Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Media called to action

Friday, March 2, 2001 | 8:45 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

I WAS IN the neighborhood so I thought I'd stop by.

It just so happened the entertainment industry newspaper, Variety, was hosting a conference on media and entertainment at the Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan, N.Y., this week and the featured speaker on "The Role of Media in a Capitalist Democracy" was none other than former President William Clinton, a man known these days as much for where he doesn't speak as for where he does.

That is especially true among the Wall Street crowd which, in a show of cowardice more typical than not, can't decide whether to offend their conservative investors or their more liberal ones when it comes to Clinton. So, in a spirit of bipartisanship, they offend both groups. First, by inviting the popular former president to speak -- which really upsets those who look to keep the man broke -- and then by either withdrawing the invite or backtracking after the fact, which doesn't endear them to their other clients who sputter on with words like "fair play" and "courage of convictions."

At least, I thought, here was Variety, a newspaper that has seen far more than its share of good and bad, ups and downs, honesty and dishonesty and intrigue and skullduggery. Here is a medium, I thought, that could not be cowered. That's why I was surprised when Variety's editor, Peter Bart, did something so uncharacteristic of him. He botched the introduction.

No, he didn't get the facts wrong. He did worse. In an effort not to offend anyone -- those who didn't like Clinton being there and those who were eager to hear from the former president -- Peter tried to walk a tightrope of non sequitors in referring to the former chief executive of the U.S. For obvious reasons, it fell flat and could have set the tone for an awful afternoon's speech.

With a passing recognition of an "unusual" introduction, Clinton launched into his talk which, in the end, had everything to do with the role of the media in a capitalist democracy but very little to do with what the audience had expected to hear from him. The reason is that he spoke of substance, of something real and important and of something about which most of the people in that room could do something about if they looked beyond their traditional capitalistic pursuits. In many ways, it was a typical Clinton call to action, the kind which helped him capture the imaginations of a country when he sought their votes almost a decade ago.

In the midst of the pardon controversy and the piling on by a media more excited about the Clinton story than that new fellow in the White House, the former president started by quoting Thomas Jefferson who claimed that if he had a choice between a government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he'd unhesitatingly choose the latter. I am not so sure I could be that magnanimous, given the laser-like effort of the media, which think they finally have Mr. Clinton where they have always tried to get him. But that's why he became president and I just get to write about these things.

Clinton, though, ever mindful of the audience and the opportunity, took the time to focus our attention not on making money in the media in our own country but how to make life better for others in faraway places, knowing that by doing so we would reap an economic benefit -- just not within the quarter or yearly budget cycles that American business has become beholden to for existence.

When Clinton spoke about the role of the media in this 21st century, he made a case for the blurring of interests between America's domestic policy and foreign affairs. Just like there is a crossing of lines between news and entertainment -- not a good thing -- so, too, is there a crossing of the line that separates what happens here from what occurs overseas. Whether good or bad, it is a fact of life with which we must find a way to deal.

America, he explained, is in the midst of its longest economic expansion in history, with the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the lowest welfare rate in 32 years, the lowest crime rate in 27 years and the highest home ownership and college-going rate in our history. And with just 22 percent of the world's income and 4 percent of the world's population, if we want to keep doing well, he explained, we had better continue to find new ways to sell something to somebody somewhere else.

The problem, he suggested, is that half of the world's people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day; 1 billion people live in chronic hunger; almost a billion of the globe's adults cannot read; half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Well, you get the picture. As former President Clinton said, "While some of us work on the cutting edge of the new global economy, too many live on the razor's edge of survival."

And it is the media, he argued, which has the tools to help close the gap that separates those who have from those who don't. For if that doesn't happen, he argued, instability reigns; poverty grows, which leads to conflict; terrorism finds a home, especially for those who incite ethnic and religious hatred; all of which can lead to a rejection of the kind of economic and social order upon which our future depends. And that isn't good for us and ours.

It is good business, Mr. Clinton argued, for each of us to do what we can to help those around the world learn to read, have food to eat and the education necessary to make for themselves a better life. For if they can't do that much, there will be no one for us to sell our goods and services to once we saturate the easy markets at hand. It is a form of self-interest that should make us want to help others even if we can't deal with a selfless one.

Put in a political perspective, a politician would be hard-pressed to support some overseas initiative to help a Third World country become self-sufficient if the voters back home don't know about it and, therefore, care even less. From a media standpoint, the more we can educate Americans the easier it is for the political leadership to find cover beneath that understanding and the sooner we can do not only the right thing, but also the smart thing. Soon many foreign countries would be able to get the help needed, to help themselves and grow their people out of poverty and ignorance and into a world of tomorrow that will buy U.S. goods and services, and work closely with our democratic system to better their own lives.

It is what everyone calls a win-win situation. But it cannot happen unless the media dedicate the time and resources to educate those of us at home so we can demand that it be done for others far away from our shores. In short, less attention to "Survivor" and more attention to health initiatives in Uganda. Less attention to "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" and more attention to education efforts in Bolivia so tomorrow's Bolivian millionaires can do business with U.S. businesses.

It is just a matter of determination to do what is right and what is smart. And if we wait for the media, the people or the politicians to break the current cycle of obliviousness it is something that may never happen. It will take serious people, like former President Bill Clinton, to talk to us about those things we so far don't really want to hear. If he continues to speak out, where he is asked to and where he is not, then maybe, just maybe, as our economy continues to grow so, too, will our customers.

The media's role is clear. It can help by informing us about that which is important or it can continue to bog us down in trivia that does us little good beyond a moment's entertainment. That is what I learned at Bill Clinton's speech. I trust the others in that room paid equal heed to his words.

archive