No Accounting

Freedom of the press, 2019, rated from good (deep blue) to very serious (deep red), as self-assessed by members of Reporters Without Borders. From NordNordWest, CC-by-sa-3.0 de, via wikipedia. These are not good times for journalists and independent media. Not only are many investigators, whistle-blowers, journalists and reporters murdered every year for simply reporting the truth, in many countries the ‘information’ media are concentrated in very few hands and hugely biased and/or corrupt, so much of their citizenry has no access to truthful reportage or to accurate, complete facts about what is going on in their country and our world.

I confess: I am an accountant. That is true in two senses. First, I made my career, much of it anyway, with a large public accounting firm. I did the usual accounting stuff: preparing and auditing financial statements, doing taxes, and, when it didn’t conflict with my auditing duties, providing a gamut of financial and business advisory services to hundreds of (mostly entrepreneurial) companies.

But I’m an accountant in a more essential way as well. The word “account” originally meant “to calculate or reckon” — to assemble data and draw conclusions from them. When a reporter provides an “account” of something that happened, she provides both the facts and reasonably deduced or inferred conclusions drawn from them. This involves a mix of investigative science (determining what all the relevant facts, which may not be obvious or entirely known, are) and the art of critical thinking (deducing, through analytical thinking, and inferring, through inductive reasoning, what the facts “add up to” — what they mean).

Good reportage, accounting for what happened, is very different from entertainment or editorialization, which is the business that almost all the so-called ‘information media’ are now largely or exclusively pursuing. Entertaining stories (including fiction, ‘personal interest’, and celebrity news) are deliberately designed to distract from the issues, and they are completely unconcerned with the truth or its significance; as fiction and faux news outlets now have far more readers than the few remaining real information media, this is clearly a profitable strategy. Editorial stories (statements of pure opinion, unsupported, distorted and/or invented data, and conjecture about the future) deliberately obfuscate the truth by omitting opposing perspectives and the data that support them; they are designed to comfort readers that those readers’ current opinions are righteously correct, whether they actually are or not, and they, too, as the popularity of the wankers on talk radio and online wingnut sites demonstrate, can be profitable undertakings.

In short, our capitalist system, which has no intrinsic regard for the truth but only for increasing revenue and income, offers no place for true reportage, for actual, rigorous accounting of what happened and what it means. The truth, as Greta Thunberg is showing us, provides neither comfort nor distraction. There are many, these days, across the political and philosophical spectrum, who argue that there is no ‘unvarnished’ truth — that everything has multiple interpretations. This argument is flip and disingenuous: any competent reporter, investigative journalist or critical thinker can explain the process of ascertaining the truth and its implications, and the errors to avoid, to provide the reader or listener with a complete-as-possible accounting of what is known, and not known, the various ways this information can be interpreted, and the plausible conclusions.

This blog has endeavoured, over the past 16 years, to provide an accounting of what I’ve read and thought and learned, a chronicle of what I see as a civilization in full-on collapse and my own coming to grips with that, and of what science and philosophy seems to be telling us about the nature of reality and what it means to be human. With practice, I think I am getting better at it.

So I am, in that sense too, an accountant.

What got me thinking about this was an article by Craig Mod, sent to me by my friend Ben, entitled Media Accounting 101. In it, Craig describes the implicit ‘contract’ between writer/publisher and reader, in books and to a lesser extent newspapers, CDs and DVDs: The content is fixed and, as a consequence of the transaction, the reader/customer is free to resell it and use it any time and place any way they wish. Contrast that with the content of social media and to a lesser extent all online media: The seller is not selling content, but rather advertising — readers’/viewers’/listeners’ attention. The actual customer is the advertiser, not the content provider. In fact in this contract the content and the content provider are largely irrelevant and ignored — the sellers of consumer attention (the NYT, Facebook etc) may be somewhat or completely indifferent to what content passes through their channels (and would prefer not to be ‘responsible’ for it), and the content provider (investigative reporter, writer, composer, performer) is often paid a pittance, or nothing at all.

This is a very different contract, which is probably why books remain trusted, carefully read, and valued, while the content of online media — slippery, ephemeral, artless, mostly unverified and unverifiable, and needing no ‘truthiness’ at all (to sell advertising, it need merely be attention-grabbing) — is throw-away, unabsorbed, not taken seriously, and pretty much worthless.

The contract with a real information medium requires that the producer invest energy and integrity to create a credible and useful product, and that the reader invest energy in the form of critical thinking in order to make sense and use of the content. When there is nothing ‘in it’ for the seller to care about the quality or integrity of the content, when there is no money or reward (and much risk) for the content provider to do their important investigative and thoughtful work, when the content is mostly unverified, fake, and/or useless, and when the reader has never been educated to be able to think critically or to appreciate the value of corroborated, well-reasoned reportage, the result is a contract that is worthless to the reader and content provider, and valuable only to the advertising seller and the advertiser. And if you believe, as I do, that advertising is almost entirely a waste of time, money and human energy, then the value of the entire enterprise is zero.

