Each generation is raised less and less by its parents, who are stretched so thin they both have to work full-time, if they're still together at all (half aren’t). They trust their children’s upbringing to a drastically underfunded education system, upon which just three percent of America’s $3.95 trillion budget is spent, and that includes funding for training, employment and social services as well.

How the federal government spends $3.95 trillion

U.S. spending on education declined three percent from 2010 to 2014 despite schools already scraping the bottom of the job applicant barrel because they can't afford to pay living wages. Students know that so avoid going into teaching, leaving fewer and fewer adequate teachers to educate let alone raise kids. That’s why manners and civility have gone out the window, too, because teachers are just trying to make it through the day instead of checking the bad behavior of their students. Teaching is hard enough without having to play parent, too.

The problem with Millennials is their parents never changed the channel. If Generation X was raised on television, Millennials are being raised on YouTube. Basically, it would be like Gen Xers growing up having watched nothing but America's Funniest Home Videos and reality TV with no budget or production crew or mission besides clicks and follows hosted by vain, selfish seekers of celebrity. Mister Rogers has been replaced by a pervy-looking guy going by PewDiePie who was dropped by Disney for posting anti-Semitic videos.

Now that there's nothing governing media production or publication, and nothing stopping anyone from publishing whatever strikes their fancy, there’s a lot more content, both entertaining and educational, available to consumers. There’s no shortage of educational options out there for parents. In fact, there’s more quality, educational content available than ever before. But there’s also more content being created strictly for entertainment purposes, and parents are glad to let children choose their own channels because it gets them out of parenting, so they can selfishly change channels on their own screens.

The children of my generation knew better than to change the channel because our parents parented in single-screen households. Sure, we’d sneak in an episode of Beavis and Butt-Head or South Park when our parents weren’t watching the tube (or us), but we also watched what our parents watched when they were watching television. Our first fight over the remote let us know we had no choice in the matter. Nowadays children aren’t losing that first fight over the remote. There’s no one dictating the content consumption of children, and the children are worse for it.

By the time kids are physically able, they’re holding a screen the size of their face that diverts their attention, and parents are giving up the channel changer as soon as possible, trusting in child-safe, software features that do nothing to govern content quality (until recently), only quantity of explicit content. Children dictating their content consumption undermines parents’ ability to effectively parent because of the availability of alternative screens and means of accessing that content.It used to be when you were grounded you didn’t have access to screens, and some parents are still taking phones and tablets and computers away as punishment for bad behavior. And kudos to them for doing so, but these screens are a part of our education system now. iPads are first-grade tools not unlike chalk and chalkboards, and the more these devices are accepted as everyday accommodations, like televisions were, the more children will abuse the availability of those tools.

Just think of how few people get their news from actual newspapers anymore. We’ve abused our privilege of the free press to the point we’ve actually forced the free press to give us a better reason why we should consume their content besides simply knowing the truth. Television news used to tell truths, too, until capitalists realized entertaining content—not educational content—produces the most capital, turning Edward R. Murrow from news reporter to entertainment reporter.

The problem with Millennials stems from the problem with capitalism with regards to education. That is, an educated workforce results in less capital produced, while an entertained workforce results in more capital produced. It is not in the interest of the haves to educate the have nots but to entertain them just enough for them to be content with what they have. That was the playbook followed by slave owners, and it’s the playbook followed by the ruling class to this day.

The fact that the production of entertainment comes cheaper and cheaper with every screen placed into the hands of children throughout America satisfies the capitalists just fine. But it’s well past time for parents to change the channel for their Millennial children if they ever want their kids to consume content that educates. Kids aren’t as likely to find that content on their own.    


If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in Opinion

I am probably like you in that - I hardly ever watch the Emmy Awards. And why is that? Well, for starters there was a run of 20 years where the exact same network shows won year after year. And if it wasn’t the exact same show it was, well, kind of the same type of show. Hill Street Blues, LA Law, NYPD Blue, The Practice, West Wing, the Sopranos. Seriously, that was like - 20 years! The same shows.

And what about those same 20 years in comedy? Well - Cheers, Murphy Brown and Frasier basically dominated from 83-98. Fifteen years and three shows pretty much won year after year.

And that gets pretty dull.

Don’t get me wrong. The morning after the Emmy’s I would always check in to see who won. But I don’t think I saw the show once between maybe 1988 and 2005. Or maybe I saw it once, or twice. But not often.

