« The Eternal, Infernal Disharmony in Being Half-Pregnant | Weblog | In a Pinch, Why Not Let Rock, Paper, Scissors Decide? »

Willful Ignorance Serves Its Purposes

In the Age of the Internet, how come good ideas don't circulate faster? Why do societies continue on for years with what they know are substandard practices, when measured against a global standard? As complex as problems seem, why don't we more readily adapt solutions from outside our traditional spheres?

A creative solution to a thorny problem arises in one country, yet even today, it remains infrequent that it gets copied and applied in another country. An article at the bottom of this post from 30 years ago blames the lack of comparative journalism - it's a failure of the press to do their jobs, in other words. I think it's that, but also, I think it's the nature of those in power in societies to preserve the status quo when it serves them, despite the loss to society.

It's no secret that we talk here on this site and countless others about the stellar status of broadband in other countries, for example, as we ponder the declining state of broadband infrastructure here in the US. Why then is there so little interest among our leaders in adopting winning approaches from abroad here at home? Were we so motivated, we could send a high level delegation around the world and gather information in a Best Practices Tour. But we're not so motivated. The FCC has handed off the reins of power to those it regulates, and they are quite content with things the way they are.

But why do we tolerate this, as a society? Don't we deserve the best of the best? Isn't that something of a tradition here in the States? The fact is, many in the US are parochial and xenophobic, content in the delusion that we have it better than those poor saps abroad. This is a myth that gets maintained in the media, as part of our culture. Societally, it's America Uber Alles. It's true in many areas, but not at all the case in many others. But if you haven't traveled much, it's not hard to remain content in that delusion that we lead the world in all things. It's what you want to believe, so you do.

Health Care is another good example, as is Energy Independence, and Climate Control. So, why do we lament that our system declines and yet we wring our hands and stand back and watch it get worse and worse? It's because parts of our society (not just Telecom & Cable, but also Insurance, Pharmaceutical, Oil & Gas, Coal, Big Business) benefit from the Status Quo and they see these problems differently than does society at large. It's quite rational, I think. They look at things and see them going just about as planned.

This type of asocial behavior by the largest corporations should at least give us pause to consider, but it's gone on so long that we often feel disempowered to effect change at the grassroots. But that is the promise of the upcoming political season. We can cross our fingers and hope, at least.

From the outside looking in, you'd think we prefer our substandard solutions, proud as we are that they're home-grown. That's part of it, but that's not all. Our feelings of being unique may lead us to say "They may be shitty solutions, but they're our shitty solutions, made right here in America!" But that doesn't answer the question sufficiently. That's too simple, too easy, and too snarky. Not altogether helpful, actually.

But I think we know the answers to these questions, we just don't talk often about it out loud, I guess because it just gets so frustrating, and we're all a little intimidated by such raw use of power. I don't know, I'm nursing this hypothesis that we have a mass public that is willfully ignorant because it serves the purposes of those in charge.

We don't change our current business practices here in the US even when we have good solutions at hand elsewhere around the globe that offer improvement because powerful interests benefit from the Status Quo. They actively work to prevent not only any full airing of issues that could accelerate change and threaten their leadership status, but also any threatening legislative or regulatory changes. It's just good business to manage change and doing so becomes what we now call "good politics."

That's where the media come in, if they cared, where their muckraking role is to highlight such situations, shining a light on other spots on the globe where people have more effectively dealt with problems. But the press has become part of the same problem. The mainstream media has grown too large, and it too has bought into the status quo concept, and reporters have become too unimaginative to dig around. It's sad to see such decline in the mainstream media, who have more tools than ever at their disposal to effect change and shine a light on such disparities.

I know that sounds paranoid, and honest, I don't regularly see conspiracies behind every bush and rock. But, this time, it's true. The media has become much more like large commercial interests, moving slowly so as not to disrupt the good thing they have. The very corporations they would expose are the ones who have ready cash to spend on advertising in their arenas, so it would not be in their self interest to dig too deeply to expose issues.

So at the bottom of this long post I've put a clip I found from over 30 years ago, decrying the poor state of media, where reporters let good solutions abroad go undiscovered here at home. I agree, it's a head scratcher...See this great site where I found this clip, for muckraking and trouble-causing, Neiman Watchdog: Questions the press should ask - it's the site of the Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

If we were to use this article as a guide, we'd have to conclude that the media has not improved a lot over the past several decades, Comparative Journalism remains in the toilet. But bashing the main stream media these days is about as sporting as shooting fish in a barrel, so let's save that for another column. The bottom line is that clearly, with the Internet in place, a lack of reporting these days is not for lack of knowing, but lack of caring.

Just look what I turned up in a couple of hours of digging using The Google. Put yourselves in the shoes of the CEO and you tell me what you would choose to do when faced with a better situation elsewhere. If you were CEO, would you: a) 'keep on keepin' on..." or b) embrace change with due haste!

