Walter Cronkite—Where are You When We Need You?

2 08 2010

 

 

I usually don’t make comparisons to the way things are now, with the way things were.  Usually our fantasies about the past are just that—fantasies.  But in the case of news reporting, I think it helpful to compare the reporting of Walter Cronkite in the sixties and the seventies with our situation today.  Cronkite was called “the most trusted man in America” and held the American publics trust for many years even though he did not always tell us what we wanted to hear and sometimes got the facts wrong.  But even when we later learned that his reporting wasn’t completely accurate we still believed that it was an honest mistake and we forgave him.  The other two major networks NBC and ABC were always trying to hold themselves to Cronkite’s standards because he was the standard for ethical reporting. 

  Along the way something has happened that has created a mean spirited and ethically bankrupt journalistic (and I use the term loosely) environment.  This situation is primarily on the cable TV networks and on talk radio.  You can even extend that criticism to blogs (maybe even this one).  Accurate and civil reporting seems to be a thing of the past.  And because there is so much dead air that needs to be filled, we are inundated with the same meaningless or vitriolic material 24/7.  We only get relief early in the morning when the infomercials hit the airways.  Gauged by the stuff that we get during the day, infomercials are a paragon of truth and virtue.  And cable news continually rails about the same subjects over and over, not even giving us a variety of arguments.  How many times have we heard that tax cuts are the answer to creating jobs or that we need more government spending to get us out of the recession.  And the interviews, where they have up to six pundits shouting at each other at the same time, with the so called moderator hogging the mike and talking over the other guests, makes my head ache.  Nothing new is uttered and the information given is usually inane, unintelligible, or cut off by a commercial. 

 To make things worse, we are now seeing these cable stations taking pot shots at each other.  Whether it’s Fox TV shooting at Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart or vice versa, the new form seems intent on attacking each other.  Since I now have to check in with all these shows including Glen Beck, I realize that I’m contributing to the problem.  Even though I’d rather not be in that position, I’ve become addicted.  It’s like going to the Roman Coliseum and seeing the blood sports of the time—they repulse me, but I feel compelled to watch.  It’s sick.

 In a recent Gallup poll of July 28, 2010 it was shown that only 9% of people rated members of congress as having high ethical standards.  Business executives were rated at 12% with journalists rated at 23%.  And even though we have lost trust in these professions, our frustration and anger is fueled by the constant need for ratings and our thirst for blood lust.

 So, why do I keep watching??????


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Uncategorized

Tea Party Angst

1 04 2010

 

In earlier posts I talked extensively about Cultural Isolation in society.  In particular I discussed the issues of Language,  The Tyranny of the Expert, and feelings of entitlement.  In the responses of people who are being engaged by the Tea Party movement, we see all of these factors of influence. 

 If you listen to the followers, you hear much of the same mantra—“Washington is not listening to us”, “throw all the politicians out and start all over again”.  Their analysis of the problem comes from very personal experiences that come out as frustration and anger.  They believe that the course our country is on is only leading to disaster.  Whether it is the healthcare bill, cap and trade, immigration or taxation they believe the country is on the wrong track. 

 It would be too simplistic to assert that all their stories are the same, but I would like to hear some of the individual stories of the people involved.  I would have to assume that those who have become a part of the caravan that is now crossing America and going to Washington, have the ability to move around independently, whether they are retired or unemployed, or self-employed.  Their mantra seems to be along the same lines that Republicans have asserted—cut taxes and cut spending.  However, Tea Partiers have also tended to hearken back to some mythical past when life seemed better.  From my observation many of them were a bit past middle-aged but there was also a fair number of younger people represented.  They’ve taken on Sarah Palin as their hero even though she seems short on solutions and long on platitudes.  If you are a Tea Partier or have heard personal stories about why people are interested in the movement, please share those stories here.  I want to know how the current political system has personally affected them.  I know that they are concerned about the future for their children and grand children as most of us are, but I want to know the stories of how our system has personally affected them. 

