Republican (Media) Wins!

“Perhaps because Fox continued to dominate the sector both in audience and financial terms, it did not change its formula or experiment with new methods of content delivery.”

(The Pew Research Center, State of the News Media 2012).

In the wake of the election, partisans and pundits on both sides have been opining about what went wrong for Republicans. An emerging narrative in the media is that the Republican Party must change.  From MSNBC to FOX to CNN to The NY Times to The Wall Street Journal, pundits have been calling this election a “wake up call” for the GOP. The electorate has changed, demographically, and the Republican agenda simply isn’t representing a majority any more.

Normally, when an electorate shows its colors on election day, political parties look at the results in order to inform tactical decisions.  New strategies are constructed; corrections and alterations are made.

But I think the Republicans will have a hard time changing because of the incredible financial success of Right-leaning media companies. The financial success of a place like FOX News speaks to its dominance of its own market-share: members of the Republican Party. The Republican Party no longer seems to be led by politicians; it seems to be led by vendors selling product. I know this is a broad simplification—but my point is logistical. I don’t think Republicans are stupid. I think the Party has bought into an incredibly profitable, media business model.

When Balance Becomes The Enemy

Right-leaning media sources such as FOX News have inoculated themselves to correction (or even reflection) because sources like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly encourage their audiences to discredit and disbelieve any other news source.

According to many of the loudest on the Right, every other bit of media is liberal, wrong, and/or downright deceitful.

This is not a small deal. Imagine having a doctor who not only tells you that all other doctors aren’t as good, but that all other doctors are also liars.  What happens when another doctor has a treatment that you actually NEED?  You would be tempted to believe that no one else could help you. 

There's no better evidence than this election.  Many of my Republican friends were SHOCKED that Obama won.  They were absolutely flummoxed.  That’s because somewhere in the past 4-8 years, the core of the Republican Party switched from being members of a party into members of a market.  Right-leaning media audiences are huge and loyal, but they have bought more than the news. Customers have not bought the “most trusted” news; they've bought the ONLY trusted news of the Republican Party.

The News Isn’t Good

Can you blame FOX News, Limbaugh, or the rest?  They have an incredibly profitable business model. From a success point of view, you have to admire them. They have, literally, destroyed the competition. But the collateral damage is to the Republican Party-- and to political debate itself.  

With profits like FOX's, can the rest of the press far behind? 

The day after election night on FOX’s "The O’Reilly Factor," the show posted a fresh poll of their own viewers, asking “Do you believe 'The Factor' has been fair covering the election?”  'The Factor' is the show that had FoxNews regulars (and Republican insiders) such as Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, and Karl Rove on the day before the election—all who predicted a Romney win.  On 11/06,  O’Reilly himself said, “Romney will win Florida, I just don’t know about Ohio.”

80% of their audience said “Yes, 'The Factor' had provided fair coverage."

You can’t make a happy toothpaste brusher change his toothpaste.  And until wildly successful news sources such as FOX News and Limbaugh fail as businesses, the Republican Party doesn’t look like it's going to change. There's just too much money to be made.

And that’s bad news for everyone-- especially Republicans. 

image credits: The Pew Research Center, ABC News, and FOX News

How Politicians and Unions Are Ruining Schools

A hard habit to break.

In the most recent standoff between teacher unions and the politicians who no longer love them, the American public got another story that featured the cost of education.  Major media outlets, along with Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere were riddled with voices from what boils down to two sides:
    A:  SCHOOLS SHOULD COST LESS
    B:  SCHOOLS SHOULD COST MORE

Sure, in Chicago, in the battle itself, the argument has been about teacher evaluation, class size, and instructional time.  But for most people outside the immediate fray, it’s all about the benjamins.

The war has damaged teaching and education-- and left a lot of school kids holding the bag.  This problem is not going away, either.  But how did we get here?  Who is really at war?  As a teacher, I have a pretty good view of the battle. Here’s the way I see the players.

“Smaller Government” Politicians

BACKSTORY: Since the “Industrialization” model of Public Education became the way of doing business, the government has been incentivized to provide as little money and resources for teachers as possible. It’s simply never been popular to pay for great public teaching in America.

MUSCLE TO FLEX: Politicians interested in election often promise to tighten up public budgets.  This is true on both sides of the political spectrum, although Republicans have built their house on it. Because teacher pay represents the single greatest piece of the education money pie, promising to pay teachers less for more has been a Conservative institution—and has won more than a few elections for the GOP.

WHY THEY’RE GREAT:  These guys won’t let you forget that public schools can be depressingly inefficient—and they’re right a lot of the time.  Those of us who work in public schools have no shortage of anecdotes of financial waste or professional mediocrity. Show me a lousy school and I’ll show you a community that isn’t holding its public school accountable.

KRYPTONITE:  Paying less for teachers has proven to do little to attract or maintain talented professionals.  Sure, bargain hunting is attractive, but saving on teacher pay has basically devalued the worth of great teachers and, ultimately, quality instruction itself.

Teacher Unions

BACKSTORY:  The battles of the 60’s-70’s yielded some big wins for teacher unions.  Teacher pay went from staggeringly low to pretty good in many places around the country.  Unions fought for better working conditions, smaller class sizes, and  professional respect.

MUSCLE TO FLEX:  A steam engine during elections, teacher unions have been the bedrock to the greatest wins of the Democratic party of the last 50 years.  If you are a liberal or progressive running for a big office, you probably won’t win without the teacher unions at your back.

WHY THEY’RE GREAT:  Strong unions are the only players to have consistently fought for the biggest incentive for great teaching:  better wages and working conditions.  When you hear about people fighting for better learning environments in public schools, its probably from the mouth of a union leader. No other entity has done more to help teachers do the work of teaching.

KRYPTONITE:  To rally the teachers into a force to be reckoned with, Unions made a sacred pact to leave no tenured colleague unprotected.  This has meant that great instructors get no more or less protection than absolutely horrible teachers.  Mr. Franey, my high school science teacher who used to swig “cough medicine” in between periods.  He was a mess—and you had at least one as bad.  Teacher quality control is in a Twilight Zone of mediocrity—and teacher unions deserve a lot of blame.

The Bottom Line?

Unlike the beatdown they got in Wisconsin a couple of years ago, teacher unions earned a bit of a win in Chicago.  But it’s a small glimmer in darkness ahead for school unions, however, and the window for union survival will not stay open forever.

But this ain’t about Chicago or Wisconsin.  The real cost of this argument has roots that go much further down into our culture.  The greater problem is that Americans have little faith in the greatness of American public education.  We don’t value quality education.  We don’t value great teachers.  This lack of confidence drags on almost every aspect of our culture.

It is unlikely that politicians will fix public education.  With economy as it is, running a campaign on MORE money for schools will lose many more races than it wins—even for staunch Democrats.

Unions must retool in order to stay involved in the conversation.  If they can figure out how to cut the weight of protecting lousy teachers, they might be able to unravel this knot.  It’s proven to be a hard habit to break.

Until then, unions will continue to lose the war, even if they win a battle like Chicago.