A recent article on Time's web-site discusses the link between global warming and increased frequency and ferocity of hurricanes. The issue of climate change seems to be gaining more and more awareness in the public's consciousness. Many more governments around the world are having serious discussions and implementing new policies to tackle the problem. The U.S. however seems to be getting left behind. President Bush's decision not to support the Kyoto accord on climate change was reviled by environmentalists. Bush's reasoning of Kyoto not being good for the U.S. economy is particularly short sighted and simplistic. What about the economic impact of climate change? Hurricane Andrew in 1992 caused an estimated $26 billion in damage. Hurricane Katrina, following almost the same storm path and being stronger than Andrew, will surely top that price tag. On top of this, oil prices and gas prices will certainly soar to new records. FEMA will undoubtedly pay out millions if not billions from the federal treasury to help the afflicted regions. Of course there have been hurricanes long before humans started driving SUVs and chopping down trees, but worsening hurricanes is yet another example, among the millions of examples, of how climate change is deleterious to the U.S. economy. From all the media coverage of the Hurricane there seems to be very little discussion of how climate change ties in with this. Of course the issue of the damage caused by hurricanes can go way beyond climate change. What about sustainable growth and the over-development of coastal areas? The federal government plays a big part in encouraging/discouraging development of property in high risk hurricane and flood zones. Are we going to perpetuate a cycle of continually building up expensive developments and million-dollar homes, having them wiped out by hurricanes, FEMA paying for disaster relief and insurance bail-outs, and then doing it all over again? The media loves to show the bleak pictures of devastation left in the wake of the storms, but where's the discussion of how we as a society might live in more sustainable planned and built communities? Joe Scarborough is a former congressman from Florida, someone I expect would have some perspective on these issues. I’ll be watching his show, hoping to find some kind of insights into these hurricane related issues.

Is it just me or does the mainstream media seem obsessed with a handful of sensationalized cases? While watching Scarborough Country last night I decided to record the amount of time spent on each topic. Last night's show had five topics of discussion. Three of the five topics I've lumped into a category I call "milk carton", which were: 1) Natalie Holloway, 2) Olivia Newton-John's missing boyfriend, and 3) the missing cruise ship honeymooner. Topics four and five were: 4) a segment on great white shark habitat near San Francisco and 5) Hurricane Katrina. The show also had a one minute break for a "news update". The pie chart shows the percentage of time the show dedicated to each category. Certainly there is a public interest in hearing about missing persons and criminal cases. I'm not trying to minimize or play-down the seriousness and tragedy of those cases, but it seems to me that there is a grossly disproportionate amount of time being spent on those topics. I know what you're probably thinking; my tiny sample of one show on one night of the year is hardly representative of the overall content in the vast sea of media sources in America. Well I'm a bit of a news junky, and although I don't have the time or patience to collect a larger, more scientific sample, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'd be hard pressed to find a cable news channel with a content distribution much different than the one shown above. I know there are media sources that are less sensationalized and tabloidesque, but television news is a pretty big slice of the overall pie. This is my primary frustration with the mainstream media (MSM). Where's the discussion of issues that impact the daily lives of all Americans? How can important topics like education, healthcare, social security, the environment, the economy, etc... get so swamped out by two or three criminal investigations? If the MSM is going to get so wrapped up in one or two cases I expect it to be something really crazy, like Dick Cheney disappears without a trace while vacationing in Aruba and was last seen at a night club in the company of three young men. Now that's a story where I'd understand the MSM setting up camp outside the secrete service headquarters and demanding answers.

It's all about the ratings and what sells, and the MSM have bills to pay, right? I don't buy that argument. I think quality, informative news programs would sell. But that type of programming is much harder to put together. It requires research, investigating, thoughtful and intelligent staff, talent and creativity, all of which requires time and money. Analyzing a complex world and presenting the hard choices and trade-offs that we face is a daunting undertaking. But rather than stepping up to this challenge, the MSM have largely cowered under a facade of fake news, tabloidism, and nauseating repetition. The mainstream media are apparently too cheap to spend the resources to get the job done right. In the process of cutting costs, and increasing the return to their investors, they're cheapening and cheating the American people. In the end I think they may end up undermining their own interests of staying in business. As the quality of news coming from the MSM deteriorates, people may turn to alternative sources, to the technologies that are enabling less centralized and more distributed forms of mass communication. And when the big stories do break, people may have become so used to tuning out the static and chatter that the MSM will be obsolete and irrelevant. Or at least I can dream...

Now to somewhat contradict myself, there is a part of me that is glad that the media is rushing to the aid of families like the Holloways who are enduring a heart-breaking tragedy. I feel terrible for those families, and I hope they get the help they need. I admire Joe Scarborough for committing so many resources of his show to helping. But to keep things in perspective, there must be more than one American teen that has gone missing over the last several months. There is a glaring disproportionality in the way these things are covered in the media. I intend to continue tracking this disproportionality and lack of common-sense.

