It's the Persistence (and Faith) that Got It Done

Originally published by The Master Report (Sacramento, CA)

Oct. 2006

_____________________

It's the Persistence (and Faith) that Got It Done

By Mark Bryant

"It ain't over till it's over" --Yogi Berra

Johnny Lechner exemplifies what most people derisively refer to as a Generation X "slacker" and "Peter Pan that never grew up." He is 29 and still in college after 12 years. Lechner was set to graduate earlier this spring from University of Wisconsin-Whitewater but decided to study abroad in Europe, making him a student for one more year.

He's gained national fame and scorn for enjoying his free-spirited, carefree life as a college kid to the extreme utmost, refusing to leave an insulated world of academia and blissful limited responsibilities and head into the real world. I, for one, applaud the man. The moment you begin dying is precisely when you shed your youth and become one of the cynical, bitter and hardened souls you swore you'd never become.

While I don't recommend taking his overly scenic route to a goal of higher education, I can say that my road to a college degree contained more than its share of meandering curves, bumps, dead ends, and car breakdowns.

Fourteen years after alighting on a college campus as a precocious, wild-eyed, innocent eighteen-year-old freshman pronouncing myself ready for the world, I can now say that now I am prepared for whatever may come my way for the rest of my days. In June, I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism at the spry young age of 32.

All of these years weren't wasted. There were valuable lessons along the way. And before anyone asks…no, I didn't exactly spend all this time in school deliberately failing so I could stay in that perpetually half-boy, half-man state. Many people, including my family, did wonder whether I'd ever grow up, however.

You don't learn much from success, except what it took to get there. You learn more from rejection, disappointment and defeat than you learn on the climb up. Character is your stance in the dark and cold. And this climb was a roller coaster through both sunlight and summit and pitch black arctic valleys.

My odyssey took me from the idyllic pastures of campus to the rough but honorable world of military life (in which I failed miserably), back to school, back out again (repeated ad nauseam), to menial jobs, low-on-the-totem-pole jobs, working poor jobs, to no job, from broke and destitute to moneyed and discontent, from loneliness to unsatisfying relationships, to countless personal travails and scrapes. Frequently, all of these factors were in combination at one time or another.

I witnessed friends and acquaintances who were not so fortunate as I, friends who were friends in name only and solely in my fractured judgment who took advantage of me. By and large, these people fell by the wayside. Some are no longer with us. In the process, I nearly destroyed myself. But the human spirit is amazingly resilient. I've always had an innate ability to bounce back, stand and deliver just when most have counted me out. I also know that my father and grandfather are watching from above and are grinning with thumbs up.

This was truly my Super Bowl, World Series and NBA Finals and my greatest victory thus far.

I guess I needed some material to write about. I can safely say that my repertoire for my planned novel has been more than polished, thank you very much.

Contrary to common belief, college in itself doesn't make you any smarter than when you came in. It is the experience that enriches you and allows you to grow as a person, not what's inside the ridiculously overpriced textbooks you pay through your nose for.

What is basically summarized upon completing your quest is that you've achieved a mastery of higher education quality in a given subject and now you are deemed thus ready to make said subject your life's work.

I know this next one may sound equally heretical, but…while brawn may be the most overrated of a person's exterior qualities, intelligence may not be far behind. If you were trapped in a desolate godforsaken wilderness with all kinds of beasts waiting to devour your flesh plus unspeakable elements to deal with, would you rather have a person possessing an MBA/PhD./MENSA card and an Ivy League sheepskin attempt to lead you out…or would you entrust a person who maybe isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is a skilled survivalist and maybe will stand a better than even chance of getting you to safe ground?

The IQ (also known as intelligence quotient) is not a gauge on how well you can rack up standardized test scores; it is what is supposed to be your learning potential. IQ is not and should not be a divisive barrier/difference maker between putting you in the smart, average or slow classes in school. It is not a failsafe predictor of performance. By age ten, a person most likely has developed all their skills above their shoulder they will ever have. IQ is a capacity and barometer for a person's "bandwidth", nothing more. You may not even reach a given score, or even top out there.

Now that I've ingratiated the self-aggrandizing elementary school teachers, superintendents, principals and shrinks out there who love to pump boys with Ritalin and other mind-altering chemicals and then wonder why we have a lost generation rather than accept that every kid learns differently and it's their job to reach them…let me get back to school days at good ole U. The social interaction defined your younger days, and it's what defines your days in college.

Why? Because in high school, a kid normally runs with a small pack, a small circle, a very exclusive clique. In college, this circle is drastically stretched to include a large group of people whether you like it or not. You are forced to interact with this large giant circle inasmuch as everyone has the goal of bettering themselves with a higher education pedigree (Or it may be as simplistic as bonding to beat the hated archrival for bragging rights in the bowl game coming up.)

A person must learn to be an effective communicator and how to navigate and negotiate if they want to get the most out of this transition period between childhood and being considered a full-grown adult. For me, this was hard. I had to learn to be my best advocate and guard my best interests rather than attempt to conform to a group of adherents that didn't fit me. Plunging into a square as a round peg was not going to fulfill my spiritual health.

The college experience for most coming of age today is little more than a pleasure cult filled with glorified wantonness. The challenge to think just isn't a high priority as it should be. Also, for far too many universities, academic brilliance is not the goal. Instead, the pursuit is in millions spent on sports programs, especially the football juggernauts. There are many deserving and hard-working starving students that literally don't know where their next meal is coming from. Yet, athletic directors think nothing of keeping semi-illiterate kids eligible to win a few more games and perhaps make a bowl appearance or next-bracket March Madness run to put coins in coffers. While all of this is happening, the pockets of faculty, trustees and "administration" are being lined gratuitously. And don't get me started on Frat Boy Frankie and Sorority Scandalous Suzy. Frankie typically carries all of a whopping 1.8 GPA. Suzy is a wanna-be debutante who has been known to get intimate with anywhere from half to three-quarters of Dear Olde Alma Mater's skill players and backfield depending on her blood-alcohol level. You, the mere mortal and dweebish nonathlete, will not be given the time of day. And maybe it's just as well.

Aside from these observations, I have also gained the insight of a few principles along the way.

Relentlessness is a state of mind, a state of body. Once you reach the state of being a tenacious and relentless to do the things you need to do, you don't accept anything less.

Denial of feelings and emotions is destroying things in yourself that you'd rather not be conscious and aware of. I have never shied away from showing my feelings on my sleeve because it's who I am. I wear many hats and many masks and one thing my personality will never be accused of is being bland and boring.

Once you reach attainment, your obligation is to give back. You didn't get here alone. My friends and parents leveled with me, and teachers from childhood to college told me in so many words: "I see something in you. I won't let you settle for mediocrity."

As an agent for change, a missionary for development, and an activist for action, I can say that "doers" do, while "don't-ers" make excuses. Doers, creators, and architects are those who don't take no for an answer and find ways—however unconventional—to get it done. People that don't do are those who are holding themselves back by mentally castrating themselves based on past failure. A person with a frame of reference for success is a winner before even stepping onto the field or into the arena. Thus, no matter what may lie ahead for me in the years to come, this diploma is something that can never be taken from me.

Now, I am out there in the dreaded "real world" at last, no longer a kid, no longer having the youngish college atmosphere to fall back on in a state of suspended adolescence. But no matter how much time passes from my walking the stage…as long as I preserve my one-of-a-kind persona and thirst for irreverence and iconoclastic paths like the guy from University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, I'll always be young.

