Blog Archives

89 Local Newspapers are a GOOD Thing!

4/29/2017

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about being retired is that I have more time to do things I enjoy simply because I enjoy doing them. I have to admit that (most of the time) I enjoyed my work at Western (yes, even grading papers and revising BFA theses) probably because I enjoyed the people (faculty colleagues AND students) I was working with and for. But, that work did have deadlines and pressures which made it hard at times to have the time for myself which I could have wished for. Now, that’s changed.

As a retiree, I have a lot more time for myself, and I am enjoying it. I go to “Aquasize” classes at the local YMCA, I read a lot, I watch a bit (not a great deal) more TV than I used to, I can take advantage of lower prices and smaller crowds to go to the movies during the day (we went to an afternoon showing of Beauty and the Beast just the other day – I liked it a lot!), I can go poke around at the public library to see what I can find which looks interesting to read. AND, I can actually READ a newspaper!

Yes, Bonnie and I got The Sylva Herald every week for years and The Asheville Citizen-Times pretty much every Sunday, but I have to admit that I didn’t really READ them all that closely. I enjoyed the Sunday funnies and hung on to the TV schedule from the Asheville paper and I, probably, paid a bit more attention to the stories in the Herald because it dealt with local issues which were rarely (if ever) even mentioned on the Asheville TV news, but I can’t say that looking at the paper was much of a priority for me.

That’s changed since we have retired. We now (as of quite recently) get the Omaha World-Herald on a daily basis. We have been getting the weekend (Fri., Sat., & Sun.) papers practically since we moved, but we recently upgraded to daily. Yes, I know that paper means killing trees, although newsprint can be recycled and Omaha does recycle paper, glass, and most plastic, so I feel less guilty about taking a daily paper than I might under other circumstances. Anyway, I am finding that I am really enjoying getting the paper and spending the time to actually read a good deal of it. So, I thought I’d make a few comments about why I find this desirable.

The most important reason why this has become of some importance to me, I think, is that, in addition to the daily funnies, which I enjoy, and the ads, which I have always enjoyed looking at even when there isn’t a lot which we need to buy, other than groceries (the ads do allow us to take advantage of more and better bargains), there is much more detail provided as to the actual news (especially local news) than one gets from the TV. This includes a lot of stuff about what’s going on around town (now that we are in a town where a fair amount happens), so that I feel much better informed about things at the various museums, theatres, etc. than I would be without the information from the paper.

Yes, we do watch the local (and national) news on TV, but there is more depth available about stuff of some interest to me in the paper than time allows in TV coverage, especially about non-criminal stories. So I feel better informed regarding what’s going on generally than I have in the past. But, I’m not sure that it’s limited to just that.
A local paper, because it is local, is targeted to local interests, in a way that national (especially national TV) coverage simply can’t deal with. Even local TV simply doesn’t have the time to deal with providing much depth regarding local news. Besides, there are local editorials, letters to the editor (some of which I agree with and some of which annoy me), and, generally, broader coverage of local events (reviews of theatre productions, art exhibits, concerts, etc.) than one can find on television. Most importantly, perhaps, I am finding that I simply enjoy spending a bit of time (rarely more than an hour, even on the weekend) finding out what’s going on and what people who spend some time looking into the events of the day have discovered. All too often, I believe, TV coverage seems to have more of an agenda in its reportage towards what THEY think is going to make the most exciting visual story than what may, actually, be of importance to me.

Now, I won’t suggest that a newspaper (any newspaper) does not have an editorial policy, but, at least in my impression, the actual reportage seems to focus on reporting the facts and the editorial ideas are more confined to the editorial page. While I usually take a look at the editorials, I can also look at the stories and get a better sense of the actual facts: what did someone actually say, or do, as opposed to how somebody thinks I ought to feel about what happened. I like the idea that I can make up my own mind about how to respond. I also like the idea that I have the ability to respond to the events of the day, although I have not (yet) taken the opportunity to express my own opinion in the paper.

Especially since the advent of cable news, so much TV “news” seems to lean pretty heavily towards some sort of bias. Some (Fox News, seems to be a pretty good example) seems to go a bit out of its way to support a more right wing interpretation. Others (MSNBC, perhaps) seem more “progressive,” to use the current word for what used to be called liberal. I don’t know that I have a problem with the right of people to have a point of view, but I think it may be dangerous to rely exclusively on sources which view everything from any particular single perspective. I’d like to think that the responsibility of NEWS media is to report the FACTS first (that is, specifically verifiable information) before engaging in discussion as to what the “talking heads” would like us to think that it means.

My sense is that one is more likely to find factual information in newspaper reportage than in most broadcast “news.” And, I won’t even comment on so-called “Internet News,” which rarely, in my experience, even makes much of an attempt to differentiate between fact and the “spin” which they want to put on stories, no matter how much they claim to engage in “no spin” news. Most of the time, such “sources” seem as biased as supermarket tabloids.