And that seems to be par for the course for most Americans. Now, keep in mind that the Emmy awards never kept track of viewers until 1990 and for about a decade viewership remained consistently within the 15-20 million range; however, ever since Ryan Seacrest took over the Emmy awards in 2007 (where The Sopranos and 30 Rock won top honors) the Emmys have struggled to get more than 12 million viewers.

There was one highlight in 2013 where show host Neil Patrick Harris brought in almost 18 million viewers (I watched that one!) but for the most part viewership has been declining for the past decade.

This seems odd to me. Once the “Golden Age of Television” began, about - ten years ago, I assumed that a wider variety of nominated shows would bring in a wider audience. For those not in the know, the “Golden Age of Television” has kind of universally been known as the rise of the cable programing and the decline of network TV all within the past decade.

Basically, all it suggests is that extremely high quality, high concept, original and sophisticated TV is universally found on cable stations these days, with the networks picking up a rare gem but usually floundering in the dark with dead fish, after dead fish.

Again, I assumed that a wider net cast by the Emmys would pull in a bigger catch. But, I was wrong. (And enough with the fish metaphors).

The most Emmy nominations by network for 2018 (2017 was similar with Netflix and HBO swapping places):  

  • Netflix 112
  • HBO 108
  • NBC 78
  • FX Network 50
  • CBS 34
  • ABC 31
  • Hulu 27
  • Prime Video 22
  • Showtime 21
  • National Geographic 17

 

Wow. So Netflix received almost as many nominations as all three major networks combined. Of course, with the amount of original content that Netflix pumps out, I guess I am not surprised (I confess I get a little overwhelmed when decided what to watch on Netflix). But still. How long are the networks going to broadcast the Emmy awards when the prime time networks hardly win any Emmys?

In the past ten years, all the best drama winners have been from cable stations (mainly AMC and HBO). Best variety show has been a cable show since 2003 (Comedy Central has dominated this category until HBO took over very recently).  Admittedly, 6 of the past 10 comedy winners were from the networks but that was because Modern Family won for 5 years in a row until Veep (HBO) took over for three years. Glancing over all acting categories I would say there is a pretty even mix of network to cable stations winning.

So, yes, there is a network that wins here there and everywhere but those number dwindle as the years pass. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.

Anyway, it has been reported everywhere that this year was the lowest rated Emmy awards ever. I don’t know why. Perhaps audiences have grown tired of the same old cable shows winning again and again. And I guess I can’t blame them. It’s the very same reason I stopped watching in the first place.

Also, it should be noted. I didn’t watch the Emmy awards this year, either. But the morning after I looked over the winners and I did watch the opening monologue, which I thought that was pretty good. So I attached it.

And for those that are interested in such things, here is a list of all the nominations and winners:

Outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series

Louie Anderson," Baskets"

Alec Baldwin, "Saturday Night Live"

Tituss Burgess, "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"

Brian Tyree Henry, "Atlanta"

Tony Shalhoub, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"

Kenan Thompson, "Saturday Night Live"

Henry Winkler, "Barry" *WINNER

Outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series

Zazie Beetz, "Atlanta"

Alex Borstein, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

Aidy Bryant, "Saturday Night Live"

Betty Gilpin, "GLOW"

Leslie Jones, "Saturday Night Live"

Kate McKinnon, "Saturday Night Live"

Laurie Metcalf, "Roseanne"

Megan Mullally, "Will & Grace"

 

Outstanding lead actor in a limited series or TV movie

Antonio Banderas, "Genius: Picasso"

Darren Criss, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER

Benedict Cumberbatch, "Patrick Melrose"

Jeff Daniels, "The Looming Tower"

John Legend, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"

Jesse Plemons, "USS Callister (Black Mirror)"

Outstanding lead actress in a limited series or TV movie

Jessica Biel, "The Sinner"

Laura Dern, "The Tale"

Michelle Dockery, "Godless"

Edie Falco, "Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders"

Regina King, "Seven Seconds" *WINNER

Sarah Paulson, "American Horror Story: Cult"

Outstanding lead actor in a comedy series

Anthony Anderson, "Black-ish"

Ted Danson, "The Good Place"

Larry David, "Curb Your Enthusiasm"

Donald Glover, "Atlanta"

Bill Hader, "Barry" *WINNER

William H. Macy, "Shameless"

Outstanding lead actress in a comedy series

Pamela Adlon, "Better Things"