On August 23rd, 2005, Bill Maher appeared on Scarborough Country (see transcript). Bill Maher has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration, and the religous right, and is the host of HBO's show "Real Time with Bill Maher". Rather than blasting Bill Maher for critisizing the mistakes made in Iraq and calling for the troops to come home, Joe Scarborough had kind words for someone with an opposing view. Joe said he respected Bill Maher for being fair, and for not having an ideologically driven position on the war in Iraq. I couldn't agree with Joe Scarborough more on those points. As I've stated before, there's nothing worse than partisan ideologues. I am however still left wondering how it is that Joe Scarborough can blast Senator Chuck Hagel for voicing concerns over the war, saying that Chuck Hagel was hanging the troops out to dry, but is respectful and courteous towards Bill Maher's opinions. I guess I'll just have to let that one go. For Aug. 23rd, 2005, Joe scored a 5 (out of 5) on the common-sense scale, brining up that low average for the week. Good job Joe!

Today I read Joe's recent blog entry titled "Moral relativity in the age of terror". With a big sexy title like that I got all geared up to read a meticulously crafted article perhaps laying out the glaring moral contradictions and fallacies in the left's doctrine on fighting the war against Islamic extremism. I guess that was a silly expectation to begin with, especially considering that there probably isn't even any clearly articulated and identifiable doctrine on fighting Islamic extremism that could be broadly attributed to the entire "left". But at the very least I did expect Joe to hit me with something thought-provoking, and maybe even controversial.

Joe's article was a terse, heavy criticism of the human rights group Amnesty International for a report issued on human rights violations in Iraq, titled "Iraq - In cold blood: abuses by armed groups". Joe's issue with the report seems to be two fold: 1) Amnesty's usage of the term "armed groups" in place of "terrorists" and 2) Amnesty's reporting of human rights violations committed by US troops, which Joe refers to as "obscene on their face". Joe backs up his categorical rejection of Amnesty's report on U.S. troop violations by making statements like: "American troops do not detonate bombs in the middle of a group of children collecting candy." which although true seems to be the rebuttal of a claim that was never made in the Amnesty report. The examples of U.S. violations that Amnesty does site are well known and widely reported cases such as the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Amnesty report unequivocally condemns the insurgent attacks targeting civilians referring to them as "perfidious", "marked by appalling brutality" and uses the strongest possible language by describing the insurgent attacks on civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report is lengthy and grim in it's documentation of human rights violations committed by the "armed groups" or insurgents. In the brief section of the report that does address U.S. military human rights abuses, the report focuses on recommending that the U.S. military apply humanitarian law to detainees, and take extra precautions in the use of "proportional" force to mitigate harm to civilians and non-combatants. Recommendations that I would say are coherent with a policy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and steps that our Military is probably actively improving.

I see no problem with Amnesty's rational for using the term "armed groups". It's clear to anyone who even skims over the report that Amnesty is also calling the "armed groups" war criminals and accusing them of crimes against humanity. In that sense, Joe's definition of a "terrorist" is no different than Amnesty's definition of an "armed group". Slamming Amnesty for the minutia of their semantics just seems like Joe is reaching far and wide for reasons to dicredit them.

After reading Joe's article I was left with the impression that Amnesty's report must have been, in a nut-shell, giving the U.S. a big "F" and the insurgents a "C+" or maybe "B-" on their human rights record. But after reading the Amnesty report I couldn't reconcile the disconnect between Joe's harsh criticisms of Amnesty International and the reality of their report. Joe concludes his article by stating: "Amnesty is so blinded of their hatred of America and its president that they can no longer tell right from wrong." I'm left wondering what the basis for that claim is, and how he can conclude that a group whose very existance is dedicated to the protection of human rights is engaging in moral relativism. Amnesty International's stance on human rights is one of the few consistently applied moral absolutes. They defend the human rights of all people, everywhere.

Joe Scarborough demonstrates a great moral absolute of his own. It seems that Joe's position is that America can do no wrong, that, by definition, everything America does is right since it is righteous in its fight against terror. It's only from that position of intransigent support of American policy that anyone could conclude that Amnesty's report is obscene and that Amnesty harbors hatred towards America.

I'm betting that what's driving me nuts is also driving quite a few other people crazy. My blog's title, "Irregular Joe", generally refers to the ills that I think are plaguing the mainstream media in this country. I can't exactly cover such a broad topic, so I've decided to limit my topic to MSNBC's show "Scarborough Country", hosted by Joe Scarborough.

Why pick on Joe? Because I like Joe, and I think he's capable of seeing the other side of an argument and acknowledging its merits. That basic civility and respect for another's point of view seems to be fading from American politics and news programs. Unlike many of his contemporaries, I think Joe Scarborough has demonstrated honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness, and intense loyalty. This loyalty at times can easily be confused as bigotry and vehement partisan bullheadedness. But I think there is a difference between Joe Scarborough and the many in his line of work that are blinded and consumed by their hatred for the opposition. If I can't keep Joe on the honest track, by deconstructing and examining the arguments expressed on his program, at least I've formulated my own opinions on the matter and perhaps gained some knowledge and insight into the issues.