Oh, the canvas can do miracles, just you wait and see. --Christopher Cross "Sailing"

Fans Get Stiffed: Owners' money game killing sports fandom

Originally published by The Master Report (Sacramento, CA)

Mar. 2006

____________________________

Fans Get Stiffed: Owners' money game killing sports fandom

By Mark Bryant

In the days of old I used to love the Oakland Raiders, and I still do. Their pugnacious image and us-against-the-world mentality meant something. I became a rabid sports fan primarily based on this affinity for the Silver & Black warriors. I was a miserable lad on the occasions they lost.

Now, my feeling is more resignation. Since winning their last world championship in 1984, it is obvious the franchise has seen better days. Owner Al Davis was once a renegade hero, now he is reviled by many for moving the team to Los Angeles and strangling the organization due to his cantankerousness and stubbornness to change with the times.

It's not just the Raiders' fall from grace that has turned me cynical and hardened my love for sports like a dinosaur fossil. I look at most of these players today that populate the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB, and get the feeling that 90 percent of these dudes could give a rat's posterior what uniform they're adorned with as long as they're getting paid. It used to be exactly the opposite. Players played for pride, dedicating themselves to winning the ring.

The fish stinks from the head, and a similar feeling of malaise has occurred lately here in Sacramento with the Kings fans. As the Maloof brothers have babbled constantly about the need for the good people of the River City to pony up duckets for a new arena, fans have become increasingly irritated by their condescension. Already paying through the nose for some of the highest prices in the league for what has so far this season been a substandard product, the bloom is starting to fall off the rose.

The problem with the current Arco Arena is that while it's certainly not an ancient building by conventional wisdom, it was built in 1988 and therefore ill-equipped to handle the amenities that are a requirement for new arenas and stadiums today. This would include luxury boxes and suites, kiddie playlands and fan entertainment zones, restaurants, sports bars and other goodies that come with the modern day sports palaces.

Sports used to be great competition. Now it's all about great business.

Recently, the stewards of the Seattle Supersonics have discussed possible relocation to San Jose with the owner of the NHL Sharks franchise. Call me naïve, stuck on yesterday, a hopeless nostalgic, but it has always been my belief that the owners may run the teams as they see fit and direct their operations and ultimately their fortunes. However, the teams themselves—and the franchises thereof—belong to the people of the city they represent and their community. For an owner to break that trust and go whoring himself to the highest bidder is a purely reprehensible act in my book.

The Raiders are obviously more than a local phenomenon. They still have a large fan base from their days in Southern California, and indeed all over the country and the world. Their fandom is dubbed "Raider Nation" for their numerous passionate fans and outrageousness and fierce loyalty they project. But rumblings persist they may be moving back to Los Angeles because of the lack of sellouts and guaranteed money in Oakland that were promised them in 1995 when they returned.

Al Davis was raked over the coals by the rest of the NFL and fans when he had the audacity to move the team from Oakland in the early 80's, where they enjoyed their greatest success. But what transpired afterward was that owners slowly realized that they could increase the value of their franchises dramatically by holding cities hostage for new stadiums paid for with public funding. Failing to get the required support gave them a license to pull up stakes and go elsewhere for the almighty dollar.

Thus the Baltimore Colts became the Indianapolis Colts overnight in moving vans, the St. Louis Cardinals found greener pastures in Phoenix, the Los Angeles Rams migrated to St. Louis after years of horrible play in Anaheim, the Browns pulled out of Cleveland and began anew as the Baltimore Ravens, and the Houston Oilers eventually became the Tennessee Titans.

What happens is that the owners, who feel the need to put even more money in their bloated pockets, gouge the fans with exorbitant prices and then insist they help pay for new digs. If the fans balk, the next step is to threaten to wave goodbye unless they cave in. Even more discouraging is the fact that most of the true fans and diehards are priced out of the new ballparks, arenas, and stadiums because they can't afford it. They are then replaced by sheeple who will plunk down the cash to have a place to see and be seen, rather than give a damn about what takes place on the field.

If the owners want new stadiums to keep up with the Joneses, let them build the things themselves. I'm not paying one dime to support their whimsical demands when these guys have amassed more assets than you or I will most likely see in three lifetimes, let alone this one!

The Travails of Terrell Owens

Originally published by The Master Report (Sacramento, CA)

Dec. 2005

____________________________

The Travails Of T.O.
By Mark Bryant

Once upon a time, there was this real nice kid from the Deep South who became a star receiver overnight and replaced a legendary player. Why, he even set a record for catches on a day that was supposedly set aside to fete the aging incomparable Jerry Rice.

Terrell Owens—what a player. He's the best, man. The guy's a driven superstar who is just misunderstood. Yeah, that's the key phrase, misunderstood. He might diss a fellow teammate (Donovan McNabb), might question their manhood (Jeff Garcia), but hey, the guy's a fun-loving prankster and boys will be boys. Besides when was the last time you saw him go Bill Romanowski on somebody?

He was respectful and polite, and always addressed reporters as "sir" and "ma'am", which in the lexicon of pro sports hierarchy is like a sergeant major saluting a private.

Players don't make a habit of congeniality towards the press.

Such a nice guy. He even gave a tribute a while back to his strict grandmother who never let him so much as go past the front yard while raising him. He used to never be allowed to play with the other kids unless he snuck out. Yeah, that's the ticket in getting to the bottom of why he can't seem to fit in and keep his mouth shut. His tragic youth.

Then he stood on the star at midfield in Irving, Texas and became T.O. That was his coming out party and arrival on the scene.

T.O. just wants to be loved and admired, and seeks attention because he's not getting enough of those. Hey, doesn't everybody? All he needs is a little love. So what's wrong with you people? He just got done catching his hundredth TD reception. No acknowledgment from the Eagles? 'Tis a travesty. Give him his due already.

I don't profess to understand or know a lot of Terrell Eldorado Owens' actions, incendiary comments, and most of all mindset. I do know that a lot of "true"sports fans have been deeply offended by his habit of turning the NFL on its' ear wherever he goes. The sad thing is that ninety percent of these so-called purists would welcome him to their team in a second.

Maybe he's just going about things in the wrong way. Maybe he needs to beat his wife or girlfriend, get caught with a pound of weed in his car somewhere, engage in a good-old fashioned bar fight, or do a bunch of steroids. Then maybe he wouldn't have to worry so much about being vilified for his mouthy, self aggrandizing demeanor.

T.O. burned bridges in San Francisco and now Philadelphia because for one thing, he refuses to at least carry the pretense of being discreet about voicing opinions related to teammates and authority figures—i.e. coaches and management. In the NFL, this is a no-no. You don't diss the guys you line up with on Sundays. It's like being in a foxhole. For another, he doesn't seem to realize his impact on team morale when he chooses to act out and make inflammatory comments. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. Then he acts as if his status as pariah is unfair when he is duly informed of his transgression.

Ahhh, just a symptom and manifestation of his inhumane treatment at the hands of the press, fans, management and players. Don't they realize his greatness? The man is unloved, unwanted and unappreciated, pure and simple. Conduct, schmonduct. Team rules, accountability and consequences are for the scrubs and civilians. Shame on the Eagles for their failure to anoint T.O. as the sacred cow he is.