 As I analyze what is happening around issues  like healthcare and reform of the banking system, I wonder if their anger is misplaced.  Who or what groups have the power over these issues.  Take the healthcare bill.  Who stands to benefit the most from the bill.  Well certainly the 25 million people who don’t currently have healthcare, but the real beneficiaries are the insurance companies that had 25 million new customer laid in their laps without any marketing on their part.  Also, the drug companies will benefit since the donut hole in Medicare part D will directly benefit the drug companies. 

 Then there’s the banking system.  It’s too early to make a call on this but as things are progressing it appears that not much is going to happen to “too big to fail” , the derivative situation and huge salaries and bonuses.  My guess is that it will be business as usual and that the only ones that will be adversely effected will be the public and community banks that may end up being gobbled up by the “too big to fail” banks.

 What about fixes on the spending and income side of government.  With 80% of the federal budget going for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, payment on the national debt and the military, where will we cut?  It’s easy to say, cut taxes and spend less, but as I see it those kind of Draconian changes will affect the poor and the middle class the most.  Which brings us to another interesting situation.  My guess is that most of the people who attend the Tea Party participants would consider themselves middle class, middle America and from the crowds, they’re also predominately white.  So why do they seem to align themselves with those people who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo—the very wealthy.  Washington is representative in name only with lobbyists throwing money at both sides of the aisle.  The great debate is on as to how we’re going to pay for all this.  People making under $50,000 a year, depending on the state you live in, have   an effective tax rate of about 40%,  This includes federal and state income taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, etc.,  sales taxes, and property taxes whether paid as homeowner or as a renter.  And if the federal government lowers taxes on an item, it tends to shift the same tax to the local and state governments.  And who pays for this?  Well, we all do.  But there’s something called regressive taxation that tends to hit lower-income earners.  Sales taxes are regressive, taxes on gasoline and tobacco are regressive and many of the tax fixes in the healthcare bill are regressive and all flow down to the middle class.  The primary taxes that are progressive are progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.  Could it be that the majority of the Tea Partiers are the ones most effected by regressive taxes and feeling the pain associated with over taxation.  So, I’m a bit confused that in those rallies I don’t hear much about raising taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class.  President Obama stated that taxes have been lowered for 95% of all Americans.  If that is true, then the question is, “is that enough?” and if not, how much is enough and how then do we balance the budget and where will the cuts come from?  My sense is that the Tea Partiers need to appraise who the enemy is and come up with realistic solutions for a change.   The question about ethics comes in trying to  identify the culprits in this mess.  We can blame Obama and his minions or we can blame the Republicans or the bankers or the drug companies, but my guess is that we all share in the creation of the problem.  If we identify the culprits, then what do we do?  In this case it seems that we are confronted with a Medusa creature that has many heads.  Perseus was only able to kill the Medusa by looking into her mirror rather than looking at her directly.  Maybe part of our answer is in looking beyond the obvious and answer for ourselves, “who stands to benefit the most from our current situation?”

 I’m like everyone else.  I don’t want my taxes raised but at the same time I don’t want to give up my Medicare or my Social Security.  And I want to be able to leave my children and grand children a major portion of the benefits of my lifetime financial success.  So, how will we solve the problem?  Time is running out to solve the problems we face in a pro-active way.  The longer we wait, the more Draconian our choices will be.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 1