No, all too often “news” sources begin the evening news with "Good Evening," and then proceed to tell you why it isn't. To borrow what is believed to be a quote from Sergeant Friday (now I AM dating myself, but I think it’s apt) what I’d really like is “just the facts.” And, based on my own, limited experience, one seems more likely to find them in newspapers than on TV, especially when one is dealing with local issues, and as the old saying goes “All politics is local.”

Local newspapers, in my opinion, are extremely important to our country because they are more likely to actually focus on facts, instead of opinion and because they are more likely to deal with the issues of importance to the communities where we live. The decline (even loss) of local papers is a sad comment on our times, because it seems that only they can afford the time (space) to report on real issues, not just worry about the latest scandal which they can cook up to attract our attention. In addition to providing a bit of entertainment on a daily basis, because they aren’t fighting for “eyeballs” every second, they can take the time to do some actual investigation and determine the facts about what’s going on. They are actually important to the success of our democracy, in a way which, I’m afraid, most of the more easily available “news” sources are not.

In any event, I’d like to encourage people to support their local newspaper. I suspect that, if they will take a few minutes to actually read it, they would find it a source of some entertainment, as well as a way to get a better handle on what’s actually going on as opposed to just “spin.” So, I think newspapers, especially local ones, are a good thing, and generally not terribly expensive. Give them a try, you just might find them worthwhile.

LLAP

0 Comments

88 Musings on Spring

4/17/2017

0 Comments

Since Easter Sunday was just yesterday; and Passover was last week; and the days are getting longer and warmer (overall), it would seem that it’s safe to suggest that it is getting to be well and truly Spring! Spring is, of course, the season of love, prom and graduation ceremonies.

Having been (reasonably) happily married for 50 years, I feel no compulsion to wax poetic about the power of love, except to say that I am still in love with Bonnie, my wife, and love my children and grandchildren. Prom, other than seeing lots of stories about “promposals” and cautionary news coverage intended to reduce the amount of carnage on the roads as young people (who KNOW that they will never be harmed) engage in unwise behaviors before, during and/or after the “biggest night of their life,” isn’t something of a great deal of concern to me at the moment (although I expect to have some concerns on this score over my grandchildren fairly soon).

Then, there are graduation ceremonies. As I think I have said before, I’ve been to a LOT of such affairs in the course of my career (at least one every year at Western, and multiple times a year during the four years that I was Chair of the Faculty). It isn’t too much to say that they don’t seem to stand out as highly significant events in most people’s minds. I mean, really, do any of us actually remember what the commencement speaker had to say at our own graduation(s)? I doubt it. Yet such addresses are, in fact, the model and culmination of our entire educational system, which is based on the idea that younger people can (and should) learn from the advice (and wisdom?) of older (wiser, more experienced) ones. Who knows? It might even work that way! But, I’m not sure that therein lies the real value of such occasions. After all, if the “young” person hasn’t acquired whatever we might call her/his appropriate learning in the time leading up to this occasion, I find it highly unlikely that his/her education is going to be materially enhanced by someone speaking for a few minutes at a commencement ceremony.

Yes, occasionally we do hear of a particularly interesting commencement address, most often, it seems, from somewhat unlikely sources. I’ve mentioned a couple of such speeches, which I found unusually interesting in post #29 in the archives of this blog. It seems to me that neither Steve Jobs nor J.K. Rowling would be obvious choices to be the honored speaker at a commencement, although I’m not sure why. And, in fact, they did come up with interesting variations on the “standard” commencement advice one comes to expect on such occasions. But, of course, this sort of advice really isn’t the reason for such ceremonies, at all; it’s just an expected tradition!

No, the real point of commencement ceremonies is the ceremony itself. It’s a ritual, a rite of passage. Actually, such ceremonies probably come from the same root sources as the “dubbing” of a knight, the ordination of a priest, the initiation into membership, the ritual of Baptism, First Communion, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, Marriage and other sacramental acts, etc. The comparison to religious rituals seems pretty obvious since virtually all education in Western civilization was heavily influenced (even controlled) by religion, mostly Christianity, for a long time, but most (all?) societies seem to have parallel rites of passage.

My point here, perhaps rather unobviously, is that commencement is, in essence, THEATRE, just like all of the other ritual acts which have been mentioned and a good many more. It is a performance engaged in for the purpose of announcing and celebrating a change of state on the part of the participants. It is an “adulthood,” or “initiation” ritual similar to those engaged in in many, perhaps most (all?), societies. It is a ritualistic passage into the ranks of the “educated,” whatever that means.

