The Story Behind the Story

“Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power.  It seeks truth.  Those who forsake it to shill for a product or candidate or a party or an ideology diminish their own power.”  (From Mark Bowden’s article in the October 2009 The Atlantic entitled “The Story Behind the Story.”)

In the 2048 of the Perceval series of novels, America is a dystopian country where the guarantees of the Bill of Rights no longer exist.  Politicians and other “elected” officials pay lipservice to freedom of speech, of religion, and the press.  Journalists are no more than scribes for the New Economic Party, or talking heads on television news shows.  The NEP controls information and its flow for the general population.  I had considered, at one point, of making Joseph Caine, the composer who mentored Evan Quinn, a journalist who defies the NEP by writing investigative reports exposing their unconstitutional activities.  Caine would have taken over the story, I realized, stolen it from Evan.  I returned to Joseph Caine, composer.  But in Evan’s family tree, I gave him an uncle who was a journalist, and who had been rounded up in the First Purification and never heard from again.  In a very early draft of Perceval (at that time, entitled “Shadow Lovers”), the first chapter had been set on the last day of school when Evan was ten years old.  He and his best friend Paul were ambushed by the neighborhood Vigiciv gang but rescued by the neighborhood bum, who, Evan discovered, only pretended to be drunk.  This bum, Adam Burns, had been a journalist and had known Evan’s uncle.  Once again, the journalist threatened to take over the story.  So, I abandoned Adam Burns and the entire idea of a journalist in Evan’s life.  A shadow of Adam Burns remains in what Evan chooses to wear in the wee hours of the morning after his last tour concert in Vienna.  Such is the way a writer’s mind works.

The other day, I read Mark Bowden’s article, The Story Behind the Story, and as I read, a chill went through me.  He took the example of the early coverage of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to show that what was being reported about her background and beliefs in newspapers, newsmagazines and on television hadn’t originated from hard-working reporters researching and investigating Sotomayor’s professional life to present a fair, balanced profile of her, but from hard-working bloggers searching the internet for videos that they could use to smear her essentially and cater to their conservative readers.  The idea for this article rose out of his surprise and curiosity that all the television stations reported the exact same thing about Sotomayor on the day President Obama nominated her, i.e. the exact same video clips.  In the article, he deconstructs the videos, including the context where none existed before, talks with the bloggers who originally found them and released them online, and shows how the internet and the proliferation of bloggers have in many, many ways made genuine democratic debate nearly impossible because of the adversarial nature of what he calls “the post-journalistic world” that’s been created via the internet.  In the article’s conclusion, he contrasts what reporters do with what bloggers do, and shows how reporters, working in the old journalism style, would contribute to a national dialogue by presenting fair and balanced reportage, challenging each side without taking sides.  What chilled me to the core was the quote at the top of this essay.  The idea that power entered into journalism in any way now, that reporters had become no more than bloggers disseminating what they find on the internet in service to one side or the other in order to gain power, to win. 

Now I understood the complaints that mainstream media leans to the liberal left, that it favored one candidate over others last year, and so on.  Now I see it.  Now I get it.  And it could be the beginning of the end of freedom of the press…and the beginning of the creation of the America in 2048.  Or not…..

Freedom of Choice

Americans want choice.  Anyone might conclude this by walking through retail stores, grocery stores, or gazing up at the marquee for the neighborhood multiplex.  We want choice in our health insurance options, our presidents, our cars, and where we live.  Try taking our freedom of choice away from us — just try! — and our high decibel response will drown out any rationale offered for depriving us of our choices.  Everyday, we make choices about what clothes to wear, what to eat, etc. and decisions about how we will conduct our lives. 

Years ago before the USSR disintegrated before our eyes, I met a Russian family that had immigrated here.  They’d been here long enough to be overwhelmed by the number of decisions required of them and the plethora of choices they had.  They didn’t know what to do.  Their way of life in Russia had been controlled, their options limited, the beauracratic red tape endless.  They knew how to work that system to get what they needed.  They assumed life in America would be the same.  Sometimes it is, but for the most part, they were overwhelmed by the number of decisions and choices required of them.  One said to me, “I come here and I feel that I have lost all my experience.”  He was afraid of making the wrong choices.

The America of 2048 resembles more closely the USSR of 1948 than the America of today, with some Capitalistic twists.  Evan Quinn is told where he’ll live, where he’ll work, what doctor he’ll see, whether he’ll own a car or not, where and when he can travel, and so on.  The New Economic Party government (the parent) treats him (the little child) well as long as he does what he’s told.  His life is fairly simple as a result: he eats, jogs, goes to work, sleeps.  Ownership and/or use of personal computers, televisions, telephones, vehicles, and most of the electronic gadgets we’re used to today are restricted and monitored closely.  Only those lucky enough to be in the NEP elite or favored by them have unfettered access to what we have access to today.  The borders are closed.  Everyone must carry a government-issued chip (RFID) somewhere on his physical body, usually embedded under the skin, that contains all essential personal information available for police to track or scan at any time.  We’re accustomed to thinking of orchestra conductors as a glamorous bunch, well off; but Evan is poor, wears old, fraying clothes, and haggles on the black market for books and music as well as food. 