Rachel Brosnahan, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

Allison Janney, "Mom"

Issa Rae, "Insecure"

Tracee Ellis Ross, "Black-ish"

Lily Tomlin, "Grace and Frankie"

Outstanding supporting actress in a limited series or movie

Sara Bareilles, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live In Concert"

Penelope Cruz, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Judith Light, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Adina Porter, "American Horror Story: Cult"

Merritt Wever, "Godless" *WINNER

Letitia Wright,"Black Mirror (Black Museum)"

Outstanding supporting actor in a limited series or movie

Jeff Daniels, "Godless" *WINNER

Brandon Victor Dixon,"Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"

John Leguizamo, "Waco"

Ricky Martin, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Edgar Ramirez, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Michael Stuhlbarg, "The Looming Tower"

Finn Wittrock, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Outstanding lead actor in a drama series

Jason Bateman, "Ozark"

Sterling K. Brown, "This Is Us"

Ed Harris, "Westworld"

Matthew Rhys, "The Americans" *WINNER

Milo Ventimiglia, "This Is Us"

Jeffrey Wright, "Westworld"

Outstanding lead actress in a drama series

Claire Foy, "The Crown" *WINNER

Tatiana Maslany, "Orphan Black"

Elisabeth Moss, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Sandra Oh, "Killing Eve"

Keri Russell, "The Americans"

Evan Rachel Wood, "Westworld"

Outstanding supporting actor in a drama series

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, "Game of Thrones"

Peter Dinklage, "Game of Thrones" *WINNER

Joseph Fiennes, "The Handmaid's Tale"

David Harbour, "Stranger Things"

Mandy Patinkin, "Homeland"

Matt Smith, "The Crown"

 

Outstanding supporting actress in a drama series

Alexis Bledel, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Millie Bobby Brown, "Stranger Things"

Ann Dowd, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Lena Headey,"Game of Thrones"

Vanessa Kirby, "The Crown"

Thandie Newton, "Westworld" *WINNER

Yvonne Strahovski, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Outstanding reality/competition series

"The Amazing Race"

"American Ninja Warrior"

"Project Runway"

"RuPaul's Drag Race" *WINNER

"Top Chef"

"The Voice"

Outstanding variety sketch series

"At Home with Amy Sedaris"

"Drunk History"

"I Love You, America"

"Portlandia"

"Saturday Night Live" *WINNER

"Tracey Ullman's Show"

Outstanding variety talk series

"Full Frontal with Samantha Bee"

"Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

"Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" *WINNER

"The Daily Show with Trevor Noah"

"The Late Late Show with James Corden"

"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"

Outstanding limited Series

"The Alienist"

"The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER

"Genius: Picasso"

"Godless"

"Patrick Melrose"

Outstanding comedy series

"Atlanta"

"Barry"

"Black-ish"

"Curb Your Enthusiasm"

"GLOW"

"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

"Silicon Valley"

"Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"

Outstanding drama series

"Game of Thrones" *WINNER

"The Handmaid's Tale"

"Stranger Things"

"The Americans"

"This Is Us"

"Westworld"

 

Published in Entertainment

The only surprise from the recent barrage of sexual allegations brought against, first, members of Hollywood’s power elite, and later, members of the political power elite, is that it took this long for victims to air their allegations. It should surprise no one that Kevin Spacey and Louis CK are sexually deviant, and it should surprise no one that men granted political power -- even George Bush and Al Franken -- tend to be predatorily handsy.

Perhaps the victims of America’s politicians needed Hollywood’s victims to come out to feel safe enough to reveal the wrongdoings of their alleged predators. That too should surprise no one. After all, a Hollywood producer like Harvey Weinstein might be able to write a check and make allegations of sexual harassment disappear, but an American politician could make their accuser disappear. All it would take is a bit of evidence planting to place an American citizen in Guantanamo Bay and never give them a trial.

American politics are more like House of Cards than most people would probably like to believe. That show would be a hit with or without Spacey because Americans love the criminal or violent nature of competition in all things -- politics included. Television ratings are indicative of this.

While the 2016 Presidential Election drew eyes away from NFL games, Sunday Night Football was still the most watched television show of the 2016-17 season, followed by Thursday Night Football, then NCIS, a show about investigating violent, criminal acts. Another Thursday Night Football game rounded out the top four. Violence draws viewers.