After all he did for them? Playing on a broken leg in the Super Bowl? They lionize Jack Youngblood for doing the same thing but T.O. gets no love for putting his life and limb at risk. Whadda pity. He has every right to ask for mo' money. Contract, schmontract. Just reciprocate, baby!

T.O.'s biggest problem, however, is that he and his flamboyant, individualist personality would be more suited to the NBA. He moonlights as a part-time basketball player (he was denied by the Eagles permission to play in the Continental Basketball Association during this past off-season.)

See? They don't let him do what he wants. A guy like that who's a genuine superstar, you check with HIM on whether to do or not do something, yes sir. Especially when the said superstar is getting paid a superstar's contract. Yeah, buddy. As soon as everyone gets it through their thick head that the man is a god, the better off we'll all be.

A hoops superstar can make even a terrible team respectable, but the NFL is first and foremost a team game and a player can only be as good as his team puts him in a position to be. They call it "football" for that reason, not "T.O." T.O. wants to play "T.O." while the rest of his teammates play the conventional sport, and that isn't going to work. It certainly didn't during his latest escapade that culminated into him being told by the Eagles he was no longer welcome.

Allegedly, he said in a radio interview (with Michael Irvin, that prince of peace, no less) that the Eagles would be better served by having a QB other than Donovan McNabb in the lineup, namely Brett Favre of Green Bay.

Migawd, T.O. has every right to play his own game. It's called self-expression and it's just what this boring, PC-ized, neutered and sterilized NFL needs. He needs for everyone to see where he's coming from and stop hatin' on him.

T.O. is certainly not the first player to have a reputation for complaining loudly when things don't go his way or when he doesn't get the ball enough. Rice routinely was known for prima-donna behavior throughout his years with the Niners. The trick was, that Rice had the presence of mind to keep his ego in check most of the time. T.O. clearly doesn't understand the sophistication of keeping one's image intact, and this is what causes him grief.

Maybe it's just too much to ask superstars to have a bit of restraint and respect for their profession these days. Maybe T.O. is just exposing sport as entertainment and we all should just let him roam free, let him wave pom-poms, dance and stand on logos to his heart's delight. After all, for every one minute of airtime talk shows are aflame with the latest transgression of a knucklehead, three dozen kids from ages eight to eighty have already bought his latest jersey down at the local shopping mall. For the pernicious publicity, I think it's kind of an even trade-off.

Blacks in Baseball: A Silent Crisis (2005)

Originally published by The Master Report (Sacramento, CA)

___________________________________

Blacks in Baseball: A Silent Crisis

By Mark Bryant

There was yet another World Series this fall, as there has been just about every year for the last century, with a couple of notable exceptions. For roughly half of that period, a significant segment of the population could only participate in the Fall Classic if they bought tickets.

Blacks were excluded from the rosters of Major League Baseball until Jackie Robinson broke in with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. Today, the African-American baseball player faces a different crisis than his predecessors who suffered from outright bigotry: He is simply disappearing from the game.

As the NFL and NBA has increased in popularity among spectator sports by leaps and bounds, the MLB has sharply declined from its’ status as “America’s pastime.” Today, pro football is considered to be on the cutting edge in attracting and keeping new fans, while baseball is regarded as stagnant and boring. It is no surprise, then, that more and more black athletes have elected to enter the lucrative, player-friendly arenas of the NFL and NBA rather than embark on a career in baseball.

Sports Illustrated ran a front-page article two years ago lamenting the absence of the black ballplayer in the major league ranks, but don’t hold your breath waiting for MLB to solve the problem. A letter to the Washington Post this spring summed up: “Why should it change, if the game is profitable, given its current fan base?”.

Latin-American players, particularly those from the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Venezuela, have stepped into the void left by the declining numbers of black ballplayers. They account for 86% of players born outside the U.S. Just as basketball is seen as an ingrained part of African American culture, so is baseball in Latin America. Cheap talent is always a plus when considering the recruitment process of the tangled maze of baseball’s scouting system.

“Baseball is an inherited game, you can’t pick it up on the streets like basketball or football,” says Ralph Wiley, the ex-Sports Illustrated writer. “We’re still waiting for the day when American-born blacks are treated with respect in the game.

“In the first place, baseball never welcomed black players to begin with, which is why they had to form their own leagues in the first half of the 20^th Century, if they wanted to play…There is an underlying resentment for black ballplayers.”

Percentage-wise, blacks in MLB peaked at 20-25% in the late 1970s and early 1980s, since then the numbers have declined. Today at 10%, we have the lowest number of black players in MLB since the Robinson days of integration. What accounts for that?

First off, baseball is not, never has been and never will be considered a “sexy” and “in” kind of sport. It is tedious and puts a premium on strategy and execution rather than sheer athleticism. While blacks may opt to participate in skill-oriented sports like football and basketball in droves, it perpetuates the stereotype that they do not have the cerebral skills to excel in “thinking-man’s” sports such as baseball.

Second, the role of the black mentor in the lower levels—Little League, youth, high school, college and minor leagues—has been rendered nonexistent. It is clear that baseball is not a popular choice among black youths of today, but the cutting of youth and feeder programs in black communities has been the most stinging indictment. There is a dearth of knowledgeable fans in black communities and inner cities who are qualified to step in and teach the game to black youths.

It is tough to aspire to a major league career when not given the opportunity to play at a young age, and such a fate befalls most kids, not necessarily only in poor predominantly black communities. Major League Baseball has been remiss in marketing the sport to youth. World Series games typically start late in the evening and end well after midnight on the East Coast. That is much too late for even adults to stay up and pay rabid attention to, much less a youngster.

Third, the overall glamorization of football and basketball in high schools is a factor in why baseball has become less popular among black youths who otherwise would be good candidates for baseball. Talented athletes more often than not will forgo baseball altogether in order to put more focus on training for football and basketball seasons. As more and more high schools demand their players participate in year-round conditioning, weight programs and camps, three-sport athletes have become increasingly rare. More often than not, baseball is left out in the cold.

“All the girls cheer for the football players, and the players see all the fans,” said former Pittsburgh Pirates manager Lloyd McClendon, who is African-American and has a son in high school. “You go to a high school baseball game, and 30 people are there. So a kid is naturally going to go toward football, if he’s only going to play one.”

Justin Kasprisin, a recent graduate of the University of Vermont, points to the influx of Latins in baseball as another culprit. “Latin-Americans rose in baseball for the same reasons African-Americans did when they had the Negro Leagues. The low cost of developing players in Latin America plus baseball’s popularity there has created a player pipeline to the U.S.”

Finally, the economic structure often dictates that blacks opt for the greener (yes, this pun is intended) pastures of the NFL and NBA. Baseball is an expensive sport that requires more equipment and space to play than football or basketball. Many African-Americans simply can’t afford to play or go to summer instructional camps. Colleges offer scholarships in football and basketball, and more blacks naturally see those sports as a way out of poverty. It has become increasingly common for teenagers to declare themselves eligible for the NBA draft in recent years. Baseball typically requires players to spend an extended apprenticeship in the minor leagues for at least two to three years with no guarantee of reaching the major league pinnacle.

To remedy this, MLB has begun the RBI (Rebuilding Baseball in the Inner Cities) program in the last decade as a way to bring back baseball to black youths. Today, 190 cities across the U.S. and Puerto Rico are home to RBI. In 2004, Commissioner Bud Selig opened up a new Urban Youth Academy in Los Angeles in addition to facilities at Compton Community College. Bringing baseball to African-American urban centers has been a sorely needed idea, but much more is needed.

