I would not have considered it possible that an educated society would elect a man who holds science in contempt, who discards facts as the products of elitist propaganda, who regards media as the enemies of the people and who demonstrates disdain for the balance of power inherent in a democratic system of government. 

That we could have allowed this to occur once is understandable but alarming.  That we might well allow it to happen again suggests that the foundation of our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. 

Clearly, we need to better educate our children so that they will grow to become informed citizens with respect for the principles of democracy, an understanding of institutions of government and a firm grasp of reasoning and respect for the scientific method. 

Even now, as I write these words, I realize that a significant number of our people cringe at the term “scientific method.”  They are composed of people whose social upbringing and education has taught them that science is the enemy of religion.  They have grown up in a world where every individual must choose between faith and science, between the word of God and the words of Einstein, between the elitists who control our universities and social institutions and the ordinary people who work for wages and struggle to get by. 

We live in a society that divides us by geography and demands that we choose sides and burrow in or risk being ostracized by our family and peers. 

I understand the disdain that many people have for institutions and elitists but the election of Donald Trump demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in a functional democracy.  Because ordinary people have not learned to process information and derive logical conclusions for themselves, they have allowed others to think for them.  Because they have learned to divide the world between good and evil in the most simplistic terms, they have allowed a con artist to use them for his own enrichment. 

Donald Trump is not a man of the people.  Donald Trump does not value the principles of democracy.  Donald Trump is an opportunist who has exploited the prejudice and ignorance of the people for his own aggrandizement. 

A great deal has gone toward the immediate task of removing this man from office as soon as humanly possible.  Relatively little time and resources have been devoted to ensuring that such a tragic mistake of electoral politics never happens again. 

At this point it is important to expand the topic of systemic failure to include a Democratic Party that has also exploited the people in so many ways.  It was the Democrats who signaled “full speed ahead” to NAFTA and the Free Trade Mandate that spelled the demise of American industry.  It was Democratic lip service that allowed unions to collapse as a counterweight to corporate influence.  We should not forget Democratic betrayal simply because Trump is so much worse than anything the Democrats could have delivered. 

Nor should we ignore the fact that Donald Trump’s candidacy was enabled by a Republican Party so removed from the people that a pretender had no difficulty plowing his way through a large field of contenders to the nomination.  The problem is bipartisan and the solution must be nonpartisan. 

It begins with education.  The government guarantees a free public education to all from age five to eighteen.  It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.  What our government has not guaranteed is a quality education for all.  We have in fact yielded the content of public education to state and local authorities and that is where the problem begins. 

It is often said that all politics are local and local politicians have long recognized the propaganda potential of education.  Not long ago there were places in this nation where a science teacher could only teach Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution if the Christian church’s creation story was presented for contrast.  Please note that between evolution and creation only one is a theory.  The other is faith-based mythology – aka religion. 

In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach creation myth in a science curriculum.  In 2005 the court ruled that the so-called theory of “Intelligent Design” was only an attempt to repackage creationism in a more acceptable form and it too was banned.  As a result, the rightwing anti-science community has pushed the Charter School movement as yet another way to circumvent the law of the land.  School Boards in Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Arizona and the District of Columbia have approved the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  [1]

A theory is more than speculation.  A scientific idea begins as a purely speculative postulate before becoming a hypothesis to be tested.  A hypothesis becomes a theory only after rigorous and repeated testing confirms its validity.  The creation myth – an essential story in all known religions – has not survived peer review or rigorous testing and cannot be considered a valid theory.  It does not therefore belong in the same scientific discussion as evolution. 

Religion is personal and every individual is granted the right to believe and worship as he or she will – as long as those beliefs and practices do not prevent others from believing as they choose.  Religion can no part in the scientific realm just as science can have no part in matters of pure faith. 

Science must be an essential part of any public school curriculum and the scientific method for establishing facts and theories even more so.  An education that is not founded on science and the scientific method is not an education at all for at that point it crosses over to the realm of faith. 

Religion can have no part in public education.  The moment you admit matters of faith into subjects worthy of education you give credence to magical thinking.  You falsely enable students to challenge the most basic facts.  You enable students to challenge gravity.  Physics does not yield to prayer or public opinion and will not allow a scientific challenge to gravity because gravity is an established fact. 

If a given district wants to allow magical thinking in its curriculum it must be challenged by a greater authority.  At present, under the leadership of Donald Trump and his faith-based Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a greater authority does not exist.  Or rather, it exists to defend magical thinking.  It exists to divert funds meant for public education into private, faith-based charter schools. [2]

We can no more allow the perversion of science with faith-based diversions than we can allow public school districts to choose their curriculum without regard to scientific validity and historic fact.  For example, we cannot allow districts in the South to teach that the southern states were right to break away from the north because African slaves were inherently inferior and slavery was therefore justified.  I have little doubt that there are those not only in the South but across the nation who believe just that though such prejudice has not and cannot be validated by the scientific method. 