So, let's say you're the executive at this company (results from Feb 2007) - We'll call this first one Company A.

Market Value $229.6 Billion
Profitability 10.1% (that's AVERAGE net profit over the past three years)
Sales Growth Rate = 15.0%
12-Month Sales = $63.1 Billion
12-Month Net Income = $7.4 Billion
Total Return Past 12 Months = 39.2%
Total Return Past 36 Months = 77.3%

I'm saying from where I'm sitting reporting to my Board of Directors - "It Ain't Broke, so Why Fix It."

Here's Company B.

Market Value $108.9 Billion
Profitability 13.5% (that's AVERAGE net profit over the past three years)
Sales Growth Rate = 8.1%
12-Month Sales = $88.1 Billion
12-Month Net Income = $5.5 Billion
Total Return Past 12 Months = 20.5%
Total Return Past 36 Months = 15.9%

Here's Company C.

Market Value $70.78 Billion
Profitability (EBITDA) = 27.2%
Sales Growth Rate = ?
12-Month Sales = $45.79 Billion
12-Month Net Income = $12.44 Billion

And Company D.

Market Value $74.21 Billion
Profitability (EBITDA) = 37.9%
Sales Growth Rate = ?
12-Month Sales = $28.56 Billion
12-Month Net Income = $10.81 Billion

These corporations are doing what they were formed to do - make money for their stockholders. I bet these companies are just dying to monkey with the Status Quo and bring in more competition. (note Heavy Dripping Irony here). Fact is, they're at the top of the heap, these days are the Good Times, and these four companies already control more than half of one industry that is just a part of their much broader communication and entertainment industries.

Companies A-D above are the leaders in the ISP business in the United States (see below).

Top ISPs 2007.png

ISP-Planet.com - Top 21 U.S. ISPs by Subscriber: Q2 2007

Company A is AT&T, B is Verizon, C is Time Warner (owns AOL and Road Runner), and D is ComCast. Together, these four companies alone control 56.5% of the ISP business in the US and they are largely unregulated these days, especially when it comes to broadband services.

Now I admit, this is a very unscientific, off-the-cuff analysis - this is no well-researched report by some professional journalist.

But consider the pull of the Status Quo as a Strategy. For every day that things stay the same, according to current data above, here's how much each company pockets - EACH DAY!

AT&T - $20,273,973
Verizon - $15,068,493
Time Warner - $33,972,603
ComCast- $29,616,438

Going a little further, let's figure out Net Income Per Minute. For every minute that things stay the same, these companies make this much...

AT&T - $14,079.15
Verizon - $10,464.23
Time Warner - $23,592.09
ComCast - $20,566.97

I may have misquoted some of these financial statistics, but they paint a pretty clear picture. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong on anything here.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge these folks their hard earned profits, neither these great companies, their management, their staffs, nor their shareholders. I have nothing against big companies, and certainly nothing against making money. But if our system is to maintain its integrity, I think we should all insist more loudly on a level playing field, where competitors compete fairly and earn their money by making good products and providing good services, not by lobbying state and federal legislators and regulators to continue in place rules that give them an unfair advantage. The system has gone out of balance, tilted as it is towards incumbents.

It's a stretch to say that these particular companies are operating in anything remotely resembling a competitive environment. And each minute, each day that continues with this Status Quo is another Great Day for these companies. They have it good - quite good - they are cash engines, and the formula for success when you're on top is fairly simple - "Maintain the Status Quo at all Costs." These parties have little incentive to change the rules of the game, and every incentive to maintain them. If you're CEO, you're obliged to keep the gravy train running as long as you can. It's up to the press to raise this issue when it starts to hurt society and it's up to the government to push it back to the center when it gets so far out of balance.

But what a story! Imagine the declining graph of broadband penetration, the complaints from users, in contrast to the financial results of these few companies that have it so well these days. A little more digging could make the story even more interesting.

Man, I wish some intrepid reporter would pick this one up...sighhhh. What are the odds? There are so many worthy topics to go cover, but we have:
a) breaking news about that poor former Playboy bunny who overdosed a while back;
b) Brittany may sue to win back custody of her kids;
c) Move On offended a general with a bad ad using a silly rhyme;
d) Rush said "Phony Soldiers;"
and e) Barack isn't wearing a flag lapel pin.

But first, a word from our sponsors. Triple Play. Viagra. Blaring Truck Ad. Beer and Babes.

Honestly. Individually, we're very smart, but get us together as a society and we revert to children. We can be such saps, and it's all relatively transparent.

Here's the note on the poor state of media from over 30 years ago, from Needed: better reporting on how problems are dealt with elsewhere Way to go, Morton Mintz! ... Amazing, it's as if he had a crystal ball and foresaw the rise of the Internet and the role of Blogs, way back then ...

