In Which Debt Stalks the Oilfields Like Some Kind of Stalking Thing

Sometimes journalists try too hard.  Here is the lede from an article in today's Times about the debt load being carried by many oil companies:

MIDLAND, Tex. — On the 15th floor of an office tower in Midland looms a five-foot-long trophy black bear, shot by the son of an executive at Caza Oil & Gas.

But it is Caza that has recently fallen prey to a different kind of predator stalking the Texas oil patch: too much debt.

First of all, if the bear is "looming," shouldn't it be five feet tall?  Not that a five-foot tall creature can loom over much of anything. . . unless the reporter is a primordial dwarf. . . . (NOTE TO SELF: Check whether the New York Times employs a primordial dwarf reporter.)

But still, doesn't this opening seem like a bit much?  What did the rejected versions look like. . .

The morning sun gleamed on Caza Oil & Gas' oil derricks standing idle in the Texas scrubland.

Bur it is a different celestial body that will crash like a meteor into Caza, wiping out the company's profits as if they were so many ill-fated dinosaurs: too much debt.

Or maybe,

On the desk of Caza Oil & Gas's CFO, a Nolan Ryan bobblehead doll welcomes visitors with a Parkinsonian wobble.

But it is Caza that will be struck out by a different kind of fireballer tossing a no-hitter at the firm's balance sheet: too much debt. 

In Which We Experience 'That Moment When. . . '

People respond to tragedy in various ways.  The Eiffel Tower forms the peace sign's inverted 'V' in countless Facebook profile pictures, while in others the picture remains as it was before the events of November 13, only now superimposed by a ghostly tricolor.  #PrayforParis is a popular hashtag.  Whatever helps.

Less benign, though, are those status updates that chastise people for the apparent hypocrisy in condemning the French attacks while remaining silent about (if not ignorant of) similar attacks in other parts of the world.  They question why people pray for Paris but not Beirut, which suffered a major terrorist attack just one day earlier.  They ascribe to callousness the Western world's lack of sufficient grief at an attack on a university in Kenya--which seems somewhat off-topic, as the event in question happened some six months ago and was, as I recall, covered quite extensively by any number of news outlets.  But these people do certainly have a point: Western media in general devote exponentially more coverage to terrorist attacks against "First World" nations like France than they do to similar carnage in poorer places like Lebanon.  I guess my question is, And so?

Don't get me wrong: Any victims of terrorism deserve outpourings of sympathy; any bloodthirsty zealots spilling innocent blood in the name of delusional causes deserve scorn.  The French don't matter more than the Lebanese (or the Kenyan or the Chinese or the Australian).  But there are any number of reasons why the American news media would focus more on what happens in France than on what happens in Beirut.  Let's be honest: Walk up to a typical American--a good-hearted, caring, American--and say, "A terrorist attack just killed over 100 people in Lebanon," and that good-hearted person says, "Oh my God!  That's horrible!"  Walk up to that same American and say, "A terrorist attack just killed over 100 people in Paris," and that same good-hearted person says, "Oh my God!  That's horrible!  What happened?  Tell me what happened!"

Is that right?  Fair?  Equitable?  Maybe not.  But it is human: We identify with people who are "like" us.  The "typical" American--for better or worse--identifies more with France than with Lebanon or with Kenya.  It doesn't mean we don't care.  And frankly, the time to point out people's supposed "hypocrisy"--if, that is, you want to encourage more openheartedness--is not when those people are feeling understandably traumatized.  "Your buddy just died in a car crash?  Well, sure, that's sad, but what about the two-hundred civilians killed by Syrian airstrikes yesterday?  Why aren't you crying for them?!?"

Back in July, Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, elicited scorn when, in response to the activist "Black Lives Matter" movement protesting police brutality against African-Americans, he remarked that "All lives matter."  While the comment is undoubtedly right in a literal sense, it reflected a certain tone-deafness to the protesters' concerns.  Of course all lives matter, but that wasn't the point at that moment for that audience: People who were processing traumatic events and expressing their grief and outrage about those events.  I wonder if those expressing dismay at the lack of coverage of terrorism in Beirut, people whose general worldviews most likely mirror those of O'Malley's critics, realize that they just all-lives-mattered Paris.

And that's something I've noticed over the last few days: The way the events of last weekend have led to outbreaks of what can at best be called cognitive dissonance and at worst hypocrisy.  I'm speaking of myself here, too.  When I hear about France sealing its borders, or GOP hardliners calling hysterically for a ban on Syrian--or even Muslim--immigration to the United States, I roll my eyes and think, among other things, of how ridiculous such non-solutions are.  After all, I think, what good will sealing borders do, as anyone bent on infiltrating the US to wreak terrorist havoc will surely find ways around whatever laws we put in place. . . . And then I realize that I am making exactly the same argument used by NRA sympathizers to pooh-pooh attempts to strengthen gun-control laws.

It's been said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.  Perhaps its also the wage extracted by events too terrible to rationalize.

