Because You Never Asked

     (This essay was written around 1998. It is another in depth look at how media works in America, a repetitive theme in these pages.)

     If the captain of the Titanic had said, "we have a bit of a problem here", such understatement would pale in comparison to saying that too much has been said about this Bill-Monica thing already. Adding something new to this pathetic degradation of our national discourse is a daunting challenge I am about to be foolish enough to accept. Please forgive me. I know I should be writing about something more intellectually stimulating, like the last time Bruce Willis hit Demi Moore, but the Monica disease has finally infected me. It's extremely contagious.

     I feel compelled to state that although I've occasionally defended President Clinton in this work (see essays "Whitewater", "Whitewater Revisited", "Bill Clinton and the Military"), such defense was premised far more on my repulsion for his opposition than on my favorable impression of him. The fact that this opposition is subjecting this nation to such agonizing irrelevance, is the ultimate reinforcement of this repulsion. It is conclusive proof that their concerns for their constituents and their country are far secondary to their selfish little Beltway world of power and prestige. In essence, they have ceased being the "loyal opposition", which is the foundation of a democratic environment. They are attempting a "coup d'etat" without guns, as if we were some kind of banana republic with no respect for our governmental institutions and traditions.

     It's quite possible the Democrats could be just as ruthless and insincere if given the opportunity, especially since the Republicans have raised the bar with this sordid burlesque, but their pursuit of Richard Nixon, with which the Republicans are constantly justifying themselves, was proper. Nixon used the office of the President to do illegally abusive acts. Bill Clinton was either seduced by a Washington groupie, or consciously set up by his enemies. Considering the fact that there is ample evidence to suggest one of our presidents was perhaps "whacked" by our government, the latter possibility is never to be discarded.

     If there is anything worth discussing with regard to this sickening debacle, it is the role  the media has played in presenting and commercializing this K-Mart spectacle. In order to provide a foundation for much of what will eventually be said in this essay, it is imperative to state the following right now: the news industry's primary focus --- and it is an industry that manufactures a product, just like GM or US Steel --- is not the objective representation of the reality we live in, but rather, the sale of advertising space. Its true quest is revenue. All attempts to enlighten its consumers are secondary and coincidental to this survival mechanism.

     Although "the news" has always been a business in America, like everything else on the modern landscape, it has now reached a level of "hyper-commercialization" that is perverting its mission. It must be remembered that within the memory of just about every voting age American, there was a time when "the news" was something that happened around dinner time for a half hour and then it was on to "I Love Lucy". With the advent of the technology that produced cable TV, a whole new sport has been created.

     Perhaps the first man to realize the business potential of "the news" was the CNN guy, Ted Turner, who began giving it to us 24 hours a day on various channels. This concept has now become, in an explosion of fast food-like choices, an uncontrollable brown water flow of diarrhea that is keeping us close to the intellectual toilet it has created.

     When I spoke earlier about the task media has in "presenting and commercializing" what they set before us, I was not being careless in my choice of words. If one considers the around-the-clock time to be filled on the cancerous growth of news outlets which continue to spread like a malignancy through the vast realm of "Zapperland", it is easy to see that maturely presenting relevant but perhaps frilless, meat and potatoes information, is not going to cut it. Today's "news", like the new releases of a motion picture studio or record company, must be promoted, marketed, "commercialized". The news industry really doesn't report the news, it creates it.

     The saga of Bill and Monica has undoubtedly been a great source of revenue and is a horse the media will ride until it drops. This horse could easily have come up lame by now if not for the skillful way in which the news industry has manipulated the debate. They took a clearly focused picture with the proper settings for color, tint, brightness and contrast, and slightly messed with the controls until a once clear image had become fuzzy enough to confuse the issue.

     Long before Kenneth Starr had delivered his X-rated soap opera to the public domain, there was not an American with the intelligence to remember their telephone number who did not already know that the President had done "naughty" things . allow me to rephrase in a way that more reflects a neglected part of the truth here . a "naughty" young girl had performed "naughty" acts with the joyful compliance of the leader of the world's only super power, who then refused to admit such things had happened. He lied about it. He even lied about it . oh my God . under oath!

     For as long as anyone can now remember, we've all known this. The true issue here is whether or not the President's refusal to admit his debility for a pair of young lips clamped firmly around his swollen manhood, is reason enough to remove him from office without an electoral process involving the voters? This question has long been decided in the negative by the American people.

     And yet, in spite of the fact that the rank and file has already ridden off into the sunset, the media, like a degenerate crack head, can't shake the habit; did he lie (we know he did), did he lie under oath (we know he did), semen stains (yes, he had sex), distinguishing genital features (yes, he had sex), on and on . whatever happened to the more dignified hair pulling girly fights we used to see on Jerry Springer?

     This is what happens when you have to sell advertising space 24 hours a day on a countless galaxy of news outlets.

     I could not leave this topic (believe me, I'm trying) without mentioning something that has always troubled me with regard to the Republican attempt to pin the tail on the Democrat donkey. There is something chronologically skewered here, a kind of "chicken or egg" quandary that no one has ever sufficiently explained to me.

     It must be remembered that the "unloyal opposition" is trying to have the President removed based primarily on the alleged perjury committed in denying his naughtiness with Monica. In other words, he didn't become a criminal until he lied about something which is not a crime to begin with. How can a lie about legal behavior be a crime? This is something like multiplying a number by zero; no matter how big the number is, you always end up with zero. The American people, right from the beginning, have instinctively understood this.

     Perhaps the questions just raised could be answered if somebody could clarify one more cosmic mystery: how did Kenneth Starr's mandate, which began narrowly as an investigation of a business deal which took place 20 years ago (already a pathetic exercise in partisan bullshit), make the jurisdictional jump to Paula Jones, and, even more miraculously, from there to Bill and Monica's fantasy world of erotic cigars and butt flashing provocation?

     I have not been frivolous in pursuing answers to these riddles. I have consulted a varying cross section of our more educated classes, including a number of Washington  type lawyers. None of these people have adequately explained how Starr went from Independent Prosecutor to Bill Clinton's chaperon. The best explanation I've heard to date was uttered by a lawyer cousin of mine, who said, referring to the chief law enforcement official of the nation,

     " . because Janet Reno is an idiot." (For more relevant discussion, see essay "A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?").