If you include online television offerings, Orange is the New Black tops the list of most watched streaming shows of last year -- a show about life in prison. Next is Stranger Things, a show about supernatural forces, conspiracy theories and governmental corruption. Fuller House, a sequel to the family favorite Full House, is refreshingly third most-watched, followed by two Marvel shows featuring comic book heroes, and, no doubt, violence. House of Cards was sixth.

American politics were a reality TV show long before Donald Trump or House of Cards. The Red Scare, Vietnam, Watergate, the Cold War, the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf War, Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, the antics of George W. Bush -- all were watched by all, turning public servants into celebrities. When you put people on a pedestal, they’ll take advantage of it in order to stay there.

Regardless, the problem is not that these men are ill-trained to deal with women in the workplace. Training is not the issue, regardless of what lawmakers say. Men shouldn’t require obedience training in order to recognize that exposing their genitals or grabbing people by the genitals on any floor let alone the House floor is wrong. Every instance of that behavior was committed by someone incapable of serving public office. That’s it, and that’s all.

I don’t care if you grew up when Mad Men office behavior was the norm, and James Bond was still groping Moneypenny. Your inability or unwillingness to change your behavior is exactly why Congress has accomplished fuck all since Obamacare. You are stuck in your ways, and they aren’t the ways of the American people.

This is our problem and our fault as voters. Notice that it’s rarely women accused of sexual misconduct, yet the overwhelming majority of our elected officials are men. This problem could be avoided almost entirely if we elected more women to office.

Less than 20 percent of U.S. Congressional seats are filled by women, and less than 25 percent of state legislators are women. There are just six female governors, and only 39 women have ever served as governor.

So during the 2018 midterm elections, instead of looking for a “D” or an “R” behind an unfamiliar name on the ballot, consider giving women the advantage for once. At the very least, they tend to keep their hands to themselves.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights

Published in News & Information

Until “journalists” intend to provide objective journalism, there will be none. And while objectivity is an impossibility, there’s a lot of value in making it known that objectivity is not your goal or even your pursuit. It’s exactly why the word “opinion” appears at the beginning of so many of my headlines. I’m not going to hide the fact I’m attempting to persuade you, and I hope that you find value in that, because it’s not the case everywhere.

We all have our preferred news sources. For Conservatives, Fox News brings them what they want to hear. For Liberals, MSNBC provides their take on the news. I am no different. I have my sources. None of them are televised, but I have no intention of misleading you to believe you’re reading the news when you read some of my writing, and if more news sources did the same, “journalism” might still exist.

You feel it every moment you read a news story, especially online. You start reading because a headline drew your attention. That’s how we read newspapers. It’s the same formula newspapers have been using for nearly 400 years: draw them in with a headline, and write a lede that makes them read further, until they’re convinced to buy the paper. I’d say nothing’s changed, but the intent of “journalists” has changed.

I have a deep love for the work of The Atlantic. They do fantastic investigative journalism, which is hard to come by these days, but even I come across Atlantic articles that bother me as a journalist because nowhere in the article or on the webpage does it say “opinion” or “editorial.” Yet, in the first or second paragraph the author is describing a personal experience as if it’s fact. Well, I’ve experienced plenty, but I’d hope you’d consider the validity of your adviser before you accept or dismiss any advice. You’re not really reading until you read rhetorically, and that means questioning the very words written and those who wrote them.

There are “journalists” out there looking to write that piece that gets them Associated Press attention. I’ve written plenty of pieces of which I’m proud and none have drawn the eye of editors from my favorite publications. The best thing I’ve written was 450 words on how increasing funding for drug counseling would be more effective than expanding the jail given the methamphetamine problem in Eastern Montana and recidivism rates of drug addicts being incarcerated. I think it ran on page six, and it was some of the most objective work I’ve done. The jail expansion didn’t get enough votes that year, and that’s not even the success I was seeking. My intent was to convey a complex idea about methamphetamine use and how it was being inadequately and improperly treated in the area. I have no idea if my article on page six had any effect on the election, but I received great pleasure knowing that I had written something with the strict intent to inform in the most objective manner possible, despite my political leanings.

I guess that means if I was good enough for The Atlantic I’d be writing for The Atlantic. But editors at The Atlantic should be leading the charge when it comes to the presentation of journalism. Instead they expect people to know what to expect from their publication, which means their work isn’t subject to the same objective standards that newspapers still require.

