The Birth of Yellow Journalism

The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism.

It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wide-ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible. Men such as William Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect.

Both Hearst and Pulitzer published images of Spanish troops placing Cubans into concentration camps where they were suffered and died from disease and hunger. The term “Yellow Journalism,” which was derived from the name of "The Yellow Kid" comic strip in the Journal, was used to refer to this style of sensationalized newspaper articles. The American public purchased more newspapers because of this form of writing, and this strongly encouraged Hearst and Pulitzer’s newspapers to write more sensationalized stories.  Some of the most sensationalized articles concerned “Butcher Weyler” and his reconcentration policies, and the Cuban Insurrection. Circulation continued to soar as the Journal reported that an American civilian was imprisoned without a trial and stating that no American was safe in Cuba as long as Weyler was in charge. Another major  article that enraged the American public was written by one of Hearst's reporters,  Richard Harding Davis,  who came upon the story while on his way back from Cuba.  The reporter learned of the story of Senorita Clemencia Arango.  Arango was forced out of Cuba for helping the rebels, and was supposedly strip-searched by Spanish detectives.  This angered the Victorian ideals of the American public even though the story was found to be in error

Hearst played a huge part in arousing the public’s intention to go to war with Spain. This activity reached its zenith after several years of articles concerning the situation in Cuba, Hearst ran a series of articles blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the MAINE with a mine. Hearst’s powerful articles pushed many Americans towards war with Spain. Because of his leading role in inciting the war, Hearst was nicknamed the “Father of Yellow Journalism.”

Why do I give you the history of yellow journalism? It is now the mainstay of news reporting. News outlets chasing advertising dollar have almost forgot the meaning of fair and even reporting. Fair and even reporting does not sell advertising. Sensationalism does. News outlets fan the flames of controversy in an attempt to boost readership. Ad rates are based on readership rates. Readers read, dollars come in. They really don't care about the overall affect on society. They rationalize that in a free press era the reader will get a fair and even story by reading multiple accounts from multiple sources. Except that people don't do that. They are sound bite addicts. We spend very little time checking the facts.

All you have to do it read the comments section of any article and you see that many of the readers didn't even comprehend the article they just read, more or less research it further. The media says that's our problem not theirs.

Folks, yellow journalism is alive and well. Do not believe what you read. Do not react to sensationalism. Small niches of society have managed to make great gains by using the media to project themselves as main stream. We need to seek the truth before we react. We no longer can rely on the media to present anything even close to resembling the truth.

Is the Tax Debate just Political Hype?

 (An internet search of “income tax breakdown of who pays” brings back 240,000,000 WebPages.)

I would say it is. The old adage the figures lie and liars figure holds true here. The entire debate is around collecting votes not improving America. First let’s look at the figure and then look at the strategy. The top 1% of the wage earners in America pays 40.4% of the total tax revenue bill. The bottom 50% pays in only 2.9%.  Forty-five percent of the income earners pay no taxes at all. This rate has been relatively constant since the late 90’s. The variance is about 1% - 3%, give or take. Changes in tax policy don’t seem to affect the actual outcome by much, if at all. This makes it look like the top 1% is being screwed. However, the top 1% only pays at an average rate of 17.6% of their income. This is partly due to the maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which brings down the average. The Bottom 50% pays at 17.1% of their income.  75% - 80% of the taxpayers pay more in payroll tax then income tax.

Most studies don’t take into consideration total government tax burden of local, state, and federal taxes, including payroll tax, which constitutes another 10% of the income of the bottom 50%. The real burden on the poor is not the Federal Income Tax system. It’s all of the taxes paid to all government organizations. This 10% does not include sales tax, advalorem tax or property tax (that is included in their rent if applicable). Their 3% federal tax contribution can quickly balloon to over  20% when all taxes are included.

Total share of actual income for the top 1% is only 22.2%. The total share of the bottom 50% is around 12%. Therefore, the rich are paying twice their share in taxes while the poor are paying a third of their share. This seems like a just system, if not totally fair. We have accepted this as the American way for several decades, nothing new for several election cycles.

