JOHN STOSSEL: MYTHS, LIES AND OVERSIMPLIFICATION [UR BLOG]



I rarely watch 20/20, by the way. I can't stand the show's brand of journalism, not to mention my having better things to do on a Friday night than be informed of why Ben Affleck is so hunky followed by a piece on defective dishwashers and why you shouldn't let baby near them. Stossel, of course, has been part of the show's staff since 1981 but his contributions earlier in the show's history were just kept to one segment and/or the occasional 20/20 special. As soon as he became the permanent cohost alongside Barbara Walters, I knew the show would start to become little more than The John Stossel Show - then "Give Me a Break" became a regular feature. Now it's starting to fill entire episodes of this show. It sort of makes one long for Baba Wawa's pithy hour-long interviews with Famous Hollywood Personalities, which is never a good thing. Ever.
The problem with Stossel is the fact that the man's documentary style is so blatantly obvious and one-sided, filled with mistakes and half-truths. The man's easier to criticize than Geraldo Rivera, but I feel "Myths, Lies and Nasty Behavior" is more blatant a piece of trash journalism than is usual for Stossel, it being "Give Me a Break" padded out to fill an hour. If he's going to be biased, fine, but "Myths, Lies and Nasty Behavior" utilized all of Stossel's trademark leaps of logic to an extent that I have rarely witnessed from the man before. To wit:
- Myth No. 7 was "GASOLINE PRICES ARE TOO HIGH!" Stossel's response: "THEY'RE NOT! YOU'RE NOT ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION!" If one adjusts for inflation and nothing else, then that might be true. Still, he's conveniently forgetting fuel additives, reliance on gasoline from politically unstable regions of the world (e.g., The Middle East, South America), the emerging North American preference of heavily fuel-reliant light trucks, SUVs etc. to smaller but more fuel-efficient vehicles and such. I'm a subscriber to Consumer Reports (point and yell "LIBERAL" at me, but they're one of the fairer sources of journalism out there) and a full-sized crew-cab pickup truck is considered fuel-efficient if it gets 14 miles to the gallon, at least according to the August 2004 issue. Truck-like vehicles are terrible at fuel economy, which means they're more reliant on gasoline than something like a Toyota Prius. Small cars aren't sexy, though.
Also, alternative fuels are cheaper and easier to produce than gasoline, but the technology hasn't improved enough for consumers to get on the ball with regards to fuels like propane, diesel etc. Once an alternative fuel meets the needs of the average consumer, though, consumers will be more likely to jump aboard the trend, meaning more demand and lower prices on top on the savings one is likely to accrue now from switching to an alternative fuel like diesel. DVD's are cheaper to make now than VHS tapes ever were, for example. People will flock to a superior, cheaper alternative once it becomes feasible to do so. - Nasty Behaviour #5: "FARMERS ON WELFARE!" No shit, the farm industry gets subsidized? It's mostly agribusiness now? It's been like that for years - hell, I live (presently) on a hobby farm so it's not like I'm not aware of this fact. Still, it's not that the farm subsidies are the problem. It's the distribution of said subsidies that's the problem. True family farms (i.e., farms that are not "hobby farms" but are too small-scale to be considered full-blown corporate enterprises) have been priced out of the market and a lot of them go out of business every year, but Stossel's example of a "family farm" was some 12,000 acre cotton-growing business. That's not a family farm, it's a large farm that just happens to be family-owned. Also, Stossel never disclosed what said large farm's operating budgets were, spouting off some vague rhetoric about them being "welfare queens." Am I to know whether this farm is abusing its farm subsidies or not? I guess it doesn't matter; Fred and Larry Starrh were laughing at Stossel because they had been corrupted by welfare, not because they were being interviewed by some whiny-voiced arse with a thick moustache. Right?
- Myth #3: "OUTSOURCING IS BAD!" Stossel: "OUTSOURCING IS SO GREAT EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT!" What a dangerous thing to say. Outsourcing is sometimes economically smart, but the danger of outsourcing lies within what corporations are willing to pay people in the countries they're outsourcing to. In Stossel's magical fantasy world, sweatshops must be great because they save clothing manufacturers tons of money, right? Those savings are passed on to you, aren't they? WORK HARD, AND EACH DAY ZUTROY GETS A SHINY PENNY!