Craig makes the argument that only publications that draw their revenues overwhelmingly from subscriptions rather than advertising need to worry about the quality of their content (in doing so they switch back to the type of implicit contract between book-seller and book-buyer). That means they at least theoretically have to care about its veracity, its thoughtfulness, its imaginativeness, and how well it is composed, which, again theoretically, means there should still be incentives for content providers — investigative journalists, great synthesizers and teachers, and thorough and balanced reporters.

But if you look at the newest ‘subscription’ models they have shifted from pay-for-specific content to stream-everything — so that now content providers are again being paid for the attention they can grab, which is much easier if you’re loud and outrageous (or heavily bankrolled by vested interests), than if you’re competent, painstaking and thoughtful. So instead of getting a dollar for each ‘sale’ of a song, the musician now gets a half-cent for each minute their song holds a listener’s attention, each time they play it. The inevitable result is the infantilization of the music industry — the pandering to morons who listen to nursery-rhyme rap ‘songs’ over and over for hours, and the starvation of serious musicians. The same is true in all other media using this model — just look at the “trending” videos on YouTube and you will quickly feel much more hopeless about the future of our world. Oceans of amateur, mindless, worthless garbage.

And now you can get your video on a flat-fee-per-month ‘subscription’ (Netflix); you can get books the same way (Amazon Prime). If they can get everyone to subscribe, then they can raise the flat fee every year and make more and more revenue without any ‘selling’ work. And as they control the channel, they can squeeze producers to give them the content at a lower price each year (sound familiar? It’s the WalMart race to the bottom model, where producers get paid ever less and customers get ever more shoddy products). And the producers in turn, eager to please their shareholders too, will squeeze the content providers, which means — surprise! — a constant deterioration of quality.

And that’s precisely what’s happened to the information media, which is a large part of the reason that the map at the top of this post looks so grim. There is no money to be made in our industrial growth economy in quality, in originality, in the crafting of remarkable work — or, ultimately, in the truth.

Our preoccupation with constant-attention technologies is clearly dopamine-related, as Craig points out — we are in every sense addicted to these modern toys, and unable to tear our attention away from them. But while Craig is convinced that we can wean our way off them by making it easier to turn our attention to more high-value activities like reading books, I think he’s naive. There is simply no incentive for the modern human to break this habit, and there are a million corporations working furiously to get us even more hooked.

Although none of this can survive the accelerating collapse of industrial civilization (so this mass addiction can’t last all that much longer), it’s all predicated, in my opinion, on a house of cards that no one seems to want to acknowledge. And that is the fact that advertising doesn’t actually work.

It’s a myth, one that everyone benefiting from it wants to keep believing, and so it continues. There are several similar myths — the myth that stocks are actually worth the ludicrous prices that investors keep paying for them (especially when interest rates are suppressed to near zero, so there’s no opportunity cost to throwing ever more money at stocks), which is completely predicated on high rates of growth continuing forever. Or the myth that it’s a lack of scientific knowledge and of ‘cures’, rather than our abominable industrial western diet, that is responsible for our soaring rates of chronic and debilitating illness, and almost all of our deaths. Or the myth that our fiat currencies are actually solid and worth staking our future on, or worth anything at all. Or the myth that executives in corporations actually make better decisions and therefore deserve more credit and (obscenely) higher salaries than their front-line workers.

Why do we believe these myths? Because we want to. Because they reinforce the systems that we think are instrumental in giving us the quality of life we enjoy and which we are terrified of letting go, so domesticated have we become. They don’t need to be true as long as everyone keeps on believing they are true and behaving as if they are true.

What would happen if we stopped believing that advertising is a worthy investment, that it generates much less than it costs? For a start, our economies would collapse, especially the economies whose costs are most advertising-heavy and whose revenues are most advertising-dependent. The internet would surely collapse, deprived of the illusion that it was actually providing anywhere near enough value to anyone to justify its colossal cost, and starved of 90% or more of its operating funds. The reality is that advertising simply raises cost, and forces ‘competitors’ to do more advertising to keep from losing market share, and so it continues, in runaway inflationary style, to the point that the vast majority of the cost of almost everything we consume is a pass-through of the cost of the producer spending ever-more to shout ever-louder over the similar voices of competitors about why it’s worth more than them. It’s a giant con. To the customer, it provides absolutely no value. But don’t dare tell that to the producers, or the advertisers, whose margin and whose very existence depends on the myth that it does.

