I was quoted in an article in the Minnesota Daily, the campus newspaper at the University of Minnesota. The article, which covered the appearance of CNN’s Aaron Brown’s speech and reception in St. Paul, grossly underestimated both the importance and the crux of the statement I made. I’m not entirely certain if this was a conscious editorial decision, or if it was an arbitrary way for the copy editors to save inches. In whichever case, I don’t hold a grudge against the editors or the writer, but I do feel that I need to clarify the point I was attempting to make.

I will reprint the paragraph in question here:

"Stalker said it is time for more anchors such as Brown to counter the influence the media-owning companies have.”

True, this was the overarching argument I was making, but the lack of nouns in the paragraph ultimately confuses the reader.

While we don’t live in a politically authoritarian society, it can be said with confidence that we do live in a largely economically authoritarian society. The adage “he who has the most toys wins” is unfortunately appropriate when talking about the United States. In regard to the point of media ownership, those few people and corporations who own the print, radio, television and Internet news media do indeed win. It is their voice that gets heard; their ideas are the ideas that permeate through the unsuspecting and otherwise uninformed population.

When I spoke of “anchors such as Brown” I was referring to an unfortunately small number of men and women on the cable news channels whose agendas aren’t nearly as thinly veiled as those of Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly.

When I directly confronted him, Brown said that he did indeed feel most responsible to the viewers of his program. He also said that the people are free to watch “the other guys” which to me speaks of a concept where he doesn’t truly care about educating the public.

His word choice was additionally intriguing. As a journalist, he ought to know the importance of using the correct word at the correct time. He chose to respond to my question by using the word “viewers” rather than “people.” The term “viewers” at once brings to mind the idea of economic market power and Nielsen ratings. In no way does the term bring to mind the notion of a sense of duty to the public good. It was quite disheartening to hear the one person, whom I felt gives the best option for non-partisan political reporting that cable television has to offer, to deliver such a weak, manufactured and ultimately useless quote.

I suppose I’m mostly just pissed that he made the entire content of his speech off the record. To those who are unfamiliar, the term “off the record” means that any information gained by an interview or other reporting method cannot be used in any way, shape or form. They are perhaps the three worst words that a journalist can ever hear.

I would have thought that a man like Brown, who I would think encounters interview subjects who wish to remain off the record on a daily basis, would be sensitive to his fellow journalists. To me, this provides the clearest evidence for me that Brown is just like “the other guys.”

There were a total of five people who were of college age at the event. Myself, my journalism protégé, and three young men who called themselves anarchist-socialists, though I’m not entirely sure they knew all that those monikers entailed. They seemed very much to be like the kind of students/activists that read Zinn’s People’s History of the United States and half of Guevara’s Motorcycle Diaries and think that’s enough for them to embark on a political career. It’s not.

Their leader was a 21-year-old student at one of the local community colleges. He engaged Brown, prattling off a history lesson aimed at highlighting some points of potential United States/capitalist aggression in economically and politically fragile countries. He then launched into a tirade on the media. He shot himself in the foot at the very onset. He claimed that the way the media pandered to the corporate interests might border on fascism. However, the way he introduced the notion made it seem as though he was calling Brown himself a fascist. Upon hearing this, Brown sat down and tried, successfully, to cut him off. It was a valiant effort that completely backfired.

After Brown concluded the question and answer session, I approached the young man, shook his hand and congratulated him on having the courage to speak. I then gave him some hopefully constructive criticism on how he might better frame his arguments. His history lesson needed to go. His name-calling needed to go. His soapbox ranting would never be well received. He seemed appreciative of my help, and insisted that I contact him as soon as I had more information and insight to give him. I found out that he planned to run as an independent candidate in one of the local elections. I told him I’d think about it, and I have been. Who knows, maybe being a political advisor to an idealistic cadre of well-meaning people my age would be a rewarding experience.

I was, however, able to meet a few nice people. They were liberals from the early years of the Boomer generation. Some of them were former political activists; some of them remain active today. They thanked me for the questions I asked of Brown, and complimented me on the way I spoke. At least somebody’s paying attention to what I’m trying to do. I had a nice conversation with a man and his wife on media convergence. If they’re reading: Sumner Redstone owns Viacom. I do have to gibe them a bit, though. They didn’t ask me for my mailing address, they didn’t ask for my phone number, they didn’t ask me if I had a newsletter; they asked me if I had a blog.

“I’m 20 years old,” I told them. “Of course I have a blog!”