This nation needs to agree that all students regardless of locale are deserving of a sound education grounded in fact and science.  We need to agree that the nation has one historical narrative for all students.  We need to agree that this nation was born with high ideals that were subverted by Native American genocide and African American slavery.  Our universal narrative must include the story of Japanese American internment by a Democratic president.  It must include the stories of systemic discrimination against Latin Americans, Irish Americans and immigrants of all backgrounds and colors. 

Beyond history we need a public school curriculum across all states that prioritizes the teaching of reason – of how to interpret the facts we observe and draw objective conclusions.  A student that does not know how to reason is as critically handicapped as a student that does not know how to read, write or perform the basic functions of arithmetic. 

We should also be teaching our children the art of compromise and the role it has played in the nation’s crowning achievements:  The writing and adoption of our constitution, the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, the prohibition against child labor, the forty-hour work week, on and on. 

We have come a long way in our understanding of the world and the fulfillment of our ideals but we have blocked our schools and teachers by saddling them with politically motivated curricula.  Let’s be clear.  Education curricula has become a political football.  We must do everything we can to remove both religion and politics from the schools. 

We must also devise a new system that no longer divides students into successes and failures.  This idea that what our kids really need is tough love, that kids must experience the hard knocks of life in their growing years, has got to end. 

No child deserves to fail.  Certainly, no child should be branded a failure and forced to endure years of failure just to fulfill the dictates of a tough love curricula.  We all know that’s how it works and we all pretend there is no other way.  There is.  We cannot simply bend the normal population curve as the George W. Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind initiative proposed.  With its high academic standards and one-size-fits-all approach, NCLB guaranteed failure for a generation of students. 

NCLB reigned over education for over a decade with catastrophic results before being replaced by Common Core (2010) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).  The new program suggests national standards with the goal of producing students who can succeed in college and university.  The actual administration is left to the states. 

Education has gone through this process of rebuilding the education system from top to bottom numerous times and it has always failed.  It fails because all students cannot succeed on a moving scale of academic standards.  The system fails repeatedly because we try and try again to bring students to the system rather than bringing the system to the student. 

All students can succeed if we assess their talents and interests early on and guide them to achievable and functional goals.  All children are not meant to be scientists but all children can learn to employ the processes of logical thought.  All children cannot become doctors and engineers but every student can become and valued member of society.  All students cannot become litigators but all can learn to distinguish credible evidence from opportunistic speculation. 

Those who have advocated trade schools are on the right track.  Society’s responsibility is to determine what trades will be valued in the future and to provide appropriate students the background and training they require.  Some students will naturally be guided on an academic path while others may be encouraged to develop blue collar, artistic or entrepreneurial skills. 

When there is a place for every child’s interests and abilities then every child – with appropriate assistance, guidance and encouragement – will succeed. 

Moreover, when all students succeed they will become citizens who are able to make realistic and responsible judgments regarding our political parties and candidates.  Is it any wonder that those who have been branded failures in education have rejected the institutions and elitists who branded them?  When the electorate is informed and engaged, we will not be fooled by con men and pretenders. 

Who knows?  We may finally reject the politics of cynicism, division and derision.  We may finally elect representatives whose ultimate motive is to improve the lives of all Americans rather than to enrich themselves and their corporate masters. 

1. “Map: Publicly Funded Schools that are Allowed to Teach Creationism.”  By Chris Kirk.

Slate, January 26, 2014. 

2. “Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America’s Schools to Build ‘God’s Kingdom’.”  By Kristina

Rizga.  Mother Jones, March/April 2017. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: BREAK UP THE MEDIA MONOPOLIES

THE LONG WAY HOME

BREAK UP MEDIA MONOPOLIES

Beginning with Facebook

“They’ve bulldozed the competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy and tilted the playing field against everyone else.” 

Elizabeth Warren, US Senator and Presidential Candidate

Ten years ago this article would have been about the television and newsprint monopolies.  To some extent it still is.  But more importantly it concerns the social media monopolies – most notably Facebook.  For while more Americans still get their news from television, a 2018 Pew Research Center report found that the fastest growing source of news in America is social media. 

At 20% of respondents, social media passed print newspapers (16%) as the primary source of news.  It trailed radio at 26%, news websites at 33% and television at 49%.  Combining social media and news websites, more people got their news online than from any other source.  Moreover, recent revelations about the role of Facebook in laundering Russian propaganda for the election campaign of Donald Trump have alerted us to the dangers that social media pose.  It is in fact fertile soil for unfounded propaganda, rumor, innuendo and conspiracy theory. 