Europe in 2048 is much like today, a blending of the future and the past in the present.  The amount of choice available to him shocks Evan, confuses him, and he gravitates to what he knows in order to gain his footing in this new place.  Through him, I’ve tried to show a culture and society that believes “the next big thing” is great but they’re happy with the last big thing, too, and they’re not about to throw it out.  Landline phones provide the security that cell phones cannot.  Even though homes are run by computers, including locks and security, people can have another lock installed in their front doors operable only by a metal key, or an “old fashioned” security system.  They have the choice.  As a result, “old” things that still work, have value, are not deemed obsolete and discarded.  Evan buys CDs and DVDs but his home computer is perfectly capable of downloading and saving music and movies he wants.  He has a landline videophone at home.  He doesn’t like cell phones and carries only a very basic model, one that only makes and receives calls.  No text messages, no video or photos (at this time, Europe has outlawed phones with video/photo capability), no internet, no games.  He doesn’t need a PDA.  E-mail drives him crazy because he lets it pile up.  He continues to receive postal letters from colleagues all over the world, read paper newspapers and bound books. 

Choice, a precious thing to hold and never let go.  Evan gradually assimilates into the Europe of 2048 and exercises his freedom of choice although the American government tries to continue to control him….

Paying Attention as a Writer

Could the future of classical music be found on YouTube?  An article in last week’s Time by Vivien Schweitzer described the recent development of musicians auditioning by video on YouTube for the YouTube Symphony Orchestra.  Musicians submitted videos of themselves performing standard repertory to be evaluated first by members of the London Symphony and Berlin and New York Philharmonics who selected 200 finalists.  The finalists’ videos were posted on YouTube where users could view them and vote on the musicians they liked best.  Then conductor Michael Tilson Thomas reviewed those and chose who will play in the YouTube Symphony Orchestra.  It’s an internet American Idol for the symphony orchestra. 

As a way to bring classical music to the masses, this couldn’t be better.  Is it the future of auditioning orchestra musicians?  It could save on travel expenses, I guess.  But there’s one glaring thing about it that would probably prevent it from being used in a formal audition process: the player can be seen and identified.  Right now, musicians audition behind a screen — they can be heard but not seen.  The screen keeps the audition judges blind to the musician’s age, sex, color, etc.  All that’s important is the way the musician plays. 

But I started thinking about the future of classical music in a much different way because of the YouTube Symphony Orchestra.  What if orchestras, as a routine matter, recorded every concert on digital video to be “rented” or sold online?  What if orchestras, as a routine matter, performed online on a regular basis?  The concert hall could remain a viable performing venue for people who preferred the concert experience live (and it’s really special, I prefer it) while others could see the concert online from anyplace in the world.  My first thought is, how would the musicians and conductor be paid? 

Which brings up a concern I’ve had, and continue to have, about those of us who create something that is unique to us, and the internet.  I know that a lot of content on the internet is free, but I also think there should be “premium sites” where one has to pay for the content produced by people who are making their living from the resulting product (music, books, art, photography, journalism, etc.).  So, an orchestra’s website that also produces video of the orchestra performing could have a free section (clips and other info) and a pay-to-see-and-listen section.  Musicians make their living through performing or composing.  It’s a job, folks, and they need to make money to live just like the rest of us.

But you know, wouldn’t it be WONDERFUL if food were free?  Or clothing, houses, cars, anything one wants?  Just go take it.  But what about the people who provided those things?  I have thought long and often about how different a world we’d have without money and the need to earn it.  But I wonder if humans are ready for a world without money, without money as the purpose in life, as the reward, as the incentive for working or creating.  This is something I touch on in the Perceval novels for Evan Quinn’s future world — some countries have joined together to develop a transition process for eliminating money.

For me, I always seem to end up at Perceval and Evan Quinn.  Evan would not be impressed with the YouTube phenomenon.  He’s not really an internet type of guy.  He prefers the real world, real people (not avatars), real experience (vs. virtual).  For me as a writer, however, I pay attention and think about what I see in terms of the future and how I’ve imagined it, how it needs to evolve….

The Change, Again

Last October I wrote a post about the similarity between the economic troubles we’re experiencing and “The Change” in Perceval.  At that time, I thought that the losses would affect only the US and Europe, but this past week I realized that this recession is essentially global.  That makes it even more similar to “The Change,” which I envisioned as a global depression that started in the US and spread.

Spooky.

In the Perceval future, political upheaval accompanies the economic problems, and terrorists take advantage of America’s economic weakness.  As a result, Americans go to the polls and vote into power a political party that gradually creates a permanent majority.  In other words, a dictatorship. 

I really wonder if that could actually happen.  Americans can be an ornery bunch, skeptical, vocal and adamant about fairness and democracy.  Would Americans ever want security and economic stability more than democracy and freedom?

My job is to tell a good story, a fictional story, and to that end, allow my imagination freedom to explore the universe of possibilities.  And yet, readers sometimes gain inspiration and ideas of their own, triggered by a story, a character or situation.  Reading is important….