Of course, such ceremonies don’t actually change anything, but they are symbolic acts which can have considerable power for those engaged in them. I remember that when I completed my doctoral oral exams, one of the first people I ran into in the Drama building at the University of Georgia was Dr. Gerald Kahan, who had been one of my professors. He asked my how the exam had gone and I replied something like “Well, Dr. Kahan, I passed.” He replied, “Now you can call me Gerry.” To me, that was significant. It meant that I had now been accepted as a colleague by someone whom I respected. To me, that was, perhaps, as important as any commencement ceremony. It forced me to think a bit about having achieved something of significance.

My point here is that one should not look at such things as simply a silly, old-fashioned, time-wasting requirement, but as a theatrical opportunity; an excuse to put on the ceremonial costume, preform the ritualistic acts and engage in the theatre which marks the end of another academic year and the movement of another class into the ranks of the “graduated.” As a theatre person, I don’t think this is a bad thing, although I do wish that there were more interesting commencement speeches more frequently.

Still, the THEATRE of Commencement is important and should be a cause for celebration as we mark the passing of another milestone in the life of our society; the passage, and welcoming, of another group into a new stage of life and membership in a different part of our group. That, at least to me, is a significant part of what theatre is all about, and, as a theatre person, I celebrate it.

LLAP

0 Comments

87 Why Should We Care About Funding for the Arts, etc?

4/2/2017

0 Comments

I see that the forces of what is called “Conservative Politics” are fighting to have Congress eliminate funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. I have to admit that I have greater knowledge (and that’s pretty slim) of the Endowment for the Arts and the CPB than I do of the others, but they seem to be worthwhile areas for educated people to support, so I took a brief look at them along with the arts organizations.

Such an action would, of course, eliminate a significant part of the funding of many scholarly and artistic projects, make a significant cut to the budgets of libraries and museums and go a long way towards eliminating public television. Of course, that would mean a loss of jobs for trained people who work in the arts, humanities, public television, libraries and museums. But, there seems to be little interest in mentioning those jobs. I guess because they can’t be of much importance since they rely (at least to some extent) on the waste(?) of government money. In the name of fairness, I do have to admit that such cuts would save the Federal Government some money.

Let’s take a look at how much, however. According to the figures I have been able to find, both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are currently receiving about 148 million dollars a year (about $.45 per capita). The Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets about 445 million (about $1.35 per capita) and the Institute of Museum and Library Services gets about 230 million (about $.70 per capita). So, altogether, that’s about 971 million dollars a year or about $2.95 for each of us.

Now I’m not going to suggest that 971 million dollars isn’t a fair amount of money. In fact, to me, personally, it’s a LOT! On the other hand, we spend more than 600 Billion on “defense,” about $1860.00 per person. So, if a billion is a thousand million (as I believe it is) we are talking about less than a thousand million compared to 600 thousand million (which translates to about .00167 of the amount for defense for all of the areas discussed above. That’s still a lot of money to me, personally, but it’s such a small fraction of the total federal budget (about $3.8 trillion [about $12,000 per person] that it’s hard to see it as very significant. Note: a “trillion” is a thousand billion, as I understand it, which makes the 971 million seem pretty insignificant.

On the other hand, I believe that the actual cost, while demonstrably quite minor, is actually not relevant to the real issue at hand, at least with the arts. Certainly the country (even the world) would be greatly diminished by the loss of (or significant reduction in the services of) our museums and libraries. This is to say nothing that the arts, museums, etc. have been proven to have an impact on the economy of their home communities far in excess of their costs. They generate hotel room sales, restaurant sales, car rentals, souvenir purchases, and all sorts of other activity from both locals and visitors. All of these things result in tax income and jobs in the local community.

But, to get back to non-fiscal losses which would occur due to these cuts; while I confess to not being a rabid PBS watcher, its programing is, in my opinion, among the highest quality which I view (and I am rather fond of “Antiques Roadshow” [both the US one and the original, UK one] which I usually spend a couple of hours a week watching). Actually, that may well be my most consistent TV watching, although I have watched many of the Ken Burns movies and Bonnie would certainly have felt the loss of not being able to watch “Downton Abbey” or “Victoria.” My children’s childhood would have been much different without “Mr. Rogers” and “Sesame Street.”

And, I must point out that those programs have been of greater value than just frivolous entertainment for many children. A case in point; few years ago, our daughter, Margaret, had an infected wisdom tooth which came close to killing her. While she was in intensive care and unable to speak, she communicated to her mother and a couple of friends using sign language she had learned from “Sesame Street” many years earlier. It might not have been fluent “speech,” but she could still communicate basic ideas. This was even noted by her doctor (who pointed it out to his gaggle of interns). To me (prejudiced person that I am) that alone goes a long way towards justifying my support for PBS.