Undercover Boss

14 02 2010

Undercover Boss After the Super Bowl game last week, I watched the new show, Undercover Boss. The COO of Waste Management was that week’s undercover boss and he spent the week working in the field doing what his line employees did. He picked up trash at the dump, he went on a garbage run, and he sucked out port-a-potties. As a result of this experience he had an epiphany about his company’s operations. The employees did not know that he was the COO of the company. He was just a prospective new hire that the company was trying out. Among the things he learned was that for every minute an employee was late they were docked two minutes. Women drivers had to urinate in a can just like the male truck drivers and employees were reprimanded if they did not finish their runs on time. As a result of this experience he called in his staff and told them of his findings and told them that there were changes that needed to be made. Many of those changes were the result of unilateral policies that he had enacted to get better production. In the TV presentation we didn’t see much interaction between him and his staff. It was pretty much another form of unilateral action. Most of the staff seemed uneasy being in the meeting and I wondered what they were thinking being put on the spot for TV. Work place policies can involve ethics. There’s been a lot of progress on accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work place. But what of the female driver as well as the male drivers who had to urinate in a can? When a person works for a company, they usually are an employee at will. They don’t have much to say about working conditions. That’s pretty well spelled out by the employer. The goal of the COO of Waste Management was to maintain and/or increase productivity. We don’t know how those work rules were developed but we saw from the show that it appeared that it was determined from above without a lot of input from the rank and file. Many companies have found that listening to other voices can improve productivity because employees have a say in what happens. Dr. Edward Deming developed the idea of quality circles that used employees to identify problems in the production cycle and to come up with solutions to those problems. This methodology was first used in 1962 by Nippon Wireless and Telegraph and later became a mainstay of Japanese industry. Deming’s methodology revolutionized industry in Japan. It was much later that American companies began to use the system; however not with some resistance. Many American managers felt that it would not work with American workers because it was believed that American workers did not share the same loyalty to authority and enterprise that Japanese workers exhibited. But over time, many American companies have decided that giving workers the opportunity to buy into changing the system and being able to see financial benefits not only to the company but to them, has had positive results. But is this really about ethics? In many cases it is. Ethical behavior is seldom unilateral. The ethics that we abide by are most often covenantal and are seen by all parties involved as important to the well being and fairness of the system. Over time, ethics tend to seek a level of workability and if not, the system becomes dysfunctional and may even cease to exist. If people don’t believe in the ethical standards that are set out as being the accepted norm and that are important for the viability of the organization, they will find ways to circumvent those standards. And that circumvention can be from top to bottom in the organization. So, the question that I pose to you is what has been your experience of ethical standards in organizations that you have been a part? Have they been unilaterally decreed and if so what was the effect on how well they worked? Was there any effort to create a situation where there was buy in and input from the parties involved? If you were in a position to develop ethical standards for an organization that you were a part, how would you go about doing it? Please make comments below, so others may see your ideas expressed. What you have to say is important to the conversation.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 1

Cultural Isolation (part 4)–The Tyranny of the Expert

26 11 2009

Three experts that we've put our trust

      Today we live in a world of experts.  Or so you’d think.  It’s important to have letters in front and in back of your name. PhD, MD, CEO, and over 900 acronyms and abbreviations denoting certain expertise and standards for qualification have come to be important indicators of our place in society.  The complexity of society has been somewhat responsible for this as knowledge has become more focused and narrow.  No longer do I just work in the employment department at my company.  I may be an employment benefits administrator, or a FMLA/Leave specialist, or a Human Resources Analyst.  And these are just three jobs in the field of Human Resources.  A normal human being, after reading the job description of these positions can get a pretty good idea of what a person is supposed to do.  But take another field in the computer technology area. 

            ‘“Operations research” and “management science” are terms that are used interchangeably to describe the discipline of using advanced analytical techniques to make better decisions and to solve problems. In private enterprises, operations research is used in planning business ventures and analyzing options by using statistical analysis, data and computer modeling, linear programming, and other mathematical techniques.

Operations research analysts are often involved in top-level strategizing, planning, and forecasting. They help to allocate resources, measure performance, schedule, design production facilities and systems, manage the supply chain, set prices, coordinate transportation and distribution, or analyze large databases.’ (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Handbook, 2008-09 ed)

            I suppose that if you’re an Operations research analyst this is all very clear, but if I was a freshman student in college and was thinking about what I wanted to do with the rest of my life, I might have difficulty grasping the scope of this job. 