Perhaps someone should call them to account. It’s an age-old expression, meaning ‘hold answerable for their actions’, and it takes us full circle, back to the assembling of data and the drawing of reasonable conclusions from them. Back to valuing accurate information and not convenient myths. Back to an acknowledgement and healing of our addictions instead of pandering to them.

Back to a curiosity and thirst for the truth, instead of a fearful and bewildered acceding to lies, inurement and distraction. Back to wanting to know, at all costs, instead of amusing ourselves to death.

This entry was posted in Collapse Watch, Our Culture / Ourselves. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to No Accounting

  1. Jim W says:

    Hi Dave,
    I’m not sure your ‘back to’ examples hold up…how can you get back to something that’s never really existed? The notion of being called to account, held answerable for one’s actions is cosmic in many respects…Karma, plain and simple.

    I really enjoy your writing about non duality, but I have several persistent questions. What about Soul? Are you a Soul inhabiting a Personal Self? Could the Soul be Self-Less? What are your views on reincarnation presently?

    Finally, a while ago you mentioned a contemporary physicist who’s arriving at some radically non dual conclusions about reality. Can you remind me of his name? Thanks.

  2. Dave Pollard says:

    Thanks Jim, for pointing out the constant cognitive dissonance that now haunts a lot of my posts, between those on collapse (“We’re fucked…”) and those on non-duality (“There is no ‘us’ to be fucked”). You are of course right — we have no free will, no control over what we do, so how can we be held to account for it? Sometimes my old idealism and emotionalism gets the better of me. Perhaps not surprisingly, the posts where this happens tend to be my most popular, since they’re more ‘relatable’ than my “no one is to blame; we’re all doing our best” posts, and especially than the “there is no one” posts. Still figuring it all out, and don’t expect to resolve it soon…

    Radical non-duality has no place for a soul or for reincarnation, and, ‘soul-less’ as it may be, I respect its elegance, consistency and integrity. There is no one to have a soul, and no incarnation to reincarnate. Sean Carroll is the physicist I referred to, though there are quite a few getting close to this, which I had fun reviewing in my play.

  3. Jim W says:

    But there’s nothing to resolve or figure out! Anyway, please don’t become a Non Duality fundamentalist…that would be too absurdly ironic

  4. Dave Pollard says:

    Yes, right. I don’t expect to become a fundamentalist anything, since I’m too much the skeptic. But it’s not like I have any choice in the matter!

  5. Dave Pollard says:

    First and third verses of this.

    “The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time…
    The thing about time is that time isn’t really real… Einstein said he could never understand it all…. Try not to try too hard.”

    And while it makes no sense whatsoever when after all we’re not real and have no free will, this, too.

    Cognitive dissonance, play on.

  6. Jim W says:

    Thanks for the JT. It’s funny because my daughter (25) has been in the midst of a JT phase of late…he wrote some amazing songs. Real nice fella too…I chatted with him a few times when he visited the gym where I work out. He’s super tall, 6’8″ I think, me just 5’7″. Links above are the same though…did you intend that?

    Do you use Spotify or something like it? For a somewhat more edgy bit of musical/philosophical stim check out Kenny Wayne Shepard’s cover of Dylan’s ‘Everything Is Broken’ (crank the volume and immerse in it for the full effect)

    The CogDiss Marching Band will surely play on…not sure we’ve ever heard one this cacaphonous. Rhythm’s way out of wack, but the river runs through it.

    I’m glad you’re a Skeptic…MeToo!

  7. BigMike says:

    Hi Dave, I realize the context of your “rap” comments are truthful because there is a lot of garbage music out there these days that happens to be commercially viable.

    I’m not really a huge hip hop fan, but there’s a British rapper named Lowkey who, not only is an amazing lyricist and storyteller, he does an effective job of making people aware of the social conditions they are trapped by.

    Although I was not born in the 60’s, I am old enough to be aware of the impact the music of that generation had on the people who lived through an era of anti-war sentiment and the civil rights revolution here in the U.S. It disappoints me that future generations failed to learn the lessons of the messages that music was trying so desperately to warn us of.

    I haven’t commented on your site in years, but I always read it consistently and am no spammer. I share these videos here so that you and your readers (regardless of your opinion of hip hop) regain some faith that there are artists out there doing their best to communicate powerful truths in an attempt to reach others.

    This is Lowkey’s story about Alan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler whose body was photographed after being washed ashore in Greece:

    This is his song about the Grenfell Tower tragedy:

    And finally, as an example of his lyrical abilities, here he is live, speaking truth to power. It’s 15 minutes long but I highly recommend sticking it through to the end. There aren’t many hip hop artists that have this kind of a message.

  8. Dave Pollard says:

    Thanks Mike. I shouldn’t have singled out rap music; most of all types of commercially produced music is pretty infantile, and that’s been the case for a long time. And there are exceptions in every genre. So thanks for the link.

Comments are closed.