As a candidate for president, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has proposed breaking up media monopolies, drawing the ire of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.  Recently, the word got out that Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO of Facebook, recently informed his employees at a private assembly that he would fight like hell against the “existential” threat posed by candidate Warren. 

Had he tried he could not have choreographed a more effective endorsement of Warren’s candidacy for president.  Those of us who subsist on less than ten digits in annual income can safely assume that Zuckerberg has no concept of a true existential crisis.  He may have dreams of global domination but he certainly has no understanding of the scourge of monopolies on a free market economy. 

It seems Warren has the audacity to stand up to Facebook, noting that the dominant social media platform has swallowed Instagram and WhatsApp and together they control 85% of the American market.  If Warren succeeds in breaking up the dominant platforms, she argues that they would compete in protecting user privacy and assert greater effort at combating the sort of mass misinformation that corrupted the 2016 presidential election. [1]

Zuckerberg’s counter argument is reminiscent of the big three automakers, the railroads and Standard Oil defending their market dominance.  The historical monopolies claimed that only they had the resources to serve the public interest.  Zuckerberg argues that only Facebook has the power and money to combat misinformation and foreign interests.  The problem of course is that Zuck and company lack motive.  Just like John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford, their primary motive is to boost market share and elevate the profit margin. 

Mark Zuckerberg has never demonstrated a social consciousness.  He responds with evasion, obfuscation and misinformation every time Facebook faces criticism.  Even if we could believe in his philanthropic values we should not.  History instructs us that corporate entities always serve their own interests.  Always.  Without exception.  How much power and wealth does Zuckerberg need?  The answer is and always will be:  more! 

Where was Zuckerberg’s social consciousness when Russian agents spent sizable sums creating fake accounts to distribute false facts and scandalous propaganda to targeted populations in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the 2016 election?  Did he know?  Yes.  He had to know.  Several members of Facebook were working directly with Donald Trump’s campaign, working alongside rightwing data operation Cambridge Analytica, in formulating advertisements and targeting Facebook users.  An estimated 126 million users were exposed to Russian propaganda and 85 million had their data stolen by Cambridge Analytica. [2]

There is no doubt that Russia used Facebook and Zuckerberg profited.  At his appearance before congress in April 2018 he testified that “tens of thousands” of fake accounts were identified and taken down in 2017 – after the election.  His solution for new verification requirements can easily be bypassed with shell companies and fake identifications. [3]

Zuckerberg failed to answer questions about the data Facebook provides Russian and other foreign agencies where Facebook operates.  Russia requires Facebook to store their data in Russia where they can access it.  The irony is rich in that Zuckerberg refuses to share data with the US government. 

I’m not suggesting that Facebook should share its data with the US government.  I am suggesting that it should not be sharing personal data with any government.  As it now stands corporations like Facebook operate in a Wild West environment where anything goes.  We have no way of knowing what data it retrieves and stores for analysis and what data it buries.  Moreover, we have absolutely no reason to trust Zuckerberg and his loyal minions.  In fact, we have every reason not to trust him. 

No one on the congressional committee thought to ask Zuckerberg what kind of assistance his employees provided to Russian fronts like the Internet Research Agency.  If they provided data used to target voting populations in critical states, their complicity in defrauding the 2016 election would rise to the critical zone. 

When you take a closer look at the services Facebook typically provides its corporate customers it becomes highly probable that they conspired with Russian interests in tipping the election.  For example, they provide a “custom audience” application that matches the client’s message with a receptive audience.  That is precisely what the Trump team needed to tip the balance in the critical states. 

Between barrages of tech talk that no one outside the industry understands Zuckerberg repeatedly asserted that users have the power to control their own data.  Really?  The truth is we have no idea what Big Brother does with the data we provide.  He repeatedly said they do not sell user data.  That is only true in the most abstract sense.  They use our personal data to feed algorithms that they then sell to advertisers who have something to sell to the user.  Without user data there would be nothing to sell. 

It goes on and on but the bottom line is clear:  Zuckerberg is no friend to American democracy or the public interest.  He and his people are smart enough to find ways to sell us out a million times over and make unconscionable sums of money doing it. 

Elizabeth Warren is right.  The big tech companies should be broken up.  The data monopolies they hold strictly for profit need to be placed under some form of public scrutiny and oversight.  Facebook and its enigmatic leader have earned our distrust.  Zuckerberg has established his place in history as a primary conspirator with Vladimir Putin in getting Donald Trump elected to office. 

If there were a way to put him and his operators in jail for what they did, I’d be all for it.  Unfortunately, the law has not begun to address the wilderness of technology – no less social media. 