“I’m not sure many African-Americans kids identify with baseball players anymore,” says Mike Zmijanac, athletic director and football coach at Aliquippa High School in Pennsylvania. “(Blacks) don’t identify with baseball the way they used to, but I think the sport has fallen out of favor with a lot of Americans overall.”

Matt Drudge: The Man and the Myth--Feb. 2006

Matt Drudge: The Man and the Myth

Matt Drudge had a nonescript childhood as an only child and barely graduated high school at a less-than-impressive 341 out of 355 students. His exasperated mother only sent him to public school after he failed Hebrew school and Bar Mitzvah.

“Secular school- i.e., sexular school- was like jail to me,” Drudge says.

Upon graduation, he held a swing shift position at 7-Eleven. “More than adequate curriculum vitae for that,” he notes.

Not exactly a candidate for “Most Likely to Succeed,” indeed.

Meet Mr. Drudge, media innovator of the 21^st century and Internet news personality. He breaks stories before others even get their hands on them. He is the creator of the Drudge Report website and was the first to break the news of President Bill Clinton’s infidelity tryst with Monica Lewinsky and the subsequent scandal in 1998. His rise to fame is all mapped out in the Drudge Manifesto, a scathing, irreverent chronicle on how he turned modern media on its’ ear and basically started a revolution in how we get our news.

Drudge actually started his assault on the journalism establishment as a youngster growing up in the Washington, D.C. area. “I’d look up longingly at the Washington Post newsroom walking the streets, knowing I’d never get in. I didn’t attend the right schools. In fact, I never enjoyed any school.” As a junior high school student he held a job delivering the now-defunct Washington Star. He often neglected to reach every subscriber on his route because “I would play editor. I noticed how their lead story was not really the lead story…how the hottest news and best reporting was buried on the inside pages and the best reporting was secluded in the rear sections when it should have been at the beginning. I’d rewrite my own headlines for an audience of one…I just knew I’d do it better if I was in charge.”

Drudge eventually forsook his penchant for reading newspapers brought into the store hot off the press at his all-night 7-Eleven gig and moved to Hollywood, “the part they’re always promising the clean up and never do.” Finagling his way into a clerk job at CBS Studios, he suddenly had what he always dreamed of: access to insiders’ news, gossip and hush-hush stories. This was the beginning of the inspiration for the Drudge Report, which he created using a few email addresses, which turned into a few hundred.

His website, www.drudgereport.com, soon would take off after a series of reports in which he beat the mainstream media by being the first to report the story. Drudge first got national attention in 1996 when he broke the news that Jack Kemp would be Republican Bob Dole’s running mate in that year’s presidential election. His site was the first outlet to break the “Zippergate” Clinton sex scandal. Today, his site receives millions of page views per day and is still growing.

To keep the site updated, he reportedly monitors several news channels and number of websites on several computers in his home office.

Drudge’s success in being a maverick news hawk is simple: He can do what he wants. He has no editor and he is his own boss. What makes his stories so popular is that they are exactly as he envisioned as a kid poring over the Star headlines: news stripped to the bone. The stories and news you find on his site are raw news with no additives or preservatives.

Virtually every newsroom across the country rewrites, spins, slants, softens and purifies the news it receives to the point to where the news item in question is but a caricature of what was the actual message.

Drudge has built his medium without propaganda or mainstream fanfare. He has over seven million readers a month. He may well be the antidote to the controlled, monopolized, biased information we receive from corporate monoliths on a daily basis, who control and operate most of America’s major media outlets.

It is not surprising, then that many in mass media industry do not agree with the things Drudge has said and one on his website to upstage the establishment. It is a fact that many in the conventional journalism field harbor an extreme dislike for Drudge, who owes his success strictly based on the advent of the Internet. He is the only person ever sued by the White House. Aide Sidney Blumenthal took him to the mat for a $30 million suit after being exposed on a Drudgian story of spousal abuse, which he vehemently denied. The case was settled before trial.

A federal judge noted in a judgment on libel lawsuit, which was in Drudge’s favor, that Drudge is not a “reporter, a journalist, or a news gatherer.” He has been reviled for his publishing of personal attacks, suggestions and private information, such as the Monica Lewinsky and Blumenthal reports.

However one thing that cannot be summarily dismissed is Drudge’s impact on the mass media culture and his total disregard for the “old boy’s club” of newsroom etiquette.

On any given day, a typical major metropolitan newspaper throws out twice as many stories as they actually publish. Such selectivity will very soon become a thing of the past as the Drudgian empire spawns new outlaw journalist. New ideas and concepts have always have been ridiculed and rendered unpopular by those seeking to maintain the status quo, and the Forth Estate is no different. In Manifesto, Drudge strips bare conventional press and what it chooses to report.

The future of journalism will belong to the internet predators, bloggers and people who dedicate themselves to digging up stories before the networks can get to it. Drudge is clearly devoted to exposing at every given opportunity the lazy and cliquish ways of the mass media in the conventional world, which no doubt fuels the ire of his enemies.

For the first time in the history of communication and the spoken word, one is not required to live in a corporate newsroom to gain access instant information, Drudge notes. Anyone can have their newsroom in a living room or bedroom with a modem, a phone jack, and an inexpensive computer. Drudge shows how to do it in Manifesto.

As predicted, six years after publishing his autobiography-slash-Chinese fire drill hit and run style of journalism guide, the Net is gradually replacing contemporary media at an alarming pace. His writing style, as would befit his image, is quick, witty and in-your-face. Purists will detest his unconventional email style of punctuation, prose and his cryptic messages throughout the book, but it is an accurate reflection of his persona. It is raw, uncut, and no-frills.

Definitely one of those stories where the little guy beats the big guy. Drudge has gone toe-to-toe with corrupt arrogant politicians, snobby journalists who believe their word is the only word that counts, and the sordid corporate underside to mass media. He has won, and continues to win with his penchant for true news coverage, not neutered tripe.

Literary Journalism III, Feb. 2006

Literary Journalism III

By Mark Bryant

A great majority of artistically inclined persons-that is, writers, musicians, poets and the like-are to a large extent estranged from the world in which they are forced to operate with the rest of the mere mortals. Truman Capote, the author of the critically acclaimed literary journalism half-novel, half true-life In Cold Blood, certainly falls in this category along with noted eccentric writer Hunter S. Thompson. While Thompson is credited with expanding the idea of literary journalism into all sorts of "gonzo" journalism and new journalism that loosely contains fact and fiction, Capote is recognized by many as the innovator of such writing with the novel that made him famous.

New journalism, "gonzo" journalism or literary journalism, this form of informative writing that mixes fact and fiction and holds four main themes:

• It is a form of literary expression.
• Fiction and journalism are not mutually exclusive and can be mixed together to create a story.
• To get the whole story, the idea is to get the story behind the story, to dig beneath the surface of external facts.
• The New Journalist acknowledges his or her intervention and insertion into the story and their own experience is part of the events.

Capote was outrageous, offensive, and insulting to many people, being the social climber and back stabber that he was. His behavior was not, shall we say, becoming of what would be expected of a senator or congressman. He made the infamous remark that contemporary peer Jack Kerouac's work "isn't writing at all, it's typing." This one-upmanship made him many enemies and contributed to his isolation later in life. It may have contributed to his untimely death from substance abuse.

