"Truth" the Movie Version hits home

Some movies hit a nerve.  If it has an element of historical fact and you already had some awareness and maybe even an opinion it can be compelling to watch. "Truth" amazed me in that it took up a sensitive topic and came out as the 2016 election is happening.  In the movie we learn that the protagonist, producer, Mary Mapes had intended to do an investigation of George Bush's military service before the 2000 election, but her mother died and she was distracted.  So here we are 16 years later and there is still some political life left in the story.

The story about the investigation made the news.  I don't recall" 60 minutes" at the time, but do recall learning about the events in newspapers.  Admittedly my inclination was the Republican party had misled Americans and were up to a lot of bad things.  Much has confirmed my feelings since then.  I remember watching John Kerry make his military salute, reporting for duty as he accepted the Democrat nomination.  Not too long after the Swiftboat campaign started discrediting his military record.  It has always concerned me that somehow a war hero was discredited while an actual non combatant was protected.  That is the baggage I carried over to the movie.

Previously I had written about movie producers and this movie focuses on a television producer.  Dan Rather was the key person in what I recalled, but the movie was told more from the point of view of the producer Mary Mapes.  The viewer gets an inside view of the background to what appeared on the air.

At the end, Mary makes a speech to the effect the whole issue boiled down to fonts and some confusion over testimony instead of the "truth."  What the truth actually was, I can only speculate, but I agree the truth was buried.  As she put it, the core issue was that a privileged son was able to avoid going to Vietnam and that was never denied.  She defended her integrity by pointing out that in order to fake the documents someone had to have intimate knowledge of procedures and personnel and after mastering all that detail use a Microsoft Word software program.  The script suggested news has become entertainment rather than just news.  More than entertainment it was part of a business.

I noticed at IMDB a lot of negative political comments, but they seem very partisan and in a way proved that power is afraid of the truth.  I cannot vouch for every word in the script, but the general thrust is very easy to believe.  I suspect there was some informal political boycotting.

The movie itself was well produced.  They gave a good feel for newsrooms and also home offices.  Actors were well chosen and directed.  I didn't notice the music which I normally listen for, but it was there and supportive.

Special feature not only captured thoughts of the actors, director, writers and producers, but also of the real Mary Mapes and the real Dan Rather.

There does seem to be a concentration of media power.  Ronald Reagan took steps that encouraged this development--public service requirement dropped and lowered restrictions on ownership concentration.

Mary Mapes wrote the book that inspired this movie.  She was very articulate.  After being fired (other participants were forced to retire) she was awarded for her coverage of the Abu Ghraib scandal (perhaps a motive for how hard she had been hit).  She felt she had to explain herself.  More and more reporters felt they have to do the "safe" thing.

Dan Rather who was forced to resign also was very articulate.  He noted that today's younger generation pays little attention to main stream news dismissing it as propaganda and sophistry.  Trust must be earned.  There is often a powerful person who doesn't want the truth to be known.

Robert Redford, an activist (noted by co-star Cate Blanchett) pointed out that if truth goes against power it can be crushed.

A few weeks ago I watched "Spotlight" which was about an extensive investigation into child abuse in the Catholic churches in Boston.  One can appreciate that such efforts require a lot of manpower and runs up against powerful opposition.  We are better for it and are in danger of losing such efforts.

Dan Rather had been accused of dropping one of his signature farewell words, "Courage" which he did revive with emphasis on his farewell broadcast.  I interpret it to mean that we need courage to tell the truth.  We lost a lot when Dan Rather was (relatively) silenced.

Writing this after the second debate between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump I caught a post on Facebook with commentary from Dan Rather.  Watch the reader comments as they are mostly supportive of Dan Rather and I think he deserves the last word for this posr.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/10/10/debate-dan-rather-took-facebook-warn-america/

AMERICAN POLITICAL PRIORITIES

As an unwelcome outsider I see that the American media is dominated (or at least the political portion) by scandals.  Three of them, dealing with Benghazi, the IRS and AP are examples of excessive attention.  One commonality that they share is that they are petty in comparison to the real problems faced by the nation.  Some people would prefer to argue over the details, but the more you probe the more you realize that as important as they might be, they are distractions from real life and death concerns.

Republicans act like every mistake (often manufactured) proves the Democrats are unfit for office.  Their own sorry record is ignored.  It is hard to imagine bigger scandals than the manufactured justification for an invasion of Iraq or the Iran-Contra affair or the fiscal mess for which they made the key decisions.

There are serious problems being ignored.  It is hard to determine how all the real problems should best be dealt with, but Republicans are focused on how they can regain power and force their agenda on an unsuspecting America.  As I list what I think should be priorities you will notice that Republicans are for the most part counter productive.