At the Third A. J. Liebling CounterConvention, held in May of 1974, I gave the first reading before my peers of Mintz's Mass Media Proposition. I was careful to say that it is not an axiom, not a law; that it is full of loopholes, and should not be carried to extremes. I would like to repeat it here because, despite the qualifiers, it has, I believe, an essential validity. Here it is: If it's really important, it doesn't get the attention it deserves, or gets it late, or gets it only because some oddball pushes it. One little-noted manifestation of this situation is the lack of what Dan Morgan, a Washington Post colleague and friend, terms comparative journalism.

I am talking, first of all, about the kind of problems that cut close to the lives, health, and pocketbooks of our readers, such as the safety of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food and drugs we ingest, the vehicles in which we travel, the places where we work, and the power plants which supply us with electricity.

I am also talking about the prices we pay and the taxes we pay, and what we get for our money. We - our city, our state, our country - deal unsatisfactorily with many of the problems that fall under my general descriptions, as we all know. Other cities, other states, and other countries have found better, or at least innovative, answers to some of these sample problems, as we too often don't know. Which is my point: news media, albeit with certain qualifications, do not give reliable, sustained, prominent, and priority attention to telling us who's ahead in dealing with these problems, although they consistently give such attention to who's ahead in the National League.

Responding to criticism of their foreign coverage, some news media commendably have spent substantial sums to report wars, revolutions, disasters, diplomatic developments, persecutions, and the like, but they have yet to be seriously criticized for neglecting foreign coverage of problem-solving.

To cite a homely example, I have yet to meet a person who, in buying a house, didn't feel he was taken in charges for title search and title insurance. But how many people know that in England the government keeps the records, certifies titles, and charges small fees which go into a public insurance fund that pays off for any mistakes that occur? I didn't know that until recently, when I came on the news in a book - David Hapgood's "The Screwing of the Average Man."

Again, we all know that men and women throughout the country find their jobs deadly dull and dehumanizing and their work environment authoritarian. How many of us know anything at all of the fascinating story of the experiments in industrial democracy - the possession of real decision-making power, over substantial matters, by an enterprise's employees - which have transformed workplaces in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, Britain, West Germany, and, if you please, the United States? I found that story, once again, in a book - David Jenkins's "Job Power: Blue and White Collar Democracy."

We don't always have to go abroad to find a case in point. In the 1950s, when I was an assistant city editor at the Globe Democrat in St. Louis, I had the pleasure - and it really was that - of persuading the management that we should investigate the cozy relationship between the State of Missouri and favored banks.

Essentially, it was a classic relationship in which the state, whether the governor was a Democrat or a Republican, deposited tens of millions of dollars in favored banks for long periods at no interest. The banks then invested the funds, sometimes in small loans on which the interest rate ran as high as 28 percent.

Appropriately grateful, the banks made the necessary but relatively trivial campaign contributions, always, of course, without evidencing narrow partisanship. As a result of a superb three-month investigation by Carl E. Major and Ray J. Noonan, the bank lobby not only collapsed, but was so deeply embarrassed that it ended up actually supporting a constitutional amendment requiring investment of idle funds. The amendment was adopted and, in the first year in which it was in effect, yielded the taxpayers about $1 million which, for all practical purposes, would otherwise have been stolen from them.

But where was the comparative journalism to carry Missouri's example effectively to media in other states, some of which still collect little or no interest on public funds? With happy result, The Washington Post exposed Maryland's wasteful handling of its idle state funds - but that was not until 1973.

I suspect that the lack or insufficiency of comparative journalism internationally may have graver consequences. For starters, George Orwell, in his autobiographical "The Road to Wigan Pier," warned in 1937 against sterile public housing; we here paid no heed. Again, although Scandinavia has been a pacesetter in dealing with numerous areas of common concern, this aspect has generally been as remote in our news media as the dark side of the moon;

Scandinavia has tended, instead, to become synonymous with pornography, alcoholism, suicide, and deserters. We have heard little about a system devised in Sweden for rating automobiles for insurance purposes in terms of relative collision-repair costs, about a system which pipes apartment house garbage underground, about the good housing, about delivery of health care services, about the protection of miners. (A couple of recent, noteworthy exceptions were in The New York Times: Lawrence K. Altman's pieces on hospitals in Sweden, and Agis Salpukas's articles on efforts in Scandinavia to humanize mass production.)

Not long ago I learned that the Scandinavian countries had concluded a unique treaty under which a citizen of one of them who had suffered damages from pollution originating in another of the countries acquires, for purposes of litigation, citizenship in the country which was the pollution source. But how did I learn this? From a letter - not a story - in The New York Times sent in by a man who noted that U.S. media had given the treaty no attention…

The message, I believe, is this: many countries facing problems similar to our own have pioneered new approaches and, sometimes, come up with solutions; yet our news media remain insufficiently concerned to give this kind of foreign news the coverage it obviously deserves.

Posted on October 12, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Comments


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)