But between the white lines- on paper, that is, Capote was all writer. In Cold Blood is the story of a horrific murder of a family of four in Holcomb, Kansas at the hands of two sociopaths in 1959. Capote had unconventional methods of preparation for the book. He reportedly memorized entire conversations rather than take notes during the interviews of those involved in the investigation.

This is a complex story involving these sociopaths, who like Capote, didn't fit in with the rest of society. Unlike Capote, these two ex-convicts had no refuge for their angst. Richard Hickock was a gifted charmer with a knack for persuasion and above average intelligence. He was also a habitual criminal who specialized in petty theft, check fraud and prone to violence against animals and pedophilistic desires for young girls. Perry Smith was artistically and musically talented and enjoyed performing for others; however his life was filled with tragedy. Smith's father abandoned the family, and his alcoholic mother committed suicide as well as his brother and sister. He suffered abuse at the hands of nuns and caretakers in children's homes, which affected his mental health for the rest of his life. Smith was also painfully shy and introverted, which fits into what Capote, the author in private was.

In many ways, then, the foils that make up these two characters in a semi-portrait of Capote himself. These two murders were clearly bright, sharp, and extremely sensitive and carried a hard shell from years of rejection and ostracism.

The Clutter family, on the other hand, could be easily construed as a profile of what Capote and the two sociopath ex-convicts could never live up to. The head of the household, Herbert, was a dedicated and successful family man and farmer. He was held in high esteem b his farm hands who were employed under him. This was the typical All-American, salt-of-the-earth family.

Despite all of this, Capote steers remarkably clear of making excuses for the two murders. The men's life stories are intended only to serve as a backdrop, not as a way of explaining away their crimes.

While in prison, the two men meet up and are informed by another inmate that a substantial amount of cash is hidden on the Clutter premises and property. This turns out to be false, but it doesn't stop Smith and Hickock from killing the husband, wife and two children living in the home at the time. Incidentally, Smith, even though he commits the actual murders, dissuades Hickock from raping the teenage daughter, Nancy.

This story spawned a host of writers who attempted to follow in Capote's footsteps, some with success, and others with less than successful results. Most notably, Hunter S. Thompson also came to a tragic end by suicide. He was regarded as one of he most irreverent writers to grace a published page of writing.

This book was published in 1996, at what was the height of Capote's writing career. From then on, his career would largely wane, due to his substance abuse problems and chronic alcoholism. He was reportedly addicted to various drugs, both illicit and medicinal. In his later years, he often required hospitalization. He died in August, 1984 of a pill overdose.

Also unwittingly, Capote's book may have chronicled the death of innocence and total prosperity in America as the 1950's turned the page into the 1960's. It was now made horrifyingly clear that even in post-World War II America, in full flower, grisly murders and senseless violence did in fact happen, not just in some whodunit flick. Part fiction, part fact, In Cold Blood gave birth to a whole new writing genre in journalism.

Literary Journalism II, January 2006

Literary Journalism II,

January 2006

By Mark Bryant

Justice: "Just Us"

The state of Texas incarcerates more citizens than any other state in the United States. It is by far the most draconian legal and punitive system in America, putting to death more of its' citizens than any other government in the world- over 280 in the last dozen-and-change years.

In the last decade, Texas has killed more people under the guise of state law than 43 other countries and the rest of the United States combined. In his last year as governor, while campaigning for the presidency, George W. Bush allowed 40 men to be executed.

The indignities suffered by many prisoners inside the Texas jails and prisons or on probation or parole are far too lengthy to list and document here. Suffice it to say that the system leaves a lot to be desired and that the Lone Star State is about the last place you would want to so much as stealing a candy bar, or run afoul of the law.

With so much glee and zealotry at imprisoning and sequestering them inside small rooms with bars on them, little thought is given to the fact that sometimes Loan Star's finest and the legal system do make mistakes. On rare occasions, God forbid, the wrong man in wrongly put in jail and even sentenced to die at the hands of glorious "Texas Justice".

Which brings us to the cautionary, sad, but nonetheless uplifting tale of Randall Dale Adams. He was arrested for a murder in 1977 and ultimately condemned to die for a grisly murder of a Texas cop that the eventual confessed killer, David Ray Harris, eventually admitted to. Finally, after more than 12 years of incarceration, Adams was freed.

No small contributor to his cause was the 1988 movie The Thin Blue Line, which suggested that the police altered, fabricated, suppressed and omitted evidence to convict the person they wanted guilty, rather than the actual guilty party (The real killer went on to kill again before he was brought down.) This movie was directed by Errol Morris, a noted documentary director. Because it was the only conviction he could get, he prosecuted an innocent man (Adams) while using the guilty man's (Harris) false testimony.

The practice of knowingly prosecuting the wrong person burying the evidence by executing him is chillingly common in our courthouses and venues of the law. Prosecutors can literally get away with murder, using the state to murder innocent defendants, especially poor underrepresented defendants with little or no advocacy support.

Chronicling this attempt to expose the crooked long arm of the law is Mark Singer in "Predilections."

AIDS in Africa

Denial is commonplace in the ravaging epidemic of AIDS in Africa. Women are beaten by their husbands savagely for insisting they wear condoms or so much as questioning the husband's health. AIDS is a shameful disease that is claiming untold lives of Africans every day, wounding a land beyond repair and yet little is done to stop the bleeding, other than the occasion goodwill visit or conference.

The ultimate tragedy is that people don't know-or don't want to know-what is happening to them and the lives of people close to them (i.e. the ones they sleep with). This disease thrives in a stagnant pool of shame and stigma and ignorance (i.e. the widespread myth that AIDS can be cured by sleeping with a virgin).

It also feeds off poverty and sexual violence (men often force women to have unprotected sex, if not outright rape, which causes women to play Russian roulette with their lives every time they hop into bed with a man) and double standards of promiscuity (men sleep around with impunity, but in some cultures it's an executable offence for women).

Ted Conover chronicles these travails of the African people in "The Road is Very Unfair: Trucking Across Africa in the Age of AIDS." He travels across East African Kenya through Mombasa and Nairobi and encounters hopelessness, wives' tales and predatory acts by "sex workers," who often contaminate unsuspecting victims looking for a warm body to sleep with on the road.

Of the 14 million people with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) worldwide, more than eight million reside in sub-Saharan Africa.

Louisiana's Purchase

In 1987, John McPhee wrote a piece of literary nonfiction on the Army Corps of Engineers' attempts to tame the waters of Louisiana. "Atchafalaya" is the opening chapter of his 1989 book The Control of Nature. The plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' is to divert the flow of the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya tributary; this goes for naught.

This is the heartland of Cajun/French Acadiana. Many people made their livings, however meager they were, along and beside the Louisiana waters.

With the devastating effect of Hurricane Karina, one central tragedy is that the continued vitality of this region-or any return a reasonable sense of normalcy anytime soon-is highly in doubt.

Before Katrina, the fishing industry in Louisiana was on the brink of death. The number of people who could make their living in fishing has been declining. This will have a crushing blow on the industry. People of Cajun ancestry often make light of their reputation as resourceful underdogs who speak a fractured Franco-English dialect unique to their colorful culture.

Cajuns took to fishing, trapping and subsistence farming after arriving in Louisiana. However, they have often been looked down upon as poor, unsophisticated country bumpkins. The culture had been in decline even before the hurricane, as many families have stopped teaching their children the dialect of French that their parents spoke.