Outsourcing is a fact of business life, but it's not some magic panacea for all its problems. The only factor that really matters from a consumer's point of view is how quality the product is, and outsourcing to a cheaper country like Mexico sometimes leads to a decline in said quality due to the materials used in manufacturing, sloppier work and/or how workers' rights in that country are monitored. That's what bothers opponents of outsourcing, not the outsourcing itself. Again, Stossel's painting a grey area in black and white colours. Basically, Stossel is calling Lou Dobbs a poopyhead despite the fact that Lou Dobbs is a business reporter and might better understand what he's talking about than general-interest investigative reporter Stossel. I wonder why Stossel didn't Michael Savage the guy and call him a "RED DIAPER DOPER BABY!" That damn liberal CNN... - Myth #2: "URBAN SPRAWL IS RUINING AMERICA!" Stossel: "NO IT ISN'T! 95% OF THE COUNTRY IS UNDEVELOPED!" Again, another Stossel tactic: throw away one half of the evidence to prove your point. James Kunstler is right, to a point. Suburbs are cookie-cutter environments; there's no way to get around their artificiality and the standardized construction that goes into these homes. They're predictably built and made to appeal to a middle-of-the-road mentality. Still, Stossel pointed to Portland, Oregon's "smart growth" plan as stupid because of Portland's limiting the growth of the city, causing the housing market to skyrocket. Well, duh, that's what happens in real estate when buildings become limited commodities in a desirable west-coast metropolis. The real growth, in my opinion, is in the rural areas and small cities, where disgruntled city folk express their desire to live in an environment with a little more unpredictability and quiet to it. The housing's sometimes cheaper, too. Maybe urban sprawl isn't ruining America, but Stossel isn't even giving the concept the right to exist.
By the way, I wonder how much his apartment costs a month. He can't be living in a dump, considering he has to be raking in the g's as a mainstream network news anchor. Then again, he's not a victim of urban sprawl. I think the man can afford not to pay attention to it. - Myth No. 1: "SHARING'S GOOD!" Stossel: "NO, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS!" Stossel proves this point by comparing a poorly kept public toilet to a fucking talking luxury toilet. That's brilliant. I've been to the toilets at Carleton University - a privately run university, I might add. Some of the toilets are terrible there and the uni only recently (i.e., early 2004) started to install self-flushing urinals in some bathrooms, only because the university's hell-bent on improving its image (and not, if I may editorialize, the quality of the education there - sorry, I'm one of those disgruntled Carleton students you may have heard about.) The quality of a resource is only as good as its maintenance, nothing else.
I'm basically going to gloss over Stossel's bringing up forest fires happening on "government land" - which I'm pretty sure has something to do with the forests' locations - and bringing up communal farming programs that Stalin and Mao initiated. I mean, bringing up totalitarian regimes' "work programs?" That's just crass. Basically, these are more examples of Stossel's your-enemy-my-friend way of thinking - if public maintenance is bad, private maintenance has to be good. Stossel's mind doesn't seem to accept third-party thinking. I feel for the man, really I do.
As an aside, there was a high school teacher by the name of Tori Haidinger that did an experiment (read: "pushed a blatant agenda") where she gave beakers of Hershey's Kisses to groups of students and asked them to share said candies amongst themselves. Any candies left over at the end of the experiment would be doubled. If the students knew about the doubling stip, why didn't the groups take one candy to start with knowing full well that they would have the maximum number of candies possible at the end of the experiment? Again, management. Geez, smart class there Haidinger. Glad to see great teaching methods at work, hon.
Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on Stossel from now on. The man has used a somewhat important television forum (though I'd hardly call the show that interviewed a fake Buckwheat too important - more important than 60 Minutes Wednesday, maybe, but what isn't) and, as expected, is turning it into his own personal mental lav now that Baba Wawa's fragrant droppings are becoming a distant memory. If you think the mainstream media's 100% liberal, watch Stossel and tell me that's true, mmmkay? The right-wing dittoheads aren't all on Fox News or up Michael Savage's ass.
By the way, I consider myself a centrist, just so I don't get swept up in cries of me being "fag liberal" or "fucking conservative." I just don't like bad journalism, is all. If it makes anyone feel better, last Wednesday's the fifth estate was almost as bad as Stossel's baby, but that's another story for another day, preferably one where I don't get irritated writing the name "Dan Rather" eighteen times in a sentence. Bloody Texan.