Having been involved in higher education for a number of years, I am well aware of how significant National Endowment for the Humanities grants have been in helping support research in many areas, including some of interest to me. Without some support, many, if not most, of these research opportunities would be lost, as (unlike in the sciences) few businesses are heavily devoted to serious research in the humanities:

… the study and interpretation of the following: language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archaeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism and theory of the arts; those aspects of social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods; and the study and application of the humanities to the human environment with particular attention to reflecting our diverse heritage, traditions, and history and to the relevance of the humanities to the current conditions of national life.
Definition of the humanities from the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, 1965

Notice, if you will, that the “humanities do NOT include the creation of art objects or performances, only the study of the “history, criticism and theory of the arts…” which brings us to the one part of these proposed cuts which have been very prominent in some folks’ proposals for a good many years. After all, it’s the proposed cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts which have received the most publicity.

Why? I suspect that it’s because the some art objects may be seen as supporting ideas (or contain other content) which are considered controversial, or contradictory to some people’s political ideas. Jesse Helms, the late Senator from North Carolina, was adamantly against any funding for the arts because he felt that the arts didn’t support his fundamentalist Christian values and “conservative” principles. Or, perhaps it’s more correct to say that Senator Helms (and, I would suggest, his spiritual followers) were (and are) against supporting any art, or art institution, which they cannot control, or use to support their causes.

Yes, the leaders of the National Endowment for the Arts have, generally, tried to be pretty neutral in supporting what are determined to be worthy artists and organizations without a lot of consideration as to the specific content of the art works they create. As the author, Michael Crichton once said, it is “… the job of art to bring true feelings alive. To shock people into awareness.” Or, as J.K. Rowling said in response to questions about why she was pleased when people cried over one of her books; “I’m a writer. If you’re not feeling, I’m not doing it right.” Art isn’t always supposed to lead us into paths of contentment and placidity, although it can do that, too.

So, the leaders of the NEA have seemed to support the idea that in a free society the right of the artist to follow his/her path is important. I tend to agree with this point of view. Does that mean that I love and support everything which is presented as “art?” NO, but I support others’ right to find value in things which I don’t. Others also have the right to disagree with my opinion, because (contrary to what some critics would seem to want us to believe) I don’t believe that “expert” decisions as to the “value” of art are the only determining factors in a works’ significance. I am only the final arbitrator of what is art for myself! Only in authoritarian states is the decision of a critic (usually a political appointee who decides based on whether the content of the art (whatever that means) supports the government’s point of view the determining factor as to the “value” of art.

Historically, those selected to chair the National Endowment for the Arts have come from a background in the arts and/or arts administration and they have let well-trained professionals make the grant funding decisions which have meant a lot to individual artists and organizations, but are extremely small in the grand scheme of a federal budget. Does that mean that I always agree with the decisions which the NEA makes? No, but I do recognize that decisions have to be made as to how to spend the limited funds available and that I recognize that their people have been designated to make these decisions. The alternative, I suppose would be either to declare the arts (music, theatre, visual arts, etc.) as useless and valueless to the people as a whole and therefore unworthy of support, or to suggest that in order to serve any sort of valuable function, they must support the current government (which, of course, violates the First Amendment, but that’s another story).

However, I think that former First Lady Michelle Obama said something worthwhile when she said “The arts are not just a nice thing to have or to do if there is free time or if one can afford it. Rather, paintings and poetry, music and fashion, design and dialogue, they all define who we are as a people and provide an account of our history for the next generation.” That has, after all been the function of art for centuries. As Shakespeare suggested, the purpose of playing is “…to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.” Hamlet, III, 2

As far as political control of the arts, I like what John Kennedy said, “If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him… We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.” I’m also rather fond of Lyndon Johnson’s statement that “Art is a nation’s most precious heritage. For it is in our works of art that we reveal to ourselves, and to others, the inner vision which guides us as a nation. And where there is no vision, the people perish.”

In simplest terms, as Stephen Sondheim said, “Art ... is an attempt to bring order out of chaos.” One would think that anyone who does not wish to live a life in chaos, would wish to encourage art, for it reminds us of who we are, where we have come from and where we wish to go. That’s why I cannot support the cutting of a few pennies for support of the arts, humanities, etc. in order to buy more bombs, guns and bullying.

I would like to encourage support of the NEA, the NEH, the CPB and the IMLS. Send a message to our “leaders” that we think there’s more to life than cutting rich people’s taxes and buying guns and that they should please put OUR money where our beliefs are.”

LLAP

0 Comments

​89 Local Newspapers are a GOOD Thing!

​88 Musings on Spring

87 Why Should We Care About Funding for the Arts, etc?

Archives

Categories

89 Local Newspapers are a GOOD Thing!

88 Musings on Spring