Warren’s proposal is just a beginning.  To the extent possible we should break up the media monopolies.  We should also make sure that political ads are delivered with absolute transparency.  If the source is Russian it should be clearly stated.  If the source is Facebook, it should say that as well.  Never again should we be inundated by anonymous popup ads that inform us what to believe without regard for the facts. 

Google, the ubiquitous search engine and owner of YouTube, is even more dominant than Facebook.  In twenty years of existence it has grown to control nearly 90% of all searches on the global market. [1]

It is clear that the algorithms that Google employs to generate sources and their order of presentation have the power to effect our opinions and perspective on the news of the day.  Conservatives complain that Google demonstrates a liberal bias and researchers have found some basis for that complaint.  A media organization called AllSides found in late 2018 that roughly 65% of news sources generated by Google searches yield left-leaning results while only 16% were from the right.  The organization also found that the bias was not intentional per se.  Their algorithms were designed to serve their users and their users tend to be younger and more progressive than the general public. [2]

While we should be more concerned with the validity of news content than perceived political bias, we should be able to access unbiased news through our primary news sources.  It seems to me that some form of user control should be offered if indeed we are unable to break up the monopoly of news. 

Once again, as we transition from traditional news providers to internet-based news sources, we are entering a bold new world of information dissemination.  We need new tools to ensure that what we once called news is not transformed into pure bias-controlled propaganda.  We need standards of journalism to apply to web-based news and we need a non-partisan government agency to monitor the news and enforce fundamental standards of journalism.  That which is not news should be clearly labeled as opinion. 

What do we do about the more traditional news providers?  We know that only a handful of massive corporations with international corporate interests own the primary news sources via television, radio and print media.  We know that the corps of serious journalists and reporters has suffered major cutbacks.  We know that large corporations are nearly impossible to sue for unsubstantiated news or biased reporting due to their deep pockets and scores of high-powered attorneys. [3]

As a consequence, news organizations get away with murder.  Fox News reports one set of facts – adhering closely to the Republican Party talking points – and MSNBC reports another set of facts that too often bear a close resemblance to the Democratic Party talking points.  We suspect that every news organization has a hidden economic and/or political agenda and too often we are right. 

What can we do? 

The first thing that comes to mind is separating news media and journalism from all other corporate entities.  Knowing that opposition will be fierce and buttressed by deep pockets and legions of litigators, multinational corporations with inherent conflicts of interest should have no control of the news industry.  Noting that only media is protected by the first amendment to the constitution, AT&T should be forced to divest itself of CNN.  Walt Disney should be compelled to divest itself of ABC.  Comcast should divest itself of ABC and Media Networks.  In print media, Amazon should divest itself of the venerated Washington Post. 

In radio the picture is even more complex.  The worlds of entertainment, propaganda, news and commentary often overlap.  The same principle should apply.  If we can force the separation of news and journalism from all other corporate interests, we should do so.  To the extent that we cannot separate them, we should require an impenetrable firewall that prevents the corporate masters from influencing the news or informed editorial content. 

The corporate world has spent a lot of time and resources gaining control of the flow of information.  They will not give up that control without a fight.  They hold the reigns of mass messaging.  They will offer dozens of established experts and commentators that will offer a vast array of arguments why it is neither possible nor advisable to break up the media monopolies and separate the news from corporate interests.  They have the money and they have the platforms to deliver their message.  We only have ourselves and common sense. 

In its 2019 report, Reporters without Borders ranked the United States of America 48^th in the world for upholding the principles of a free media.  The report noted that our president has declared the press enemies of the people and consistently labels news reports unfavorable to his interests as “fake news.”  The report also notes the failure of the Trump administration to condemn the Saudi Arabian government for the brutal assassination of Washington Post contributor and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi. [4]

Forty-eighth out of 180 countries is hardly good enough for the land of the free. 

If we believe in democracy we must do all we can to ensure a free flow of unbiased information.  Democracy depends on an informed citizenry and an informed citizenry depends on a free and fair press – including the media. 

1. “18+ stats that show how search and SEO are changing.”  By Rebecca Sentence.

Econsultancy, October 28, 2019.

2. “AllSides Report on Google News Bias: Analysis of political bias of Google News and

Google News search results.”  AllSides.  October 16, 2018.

3.     “These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies.”  By Kate Vinton.  Forbes, June 1, 2016.    

4.     “2019 World Press Freedom Index.”  Reporters without Borders. 

Jack Random is the author of Hard Times: The Wrath of an Angry God and the Jazzman Chronicles – a collection of 99 commentaries on American and International Affairs from 2000 to 2014 (Crow Dog Press).