Climate Change is acknowledged by most of the world as real.  Republicans are financed by those who likely would lose some of their relative wealth after some of the logical corrective actions are taken.  With their wealth and expertise they could be planning how best to transition to the new realities, but for the most part they are manipulating every way they can on how to maintain their wealth and leverage.  I don't think Republicans are blind to science, just willing to look the other way when it serves their perceived interests.

Jobs was a promise the Republicans used to win elections in 2010, but soon proved to be dishonest.  Anything that could help boost jobs seemed to be tied to a social agenda and Republicans soon pushed in other directions.  Job solutions were often linked to lessening taxes and regulations for job creators (who meanwhile have been avoiding taxes anyway they can and shifting jobs to low wage and regulation jurisdictions).  To my mind I would borrow from an economist, John Maynard Keynes, (hated by conservatives) who felt the purpose of any economic system is the betterment of all mankind.  Those with wealth to protect see things differently and can be very indignant and self righteous in their justification.  If jobs were a higher priority the average person would be better off and so also those better positioned.

The world has a number of troubling spots, but possibly the Mid-East is one that could explode.  I agree that there are some zealots who hate America and much of that hate is unreasonable.  Unfortunately in following their own narrow interests (Canada and the rest of the West is mostly in step) Americans have sided with dictators to obtain scarce natural resources.  In fact industrial interests (such as those tied to the internal combustion engine) and those who control natural resources are tangled in.  I remember during the Cold War at one point Americans and Russians and later Chinese took part in cultural exchanges.  They seem superficial, but in fact they help us to understand and respect each other more.  Arabs and Muslims have much to offer and we Westerners could benefit from more contact.  Impediments include Guantonamo, Palestine, interference in Mid-eastern countries and loudly expressed ignorance.  I don't mean to diminish the importance of other global trouble spots, some of which could be apocalyptic.

Although politicians of all parties seem to be adjusting another very critical issue is campaign financing.  Americans are unique in their ever lengthening campaigns for political office.  Instead of dealing with real issues politicians spend a lot of their time fund raising which often seems to involve demonizing the opposition.  It might be better to spend time trying to understand those who see issues from a different perspective rather than attempting to overpower them.  Ideally those who can serve the people should have an equal platform and should be equally accessible to the people.  All we can hope for is to move towards that ideal instead of further away which we are doing now.  The current setup works to the advantage of wealthy people and the media, but not anyone else.

Democracy is what everyone claims we already have, but in fact Americans have locked themselves into a system that is far from ideal.  The Constitution is sacred to many and I agree there needs to be an impartial base for everything.  Times do change and it would not hurt to reflect on some of the realities of negotiating the original American constitution.  Small states were afraid of losing their power to large states who naturally had a different perspective.  To get them to join in to form a greater power some concessions were made and had a philosophical justification most of us can appreciate.  Slavery is something Americans claim to be over, but at the time was a major consideration in how the Constitution was set up.  Religious considerations were handled fairly well in the sense that there was a clear separation of church and state with a reasonable toleration for others.  Interpretations and practices have changed.

United States has evolved into a two party system (third parties require an enormous amount of money to have an impact) and each of the two parties has adapted to Constitutional realities.  This means if one party can leverage the inequalities better than the other they can gain power.  One lever that works has been racism.  That is oversimplified, but they have also found ways to bundle their narrow economic concerns with social agendas.  All it requires is small states with two Senators and a base of three electoral votes to aggregate and they can overcome majority interests.

It is common for many countries to have coalition governments.  This is frowned upon by Americans, but really they much better reflect the concerns of the majority of people.  Coalitions happen normally because of a system that allows each voter to have a strong say in the final outcome.  Your vote still has meaning even if your choice doesn't garner the most votes.  In United States (and Canada) if your candidate falls short by even one vote they do not get any power.  In proportional systems, recognizing that every voter has unique interests the candidates pool their votes over a bigger system and are granted some power.  Often this means things don't get done because it is more difficult to get agreement, but each candidate (or more accurately each political party) has to appeal to a larger base if they want to have much leverage.  In the United State many states are so pre determined in their preferences that neither party feels the need to spend time appealing to them.

If you can't get your way it seems logical to compromise and get as much as you can.  It might even prove the merits of your ideas.  Republicans have concluded somehow that they can get a lot more if they make the Democrats look incompetent or better still, evil.  They could provide some needed balance, but have opted to be obstructive.  They have enough power to paralyze the government and stop any constructive efforts that might be attempted.

Nobody has all the answers, but in the United States they have created a monster labyrinth where when serious people are trying to enter they are distracted by other people more concerned about increasing their power no matter what.  Reality is that no one even knows the answers and no one has enough power to do enough and no one has the time to try to understand the many variables.  Republicans are entitled to their views and in fact have enough power to force compromises, but feel they can leverage their power to get a much bigger piece of the pie.