It would have been very interesting if "Atchafalaya" had been written in the present day, if nothing else, but to see the impact of a natural disaster on a gritty, blue-collar, often indigent people. It is my hope that McPhee sees fit to provide an updated version of his story.

Literary Journalism I, Dec. 2005

Literary Journalism I, Dec. 05

Mark Bryant

Literary Journalism

December, 2005

The following are based on writings in Literary Journalism: A New Collection of the Best American Nonfiction. I have included my perspectives on a number of the authors' perceptions and portrayed individuals.

Unattainable Criteria?

Susan Orlean is disarmingly funny. The American Man At Age Ten pretty much sums up the frustrations of the dating cycle in a nutshell.

When I was ten, I had a crush on this golden-browned cutie at summer camp. My all-consuming fantasy of that particular time in my life wasn't getting in her pants…rather it was being the star outfielder for the Oakland A's.

Interests in my life were bikes, making things out of wood like tanks and ships and beating the bad-boy boxers in the Punch-Out video game. I had no idea that my attraction to chicks basically peaked then…because I was harmless and precocious. Now that I am older, wiser and thus hardened and bitter…that's the ballgame, folks.

It goes without saying that I am not a proponent of women who claim to have an exhaustive list of what they deem to be the perfect man. This would include "wish lists" for the knight in shining armor that they amazingly believe are out there somewhere. Sorry girls, but I do believe Joe Montana is already taken. Peyton Manning, however, is still up for grabs. Manning, alas, is too dumb to open a Campbell's Chunky Soup can but that shouldn't deter too many football frauleins if the assessment that intelligence is a minus and ruggedness a plus in the rules of attraction is correct.

An American male born into the crazed pop culture that is our society stands little chance against the onslaught of pinkification that has become prevalent in the post-1980's cloak of Orwellian thought-police concept known as "PC". The natural process alone removes most of the XY chromosome population from the unattainable list of flawless candidates. As soon as boys figure out that those are little hairs over their private parts, they become teenagers and thus sex-crazed, testosterone-fueled nutcases. Little changes through the next decade after as boys (sort of) grow into men and are indoctrinated to the numbing, exhilarating, euphoric sensations of plenty of drugs and alcohol. It's little wonder that precious few of us are sane enough to be taken seriously by the fairer sex by age 35.

A Colorless Death Sentence

Literary journalism is by definition, the art of a writer immersing into cultures that differ vastly from their familiar world and latching onto individuals that they normally wouldn't give a second thought or look to. Invariably, preconceived thoughts or ideas lead to the reader or writer being in for a rude awakening, or at the very least a jolting surprise. In Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's Trina And Trina, the protagonist is a teenage girl hopelessly entwined in prostitution, drug addiction, horrific poverty and a world of mind-numbing degradation and filth. She also is hampered by little or no job skills and education, and chronic illness.

In short, life has not been kind to Trina. There is something that seems unusual in this story, which adds to the shock value portrayed. She is neither a black girl nor a fugitive Hispanic driven to a squalid substandard life that is ten times better than what she knew. She is white.

"White trash" is an increasingly growing phrase of ultimate disdain, because the inference here is that the "trash" designation in America should only be reserved for minorities. So what's a white person's excuse for not attaining the shining lifestyle and wealth and power befitting their status? The answer is that in today's corporate and materialistic-oriented world, nothing is guaranteed anyone, least of all those with little education, job skills or background of solid foundation (i.e. upbringing).

Though the prisons are chock full of men of color these days, there's another exception in her "housemate", a man who has recently been released from prison. He is also white and Italian (judging by the his use of styling gel for his hair, I won't even get into the fact he dollops mayonnaise onto it like most people in this world use hair grease).

The reality is that the streets in America are a colorless, unforgiving maze of a cycle of poverty that will bite your ass no matter what hue your backside is; it is a culture that is hard as the concrete and pavement that they are comprised. The world's greatest government can't seem to put an end to, or at least make a serious dent in the hunger and homelessness and hopelessness that people like Trina wear like a overcoat against the weather. Capitalism is a bus that leaves behind the stragglers; the unlucky and unmotivated.

Which bring me to the conclusion that it's not so much a racial barrier that keeps the poor in their state of being poor, it's a have/have-not system. And as the gap steadily widens, so the chances become dimmer for people to live up to America being "a land of opportunity."

More Color

I love color. It defines shapes, sounds, things and life. And even though our society likes to pretend otherwise, it also defines people.

Walt Harrington examines an America cut along racial strands in A Family Portrait in Black & White, and the first impression is that he is apologizing for being white and therefore automatically privileged to gain access to worlds where minorities are often shut out. Hearing a racial joke, for example, makes him cringe. Seeing color, for him, is paying homage to a mindset he would rather not.

Harrington seems to seek refuge from his own self-hatred by maintaining an interracial marriage. Also, his experiencing things for the first time that black people have long been privy to is often funny, in a sad way. There are many examples of the accepted ignorance that white privilege creates. However, we find Harrington asking himself questions that would be so easy to sugarcoat with a milquetoast liberal response, but he instead answers with the unexpected--brutal honesty It's what you suspect he is thinking, but would never say. Such honesty, needless to say, is rare today in our society of shallow courtesy and deep resentment like a river undercurrent.

White and black social styles are different, which we can deal with. What we seem unwilling to confront, in our social policies and our private assumptions, are the much larger and harder-edged gulfs between economic classes. Harrington's realizations that poor blacks and whites have more in common with one another than with the wealthy, and his analyses of barriers to individual success put up by economically stressed communities, as opposed to racially segregated communities are brilliant and eye-opening.

Media Websites

Summer 2003

Media Websites

By Mark Bryant

1. www.heroism.org. Dedicated to creating educational media and outreach programs that strengthen the fabric of our society. An introspective on the heroes, leaders and public figures of American history. Includes a chronicle of events, persons and places for each decade of the 1940’s to the 1980’s.

2. www.angelfire.com/journal/worldtour99/paynefund.html. The Payne Fund studies, a series of research analyses done on children between 1929 and 1932. This project examined the effects of movies on children. First breakthrough study ever conducted by media experts on a large segment of society.

3. www.utne.com. Alternative media group publishing provocative stories that differ radically from the perspectives of “mainstream” media. Contains a virtual online community that contains a bevy of topics for forum discussions. Most active online community in North America.

4. www.sfgate.com. This is the official website of the San Francisco chronicle. Local and international news. Guide to area’s entertainment and attractions, including sports teams as the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco Giants and Oakland Athletics.

5. www.well.com/user/mmcadams/online.newspapers.html. Do it yourself guide to writing, producing and formatting an online publication. Stresses the difference between print and online methodology. Advises publishers on how to cater to an online reader’s wants and sensitivities.

6. www.copyeditor.com/default.asp?id=3. Geared toward copy editors of magazines, newspapers, books and newsletters. Website of McMurry publishing firm; which consists of a publishing company, advertising agency and subscription-based newspaper. I consider this an excellent place to look for hose who want to pursue a career in writing but not sure where to start their search.

7. www.gwu.edu/~jmcq/. George Washington University website. Operated by School of Media and public affairs. Examines ethics, diversity issues, and research techniques in journalism.

8. www.writenews.com/. News, features and resources for media and publishing professionals. Contains scores of articles that pertain directly to media and publishing business. Contains updates on online companies and internet media guides.

9. http://www.ire.org. Dedicated to investigative journalism and in-depth reporting. A grassroots nonprofit organization. Offers membership and information on seminars and conferences.