Here’s the real issue… The group that contributes only 3% of the total tax revenue represents potentially 50% of the voters. This group by the way is growing, up from 40% in 2007. A candidate is not elected through tax revenue; they are elected via the ballot box. If a politician can run on a platform of reducing low income taxes by 33% (real impact is a reduction in tax revenues of 1%) they can garner the allegiance of 50% of the voters. Similarly, that same politician can berate the wealthy as living off of the backs of the poor and only lose 1% of the voters. 

Here’s the rub… the 1% can donate a lot of money to the election coffers of the politicians. The reality is that politicians don’t need the voters. If only three votes are cast and they get two of them, they win. In most cases, there are only two candidates for the voters from which to choose, one from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party. These parties provide the majority of the funding to run the election campaign. The politician’s allegiance is to their party, not the voter. The can get by without winning over the majority of the voting age population, but they can’t get on the ballot without the support of their party. Rich people know that changes in the tax code doesn’t bother them. They have a staff of smart people that will help them deal with it. The not so rich (PC statement) don’t have the staff. 

The top 1% understands political rhetoric, the bottom 50% may or may not. Either way the bottom 50% gets more money in their pockets even if nothing in government changes.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

This concept is sweeping the nation. I think it has merit and is at least worth discussing. It would have to be passed over the objections of Congress. If there was ever momentum to work toward a resolution the problem of Congress, now is the time.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

Service verse Sustainability, The Government Way

I’ve toyed with this idea for some time. It seemed we needed to wake up to what we as voters and taxpayer have allowed to happen. Our country is now run by two major corporations whose only true interest is sustainability. It’s no longer about the people or the nation, it’s about sustaining the life of the party. 546 people have become the royalty of the “republic for which they stand”. For the most part they hold themselves above the law and only answer to their parties. The voters for the most part only get to chose between the candidates the two parties have put forward.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz stated, "All it seems people are interested in is re-election,". "And that re-election -- the lifeblood of it is fundraising."

There are a number of similarities between corporate America and political parties. Both know to continue they need a revenue source that is sustainable over time. Otherwise the corporation dies out. For political parties that is fund raising. Build up a large enough war chest and new parties cannot afford to enter the marketplace. Both major political parties, combine, raised $1.9B during the 2008 election cycle. Corporations sell products and services to generate funds, what do political parties do?

Political parties use taxpayer money to fund projects targeted toward potential donors. Potential donors might be individuals, corporations or lobby groups. It really doesn’t matter to them, money is money. It would appear that the goal of legislation is primarily to garner good will among potential donors. One of reasons so much “pork” is added to every bill is to influence potential donors to contribute. Why else would congress add something like a library or bridge to a bill on healthcare or immigration? Why would a bill exclude certain groups from participating? Why would congress exempt certain groups from taxes or levies? It’s all about fund raising.

Both corporations and political parties engage in branding, advertising and public relations. One of the major differences is that corporations must reinvest their own money in product development to keep the revenues flowing. Political parties on the other hand have the ability to tax the general public to create “products” they can give to the market in exchange for donations. The money comes from the public but goes to the party. It’s a nice scheme. There is no direct connection between taking money from the tax payers… providing a “service” to the public… and collecting donations for the party. But those most willing to donate to the party are the ones who reap the most benefit from the “services” and generally don’t pay as much tax toward its delivery.

Almost 50% of those who filed taxes at the federal level paid no taxes. This does not include all of those who survive but have no taxable income, mainly due to entitlements. (not saying all entitlements are bad, just pointing out a fact) So the majority of the constituents (voters) are not currently paying for any of the services that they receive. From a business standpoint this is not sustainable. Why would congress pursue an unsustainable strategy? Because sustainability is about fundraising, not government spending. When worse comes to worse, they can just print more money or add more taxes.

The system has been broken for some time. It is now coming to a tipping point. Unfortunately the political parties will not chip in to bail us out. They will simply tax the voters and use the money to influence donors. It’s what they do…..