I've watched "Scarborough Country", regularly and intermittently for the past several years. I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with most of what Mr. Scarborough has to say. Some of what Joe says is on the mark. Some of it seems ridiculous, and a lot of it sounds like blatant partisan propaganda. But what I've come to realize is that show's like "Scarborough Country" seem to be becoming the norm on Cable news stations. I see that trend as disconcerting, and something all Americans who care about the health of our democracy should be concerned about.

Joe is up-front about the fact that his show is an "opinion show", namely his opinion, and in principle I see nothing wrong with opinion shows. Where I see a problem is that this genre of red-state, blue-state, partisan showdown news programming is becoming the way we discuss issues in this country. I see it as further polarizing the political discourse in this country and debasing and harshening the tone of our debates and disagreements. It seems that the politicians, and now the media, are becoming ideologues, squeezing out the middle ground with their extreme left and right wing politics, and failing to deliver the pragmatic compromises that America needs and most Americans genuinely crave. The partisan rhetoric and propaganda is the static that is becoming deafeningly loud and threatens to drown out the voices of moderation, tolerance and diversity.

The quality of our news sources and the relevance of the content coming from the mainstream media seems to be sinking lower and lower. Cable news is awash with hour upon hour of reporting and "investigating" of celebrity trials and sensationalized missing person cases. The relentless news coverage of sensationalized criminal cases is the static that is swamping out the information and rational discourse that Americans need to face the tough issues of our time.

The people I interact with in my daily life, people who work regular jobs to pay their bills and raise a family, people who work towards building a brighter future for their families and communities, people who care about the future of this country and the planet, are not worried about celebrity trials. We worry about things like globalization, outsourcing, the environment, corporate and government corruption, health care, education, retirement, security, and yes crime, but not to the inordinate degree that one would conclude by turning on a cable news channel. We worry that a polarized and ideologically driven political system will squabble incessantly in dead-lock and fail to address the big issues of our time. We worry that the issues that really affect us are being drowned out by the comparatively irrelevant and meaningless static. In part I blame the media for it's poor stewardship and dereliction of the vital duty to keep the electorate informed and be a vigilant government and corporate watchdog.

Programs like "Scarborough Country" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. I'm not blaming Joe Scarborough for all the failings and imperfections of the media and the American political system. I don't intend to single out Joe and bash him for his opinions. If Joe's opinions are well reasoned and thought out, even if I disagree with them, I'll respect that and formulate my reasons why I agree or disagree. I also intend to track the content of Scarborough Country as an example of the disproportionate amount of journalistic and media resources spent on a few isolated criminal and celebrity cases. I intend to point out the shameful partisan rhetoric when I see it. The ideologues that blindly follow the party line, while incessantly berating and smearing anyone in opposition are turning the political discourse in this country toxic. My goal is to point out the hypocricy of blind partisanship and to call it the venom that it is. It's the poison that is doing this country no good and Americans should not tolerate the demagoguery and smearing that permeates politics. Joe Scarborough espouses common sense, and I intend to hold him to that.

I'll conclude my inaugural post with the root-cause of my decision to start a blog on this topic. Today I emailed Scarborough Country to express my displeasure at attacks that Joe and a guest leveled against Senator Chuck Hagel for an appearance that he made on Sunday, Aug. 21st, 2005 where he expressed concern about the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. I just got fed-up of watching partisan ideologues smear people with opposing views rather than having an honest discourse and debate of the issues. The kind of poisonous assault on Senator Hagel for his remarks is precisely the kind of partisan rhetoric that is dishonest, toxic and hurts the political discourse. It seemed that Joe Scarborough was particularly upset that Senator Hagel, a republican, would dare express a view that does not favor the Bush administration. For Monday, Aug. 22nd, 2005, Joe Scarborough certainly towed the party line. Joe, your lack of tollerance for decenting opinions within your own party is making you look like a partisan ideologue. But tomorrow's another day. Maybe you can tone down the rhetoric and address the issues.

The transcript of Joe's shameful remarks can be found here (or check msnbc.com).

my email to MSNBC:
Joe,
How you can equate Senator Hagel's comments to undercutting our troops is the most outlandish non sequitur I have heard in some time. Siding with someone that accuses Sen. Hagel of helping the insurgents and selling out our troops is beyond the pale. When are you going to realize that criticizing our government's policies is NOT a criticism of the men and women serving our country? It's really quite a simple concept; criticizing policy makers does not equate to criticizing the military that is bound to carry out those policies. Would you really rather live in an America where we all blindly support costly foreign wars, and never question our government, no matter how bad things seem to get? Vilifying and slandering those who raise questions and criticize, especially those who question something as important as a war, is a monumental disservice to everything that you've purported to stand for. An intelligent, articulate man such as you should be able to formulate a coherent, rational rebuttal to Sen. Hagel's remarks rather than teaming up with some partisan zealot and demonizing, condemning and bashing the Senator on the air. Many Americans share Senator Hagel’s concerns about our presence in Iraq continuing along the protracted and costly path that it has followed thus far. It’s outrageous that those Americans who are the most concerned and worried about the war (and the troops!), are accused of being traitors and sell-outs. If that’s the kind of demagoguery you’ve sunk to on your show, you can consider this casual viewer, a non-viewer.