            The point of this discussion is that as our society becomes more complex the more we have to specialize, which in turn creates more cultural isolation.  Not only do we not know what our neighbor does but we can’t talk with him because of our language and paradigm orientation.  Experts are supposed to know more about their subject than the rest of us.  They’re schooled and accredited, whereas we aren’t.  This sometimes gives us a sense that we are not as good as they are thereby putting more confidence in them than may be deemed necessary or advisable.  That is the reason, at least in the counseling field, that boundaries between the counselor and counselee are so important.  The counselor has power that if used improperly results in unethical behavior.  The same can be said as it applies to other professions.   Those with accreditation have more power with/over their clients and the clients need protection from improper or sloppy behavior. 

               Ethical imperatives are not always consistent with similar professions.  Two particular licensures that many counseling practitioners in Texas have are the Licensed Professional Counselor and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapy license.  Both of these licenses are administered by the same state agency.  They each have their own board and they periodically modify the ethics criteria for their particular license.  The ethics criteria are basically the same with a few minor exceptions.  However, one difference that I’ve always wondered about has to do with sexual conduct between a counselor and a former client.  There’s a whole list of caveats for sexual conduct with a former patient but the one that jumps out at me is that if a person is a LPC they are permitted to have sexual relations with a former patient after five years, while an LMFT is allowed to have sexual relations with a former patient after two years.  I would never consider having sexual relations with a former patient under any circumstances but have wondered why one license board used five years and the other two.  I’m not familiar with other professions but I imagine that there are other inconsistencies and anomalies in professional ethics criteria. 

Not only are there a myriad of requirements for accreditation for hundreds of professional designations, the requirements for entry into many of these professions continues to stiffen.  In some cases this is understandable as the knowledge base of that profession expands requiring more knowledge on the part of the candidate.  However, there are probably many instances where this is not the case.  It appears that accreditation is more of a job security function.  Take for instance the requirements for Licensed Professional Counselor in Texas.  When I became an LPC twenty years ago one of the requirements for licensure was to have 1000 hours of face to face counseling internship experience under the supervision of an accredited LPC supervisor.  Today it is 3000 hours of supervised face to face.  Also, the criteria to become and maintain a supervisor’s are more intense, thus giving supervisors another source of income.  As far as I can tell there has not been that much addition to the body of knowledge in counseling for a person to be admitted to licensure in those twenty years.  The only conclusion I can make is that the move was to limit the number of new licenses issued. 

To further emphasize the power of the expert, you only have to look in our court system where we have dueling experts who sell their services to advocate for a client.  On the other side is another expert who is equally adamant in their testimony for their client.  Can both be right?  Years ago I was involved in a lawsuit involving the value of a piece of commercial real estate.  Both sides had appraisals for the same property.  Both appraisers were competent and accredited.  But the differential in their appraisals was as much as 50%.  The definition of value is “what a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither of which is being forced to buy or sell, are willing to pay for a property.”  So, given the same facts, how could two appraisers be that far apart.  Could it be that the fact that the appraisers were being paid to advocate for their clients, that the values were skewed towards the clients position?   Is that ethical? And if so, which one is unethical?  Obviously, both can’t be right.  At one point years ago there was a saying that MAI which stood for Master Appraisers Institute, really meant Made According to Instruction.  Because of this tendency by some unethical appraisers, after the savings and loan scandals a number of appraisers were indicted for overstating values on properties that were later deemed to be considerably less valuable than appraised. 

Most professionals are highly ethical and it’s unfortunate that when a few bad apples are unethical that it blemishes the whole barrel and causes those professions to be ever stricter, thus punishing other honest professionals.  But the power still remains and is generally subject to self policing which itself sometimes is flawed.

Cultural isolation that accents our hierarchal differences and places further impediments in our way of communicating, even though well meaning in nature, create more possibilities for ethical transgressions.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.