10. http://www.fair.org. National media watch group offering criticism in an ongoing effort to correct media bias and imbalance. Constantly vigilant against media-generated myths and stereotypical information. Debunks media-generated lies and half-truths.

The Vast Influence of TV on American Culture in the 20th Century

Summer 2003

The Vast Influence of TV on American Culture in the 20^th Century

By Mark Bryant

As Americans reached unprecedented prosperity by the twentieth century’s midpoint, people found more and more time for leisure activities and recreation than ever before. Consequently, the emphasis placed on entertainment increased exponentially. Leading the way was television, which had the greatest influence on American culture during the second half of the century.

Politically, television has been a deciding factor in the fates of candidates for public office since the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960.

In terms of societal matters, however, television has placed its’ indelible stamp on American culture in three distinct categories- behavior, lifestyle, and spending patterns.

BEHAVIOR OF VIEWERS

Television is generally regarded as particularly influential on behavior patterns and attitudes, especially children. America’s best teachers and scholars have concluded that television teaches more powerfully than any previous instrument in society (Skornia, 1965).

By the decade of the 1970’s, census data indicated that 96% of American homes had one or more television sets. The average home set was on more than six hours a day. Most adults and children reported watching at least two hours daily. For most people of all ages, viewing was a daily practice (Rubinstein, 1972).

Senator Thomas J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, was part of a task force in June 1961. He viewed excerpts of scenes of violence and sex with fellow committee members. The findings were that in an average week, 50% of prime time was devoted programs containing violence and sex. There are 130 million exposures to children 12 and under. Many of these children are saturated by these programs before they can read or write (Skornia, 1965).

The slogans, catchwords, phrases, mottoes and other lessons that children learn are not educational but commercial. The lessons and values which education offers then become compromised or diminished. Television places a high premium on emotional attachment. Children are not so much spectators of a film as they are co-actors. They live it (Skornia, 1965). A study done by Elizabeth Wurth in 1953 concluded that chld of 5 or 6 years of age is not sufficiently mature enough to be exposed to films without detriment to his personality development.

Studies repeatedly showed that a given program would harm one person but yet cause no apparent harm to another. Industry spokesmen tended to exploit these contradictions by defining and operating media using a one-size-fits-all generalization approach. The average then became the normal. According to Skornia, “Human beings cannot be averaged as if they were numbers. A small group of children done harm may will be more important an a thousand time as many children who are not done harm. The quantity criterion cited by industry does not holdup with human beings are at stake…Instances of people harmed by television will not be found in averages or statistics, but in hospitals and prisons. They are specific tragedies” (145).

Psychiatrists have lone concluded that matters that people do not take seriously affect them the most. Skornia concurs: “Courts have repeatedly declared that the power of motion pictures as organs of public opinion are not lessened by the fact that they are designed primarily to entertain” (148).

Television has the attraction because it contains moving images. Substantial evidence indicates that people will hypnotically continue watching. However, to say that continued viewing is an endorsement of whatever is being offered is to confuse the form with its’ content (Skornia, 1965).

In short, television is credited with information about the appropriate structure of society and thus the appropriate motives for behavior (Berger, 1987).

Skornia went one step further to warn that “farfetched as it may seem, historians of the future may conclude that never before was there a period during which control of the thinking of a nation was exercised in a more totalitarian manner, or by a smaller group, than it is now by television and radio” (145).

LIFESTYLE OF VIEWERS

Television fast became the cutting edge of American lifestyles. It was symbolic of seemingly newfound American affluence which earlier generations had been deprived of thanks to the Great Depression and World War II. Indeed, it represented a reward for years of forbearances (McDonald, 1990).

Television had a hand in making sports, music, goods and services, and a host of activities popular because of slick advertising and marketing that television aggressively pursued.

The Super Bowl has been declared an unofficial national holiday in light of not only the hype surrounding the game, but in terms of the commercialism and advertising around it. People who have a minimal interest in sports and therefore indifferent about the outcome of the game will tune in, because they want to see the commercials. The emphasis on companies soliciting items to be aired during this event has increased exponentially since the game’s inception in 1967.

Because television does not usually involve exclusive or focused attention except during stretches of the viewer’s choice, people can perform a wide range of activities while the set is on (Rubinstein, 1972). The viewer helps to determine a large part of what networks will consider offering to the public through the concept of ratings. Ratings are based on the premise that stations should broadcast ‘What The Public Wants’ (Skornia, 1965).

The characters depicted on the screen and in television shows are another matter. The fast life indicates a desire for such a life (Charters, 1934). Television places celebrities on a pedestal, treating them as society’s most valued members. It is well documented that on the basis of salary and prestige, show business people and sports figures are the most important people in the United States, with the exception of corporate executives.

These people are paid, imitated, adored and idolized on a grander scale than any profession in the country. They earn more wealth than scientists, artists, journalists, composers, teachers, doctors and government employees (Skornia, 1965). Skornia adds about stars: “If a character wishes to be interesting, he or she must have a past. Such fallen heroes can understand people in ways that others cannot” (154).

SPENDING PATTERNS OF VIEWERS

By noting which products the stars use, the public knows what products are most desirable and effective. The kinds of values these stars represent, however, are open to some discussion. According to Skornia: “Heroes, especially athletes, used to be associated and identified with wholesome food, regular hours, exercise and self discipline. Recently heroes are shown associated with soft drinks, shaving materials, beer, tobacco, automobiles and luxuries” (154). That could very well sum up today’s athlete/icon with the necessary insertion of rap videos, jewelry and drugs.

Buying and being a consumer of goods is the American way, and television has an inimitable way of attracting someone to spend. The spender knows he has a duty to free enterprise-capitalism-to spend, rather than save (Skornia, 1965). By strict conformity, viewers are urged to do as the person on the screen does in terms of choosing a name brand. Research proves that this is effective, and that people will do as they are shown (Skornia, 1965). Therefore, television has us linked to a capitalist ethic, and television has operated as a commercial billboard (McDonald, 1990).

Particularly susceptible to the pitfalls of consumer saturation are the middle and upper-class families, who have a higher level of income and therefore a larger pool of options for spending. According to psychologist Dan Kiley: “Peddlers blitz these families with an endless variety of one message: If you buy this, you will belong” (231).

Parents then are faced with the task having to explain that “a certain cereal will not transform them into great athletes as the highly paid announcer says, nor will the drug mentioned really cure hemorrhoids, or cancer, or arthritis. The announcer is really lying. Nor will certain cosmetics or cars guarantee success in romance as is implied (Skornia, p. 168).

CONCLUSION

Television was the most important social and cultural force in the Unite Sates in the mid to late twentieth century. Since it emerged in the late 1940’s as a nationally available medium of mass entertainment and information, it influenced millions of lives and shaped not only American politics, but also the economic and social matters of this society.

Works Cited

Kiley, Dan (1983. The Peter Pan Syndrome: me who have never grown up. Dodd, Mead &Company, New York.

Skornia, Harry J (1965). Television and society: an inquest and agenda for improvement. Mc Graw-Hill, New York.

Rubinstein, Eli, et al. (1972). Television and growing up: the impact of televised violence. Report to the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

McDonald, J. Fred (1990). One nation under television, the rise and decline of network TV. Pantheon Books, New York.

Berger, Arthur Asa (1987). Television in society. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.

