Early Observations and Concerns

1. Lack of in-depth, relevant, accessible, reliable media. I believe it is possible and advisable to have a source of information on current events that is not concerned primarily with (1) attracting the most attention, (2) presenting information in a manner generally acceptable or politically correct, and (3) is cognizant of how late-breaking but isolated information can grossly misrepresent issues.

• (3) Often times developments have grave implications in regard to a certain issue, and therefore carry "newsworthy weight", yet without an understanding or awareness of back-story misrepresent themselves, the nature of the development, the issue at stake, and the reaction that should take place.

We need truly intellectual, engaged, concerned media. My pipe-dream is an organization that simultaneously presents accessible information (i.e. non-technical, few assumptions of prior knowledge) while internally (but still visibly) analyzing and integrating developments with the nuanced, technical big picture. The organization would have a sort of tiered presentation, based upon accessibility (I should note, I mean accessibility purely as a measure of the level of technical familiarity required of the viewer, reader, listener, etc.).

One important component of this is the omission of the traditional practice of "non-biased" news. If information presented is passing through the lens of the organizations interpretation, we have bias. The idea is to instead make that bias quite clear. Often times, that elucidation can only take place at the technical level. This invites the criticism that you are presenting propaganda. While the concern of disinformation is legitimate, I think that in the context and reality of current mass media, it is just as easy for propaganda to exist in the "spin" that any "raw data" is presented with. In other words, the capability for biased interpretation exists regardless. By at least making visible the underpinning debate (via the technical tier), and openly disclosing the presence of bias, the process is opened to debate and review, rather than being controlled primarily by the varied, unidentifiable bias of a particular reporter.

One particular idea that occurred to me is a specific channel of information that only presents primary sources (e.g. leaders, officials, experts). Often times this information is available, but only with considerable effort. Primarily, what is presented are sound bites or quotes or summaries. By opening a direct channel from leaders to the public, the possibility of "expert debate" exists. Basically this was inspired by a story I read commenting on a speech Treasury Secretary Paulson made regarding the financial crisis where the writer quoted a few sentences of the man we consider knowledgeable and expert enough to lead the United States Treasury, then went on to offer his own summary and conclusions. Why are we getting our economic analysis by some random staff writer at the LA Times? (Or evening news reporter, radio personality, blogger, etc.) I think there is a lack of leadership by our leaders. This may be their fault, it may be our fault, it may be the media's fault, or it may be a combination of all three plus some others. But the media is a place to start.

So my belief is this: the media needs reform. We need experts presenting our information, not media professionals.

2. The economy is distorted in its allocation of value and conception of progress.

People need jobs to get money. Jobs are provided by corporations. Yet corporations often exist to provide products that are unnecessary or even harmful to the human condition. For example, no one needs Coca-Cola. In some cases, Coke has a detrimental effect (health concerns and just plain old wasted resources come to mind). Yet thousands (I'm guessing, I don't know how many people they employ) of people earn their livelihood through Coke: distributors, merchants, advertisers, producers, managers, etc. The amount of advertising Coke does suggests there's a second group of people who are employed by the money Coke spends on advertising in TV, billboards, sports, etc. So if Coke was justifiably marginalized to being a much smaller component of the economy, huge amounts of people would be out of work. How is it that by making a decision as a society that is fundamentally wise, cutting our consumption of Coke, our economy is damaged? Please don't think I'm trying to say Coke is evil, or that we should ban or even inhibit it's sale. Coke is fine. In some ways, it's good. But I am trying to say that I think it would benefit our society if we consumed less of it. The fact that that would have a directly negative effect on the economy worries me.

And thus the larger issue: economic focus on growth as the holy grail of progress. In particular, the primacy of growth in developing nations (it's in the freakin' name) worries me about the future of humanity and our planet. Setting aside the viability of sustained worldwide growth, it presents serious concerns for the survivability of the human species (although the issue of it's viability may take itself off the shelf before the planet gives out, as resources becoming increasingly scarce and competition lowers state inhibition against aggression).

Therefore, I believe a thoughful and realistic reassessment of economics is necessary, requiring exploration and legitimate understanding of the current system and a realistic but nevertheless relevantly ambitious reformation of it.

P.S. The purpose of this post, and thus the title, is mostly to clarify what I consider to be major issues, coming from a more lay/general perspective. The impetus to write some of them down was my concern over getting to absorbed in the technical, in-depth debates and losing sight of the big picture.

P.P.S. Among those not elaborated on yet: international anarchy, foreign policy creation, and education. Oh, and that whole environmental thing.