Greetings from Part of the Problem

Despite her famous conversion from conservative to liberal, Arianna Huffington still displays some unreconstructed attitudes toward labor.  Specifically, she seems quite content to allow most of the The Huffington Post's content providers to toil away in unpaid semi-obscurity.  Not to bash Arianna: She's not the only media mogul to take advantage of unpaid labor and probably not the most egregious offender either.  One could fairly point out that many--if not most--if not all--of these uncompensated scribblers are only too happy to see their writing published (or re-published) in so prominent a venue.  Hell, if La Huffington saw fit to purloin any portion of my meager output, you can bet that HuffPo's virtual ink would scarcely have time to dry before I promptly slapped a link on my Facebook page and updated my CV to boast of this unexpected honor.  And therein lies the problem.

It's become a truism that the Internet has virtually (pun intended) destroyed journalism.  No longer can The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other bastions of the Fourth Estate serve as defenders of journalistic integrity.  They can no longer serve as gatekeepers, protecting the reading public from shoddy reporting or even bad grammar.  How can they, when anyone with an iPhone and a few minutes to kill can become a cut-rate Cronkite, reporting late-breaking events in his hometown or expounding her more-or-less informed views on ObamaCare?  Even if the major news outlets took it upon themselves to cleanse the internet of ill-conceived or blatantly false incidences of attempted journalism, they would be playing an unwinnable game of Whac-a-Mole.  The Internet has become a journalistic thrift shop: Thousands of items, mostly worthless, with the occasional gem waiting to be found if one is willing to look hard enough.

But we really shouldn't blame the technology for destroying journalism and impoverishing journalists.  The technology simply enables the legions of writers willing--and eager--to work for free to serve as a sort of standing scab army for un- or semi-scrupulous publishers.  While a trained, professional writer may often do a better job than a dabbling blogger, such is not always the case.  And why should a publisher buy the cow, so to speak, when the cow is willing to write a 1,000-word commentary on drone warfare for free?

As a writing teacher, I can't help but derive a small amount of pleasure from the fact that an  apparently limitless number of people exist who so love the written word that they are willing to devote large chunks of unremunerated time to their passion.  But I am also a firm believer in the importance of paying the writer--I'll take any contributions anyone happens to throw my way.  I agree with the notion that journalism, especially, should maintain its elements of professionalism, but I am at a loss as to how this can be done when the Internet has allowed amateurism--in its literal sense of doing something for love--to flourish.

Solipsistic Salons

Last week, The Washington Post had to do some serious damage control when it came to light that their marketing department had developed plans to host "salons" at the home of the publisher, Katharine Weymouth. These salons would be attended by Post journalists, Washington political insiders, and lobbyists; the latter would pay $25,000 to sponsor said salons. (Alternatively, lobbyists could get eleven for the price of ten by ponying up $250,000. That is not a joke.) Proving that journalistic ethics do not preclude Schadenfreude, The New York Times trumpeted the Post story on its front page.

We feel for the Post. We really do. Lord knows newspapers are floundering; scarcely a week goes by without a story of some venerable broadsheet facing massive cuts to staff or other resources or closing altogether. Newspapers need to come up with ever more creative ways to compete in this age of massive competition from other print media, television, and of course the internet. (Damn bloggers! Oh, wait. . . .) Still, there is something unsavory about the thought of corporate lobbyists paying for access to reporters. Of course, there's even more that's unsavory about the lobbyists paying for access to politicians, but at least we could hope that newspapers would be interested in uncovering such corruption-lite. If the papers are on the payroll, too. . . .

Still, as one door closes, another opens. And since we at The Solipsist have no such compunction about journalistic ethics, we would like to offer our services to those lobbyists left out in the cold by the Post's fickleness. In fact, we'll beat their offer. For a mere $20,000, any firm can sponsor a salon at Solipsist HQ ($150,000 gets you a series of ten salons and an autographed "Solipsist" baseball cap) . Granted, Solipsist Central is not as physically close to the seat of power at Ms. Weymouth's townhouse; at the same time, the Bayou is lovely this time of year, and we have recently installed new citronella candles all around the perimeter to keep the mosquitoes away. WOS has offered to prepare hors d'oeuvres, and she is even now at the Piggly Wiggly stocking up on assorted crackers.

What else will you get for your money? What WON'T you get?!? Well, for one thing, you probably won't get access to President Obama's inner circle or key players in Congress. On the other hand, we can line up some heavy hitters of our own. There's Mitch down the road--he VOTED for President Obama. We think. Anyway, he has some very interesting views on firearms restrictions that he would be more than happy to share with, say, a lobbyist from the NRA. We can't guarantee local journalists will show up, but we already have a verbal commitment from Clem "Buckskin" Parker, who has personally written over 300 letters to the editor of the Delta Democrat Times on topics ranging from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to Noodling. He firmly expects to get one published soon. We also hear that Sarah Palin may be available.

So don't despair lobbyists! You can still pay for access. No need to go through the Washington Post. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just ask Buckskin Parker.

(Image of Solipsist Headquarters from Wikimedia Commons--how they got the picture, we have NO IDEA!)