Rise and Fall of Network TV

Summer 2003

The Rise And Fall Of Network Television

By Mark Bryant

In the good old days of network television, virtually every choice was made for the viewer. The choices were made primarily on what the viewer would most likely tolerate, rather than what he or she really wanted. It was a simple, yet shallow strategy. In those days, television was synonymous with ABC, CBS and NBC, plus a few rerun-filled independent formats. There were only a handful of stations in any given market area. Local outlets were recognized by the network reruns and low budget commercials they ran for community merchants. ABC, CBS and NBC were the trio that ran national television.

There was security in this simplicity. In this system, the primary concern was which of three networks would out-rate the others and what new programming trends would appear next, such as comedies, westerns, detective stories or anthology dramas.

This was broadcasting purely for mass culture, a search for the largest possible audience at any given time. Those with tastes not shared by enough millions had little chance of seeing their preferences on television. Broadcasting in this form was done with a commercial incentive. The networks were in business to make money, and programs were designed to be profitable. The programs that failed to deliver high ratings and audience shares were discarded. The networks thus held a staunch bottom line.

After decades of continued success and wealth in the 1950's, 60's and 70's, however, American television changed. Old media empires fell into disarray while new ones climbed up the ladder. Audience numbers tumbled. Companies known for their newspapers, magazines, movies and telephones are now operating there own networks. Where profanity and nudity had been taboo, television now communicates such things freely and undeleted.

This has come after decades of sameness on national TV and the resulting diversity has created a new pecking order. Foreigners have brought up the most familiar institutions in American entertainment- from movie studios to record companies. American companies, meanwhile, are busy overseas entertaining foreigners.

The biggest example of this is Rupert Murdoch, native Australian and owner of the FOX Network. Murdoch bought the storied Los Angeles Dodgers baseball franchise in 1998. He is outspoken and known for tabloid journalism that appeals to today's sensationalist media. The FOX Network began televising National Football League games in 1994 and became an instant hit. Murdoch is generally known as the first global mogul of media.

As J. Fred McDonald, archivist and emeritus history professor stated "If viewers are deserting 'free TV', it is because they were never fully served by broadcasting in the first place" (1990).

The challenges to network television consisted of technological innovation and enhanced competition. What contributed to its' downfall were monopolistic media practices which placed standardization about diversity, and politics, both national and global.

The years of experimentation had passed by the 1960's and television had come of age. It was now a mature and streamlined business- a cash cow. The average household was using television five to six hours a day. Only sleeping occupied more human time.

Television was as lucrative as it was powerful. In 1963, the three networks and 565 stations in the United States pulled in 1.8 billion dollars in total revenue. CBS earned 555million, an increase of 700 percent over revenues in 1948. CBS in 1963 also pulled in 39 percent of all network business. NBC garnered 35 percent, ABC 26 percent.

National TV was firmly in place, and for the next two decades the main concern was the battle between three corporate giants locked in season after season of rivalry. McDonald noted: "There were countless citizens who felt abused and disenfranchised by a national utility that seemingly ignored their protestations" (1990). Overwhelming control of television was the name of the game to ABC, CBS and NBC.

The most successful operation was CBS. This network emphasized soap operas in the afternoon and sitcoms in the evening. According to Andrews and Dunning "there have been more sitcoms throughout history…except during a brief period when westerns were riding high, situation comedy has always been the major force on Television" (1980).

By 1964, CBS was charging $50,000 a prime time minute for advertisers. McDonald noted "Others…felt it regrettable that the scarce public airwaves were being manipulated so unabashedly to make greater and greater amounts of money…The loyalty was to the bottom line" (1990).

Thus, splicing and inserting advertising minutes, cutting quality here and there, subtle changes could mean millions of dollars when carried out over a whole year. As Dave Karp, television writer, noted: "TV is not an art form or cultural channel. It is an advertising medium…The (shows) are not supposed to be any good. They are supposed to make money" (McDonald, 1990). For all their flaws and vulnerability, the networks kept their grip on American television and profited heavily.

Beginning in the early 1970's, the networks were challenged with restrictions to their business operations and access to the national audience. These rules and laws were passed by the Federal Communications Commission, the White House and Congress. The resulting limitations on monopoly adversely affected network profits:

Prime Time Access Rule: Limited network TV to three prime-time hours per night in 50 largest markets. Created to help free-enterprise networks of affiliate stations and independent programmers. This was passed in April, 1970.

Finalcial interest and syndication rules: Networks were order to surrender all financial interest and syndication rights in any series not totally produced by them. Considered the most damaging attack against network TV monopoly in FCC history. Placed domestic and foreign syndication rights in hands of studios actually producing the programming, not the networks.

Restricted network production: Limited number of hours a network could fill even with their own productions. This was a settlement of a protracted hearing against NBC by the Department of Justice in 1975.

Ban on cigarette advertising: Enacted by Congress beginning January 2, 1971. Banned cigarette ads on television under pressure from consumer groups and professional medical associations.

After three decades, viewer loyalty to TV was in decline by the late 1970's. The prime time schedule had been streamlines into a few entertainment genres that had been worked and reworked for over 30 years to the point of repetitive quality. A TV Guide pool in the spring of 1979 showed that 44 percent of the American population was unhappy with TV. Said George Comstock, "There has been a definite decline in public satisfaction (in the last two decades). With each passing decade, the expression of public opinion favorable to television has declined" (1989).

National TV had never offered viewers what they wanted; it offered audiences what they most accepted. Audiences were to be as large as possible, shows as large as possible, and program content was to be as common as possible to attract viewers. This was a fatal flaw in network television that hastened its' decline.

Technological innovations emerged in the 1980's. Videocassette recorders, videotape, and camcorders became common. The increased use of satellites created a boom in able TV. Network cables offered programs from foreign countries, movies, sports programming, distant domestic stations and closed circuit feeds. Peter Conrad noted, "We have been almost persuaded not to accept the reality of anything unless we can experience it at second hand, mediated by the television cameras" (1982).

Home Box Office (HBO) debuted on September 30, 1975 at the Joe Frazier-Muhammad Ali heavyweight boxing championship bout-the "Thrilla In Manilla". Other companies followed suit. Ted Turner's WTBS station in Atlanta went satellite in December 1976. Showtime, a pay-cable network, debuted in March, 1978. By the eighties, cable delivering via satellite multiple programs was commonplace.

Cable offered new local and regional channels plus national networks devoted to specific topics and interests- news of he day, popular music, sports, religion, finance, politics, humor, travel, home shopping and weather. Cable could appeal to narrower cross sections of society, such as blacks, children, rock music fans, history buffs and sports fans in ways that network TV never could. Superstations such as WTBS, WGN (Chicago) and WWOR in New York flourished.

Meanwhile, in network television, Comstock summed it up by saying "Television has fallen in expressed public esteem. People watch more but think less highly of it" (1989).

How did three similarly programmed national networks satisfy a population as varied as the United States in the first place? There was a popular belief in he network hierarchy that commercial television was the best and highest standard that could be reached and that the networks were satisfying most of the people most of the time. But after three decades of the same genres and forms, it became apparent that this was not the case.

McDonald, J. Fred (1990). One nation under television, the rise and decline of network TV. Pantheon Books, New York.

Andrews, Bart and Brad Dunning (1980). The worst TV shows ever. E.P. Dutton, New York.

Conrad, Peter (1982). Television: the media and its manners. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.

Comstock, George (1989). The evolution of American television. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.