I can confirm. Your local newspaper is still the most accurate and helpful news source you’ll find. The people putting that information together live in your community and are affected by the same information. You’re not going to get a more honest and objective attempt at journalism than you will from your local newspaper. The hardest job I had was attempting objective journalism for a community completely unlike me -- and I did that for almost five years.

You can watch all the television you want, but the information of highest quality and most objectivity is being provided by your local newspaper and NPR and PBS stations. The people in these professions don’t just have an obligation to provide the most objective news, they have a passion to do so. If you think this is a glamorous life, I can tell you it’s not. It takes a team of writers and a slew of interns to write an investigative piece on anything. And most of these people do it for the love of the game, not the money, because there is no money. There are fast food workers who make more than journalists.

So how can you tell if the information you’ve found is worth a damn? The first thing to do is consider the source. Most “journalists” providing content for a publication available strictly online are simply “content coordinators” or worse yet, “copywriters.” I am one of these content coordinators, and while I have five years of experience in the newspaper industry, being a journalist is just too hard. I took the easy way out that actually pays, and while I regret not seeing my name in print every few days and being held to a higher journalistic standard, I get to go to work everyday, or not go to work everyday and just work where I am, and write about what I want. I’ve been seeking a job that doesn’t feel like a job my whole life, and I’m lucky enough to have found it.

That doesn’t mean you can’t find honest information online. I’m trying to provide it and prove it exists. An author’s presentation of information will tell you a lot about the author. For instance, I make it clear I’m writing an opinion in the first word of my headline. Is your online source doing the same? If it’s not, how long before the author refers to herself or uses first-person narration? The use of “my” or “I” does not indicate an attempt at objectivity. They’re not even trying to be objective, but they might not be as obvious about it as I am.

I like to pursue objectivity on occasion. It’s a fantastic challenge for a writer, perhaps the best challenge (although I’ve just started writing children’s book, and they’re a lot harder than you’d think). But I realize everyone in the world doesn’t want to read my opinions. If they did this piece would be syndicated and published in every major paper in the country. But if just one reader happens to find something informative and helpful in my writing, I’ve done my job. That’s what journalists are supposed to be -- helpful. We are public servants. When there was an oil spill near the source for drinking water in my town, it was our job at the newspaper to get the word out about the quality of the drinking water as soon as possible. That information couldn’t wait for the next edition of the paper, but we and the radio journalists had to let people know if they could drink the water. That’s why we’re here.

That’s right, I said we. I called myself a content coordinator, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still aspire for the impossibility of objectivity. I told you I got out of newspapers because it was too hard. I’m a Socialist that reads The Militant, a newspaper that reports labor strikes around the world that never air on Fox News or MSNBC. I also grew up in Eastern Montana, and lived and worked there as a journalist for years before growing tired of failing -- failing to reach people and failing to inform.

My only goal in life has been to help people through words. When people ask me what I want to do with my life -- what my legacy will be -- the answer for years has been, “To be read.” I knew I was pretty good at this writing thing at a young age. I was lucky not to waste my time attempting something for which I wasn’t suited. “But you spent five years in pursuit of objectivity and failed” you might say. But failure in journalism is a lot like failure in baseball. I’ve written hundreds of articles, ranging from local (teachers’ union/school district contract negotiations), national (temporary halt on the XL Pipeline running through the land of one of our county commissioners), to sports (the 2015-16 Region XIII NJCAA men’s basketball runners-up at a school that might run out of funding and not exist). And now I’m writing about writing because I investigated what we’re now calling “fake news” and what I called “Gonzo rhetoric” back when I was completing my Master’s degree. The way information is being presented these days is hardly honest. Journalistic integrity has been sacrificed by journalists to be first to market, as if providing information is a business. It used to be a service, and now the federal government wants to get rid of some of those services, or just not inform the public publicly. Trump’s budget would cut all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which got $445 million of the $4 trillion budget last fiscal year.

You don’t have to like NPR or read a newspaper to appreciate what I’m trying to convey. I mean hell, I’m calling myself on my own bullshit here. I’m a journalist turned content coordinator. Just because I can string together words in a way that persuades you to read on doesn’t give me the right to mislead you. And even if I attempt to mislead you, you are in the position of power. You can resist. Just simply ask yourself: “Is this an opinion or fact? Can I trust this author? Does she have my interests in mind?” Chances are if you’re watching television, the only interests they have in mind are those of their shareholders. The value of information means very little in television news. I’ve been in the industry, and they’d rather run videos of puppies rolling in poop than inform. Shit gets better ratings. You can change all that.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information