Published in Pop + Politics dot com, November 16, 2004

In December of 2003 The New York Times published an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine entitled When Political Art Mattered. The article described how the arts reacted towards the AIDS crisis that was sweeping America in the 1980s, 90s and beyond. The author's traced art's impact on the AIDS movement, from the SILENCE=DEATH poster to the Act Up Oral History Project, ending with the sentence: "What's most chilling about the AIDS works I have been watching and mulling recently -- high, low, agitprop and all -- is that if they represent the most successful politicized arts movement in the history of America, it may also be the last."
It was a sobering statement to ponder and one I especially took to heart. As an educator -- specifically a math teacher --and as an artist I am surrounded by two distinct ideals every day: seeking the truth and creating an idea. Both of these ideals were at the crux of the political campaign in 2004. So how did two occupations, artists and journalists, react to the political turmoil of the past four years? And will the future be a creatively dynamic -- or dull -- time for us?

To that end I asked two artists, renowned painter Jacqueline Humphries, and Raman Kia of the band Buddahead, to speak about the political turmoil and their work. Kim Zetter, senior writer for Wired News, gave me her views on the state of journalism today.

On art:
Pop and Politics: How have you reacted to the Presidential election of 2004?

Raman Kia of Buddahead: Alarmingly, with some ease. Frankly, I was too mesmerized by the whole circus.

Jacqueline Humphries: Badly, very disappointed.

P+P: Do you believe the prevailing conservative attitudes in the country will steer your work in a different direction than w ould have otherwise gone?

RK: The prevailing conservative attitude will most likely show its results when one or two generations younger than us reach the age when they dominate the market place. At that time I am sure music will be affected by their mindset. Hopefully we will still be around at that time.

JH: I would like to think it will encourage me to make my work more radically progressive.

P+P: Do you fear censorship of your work before releasing an album via the traditional route (through your record company, over the radio etc.)?

RK: Not creative censorship but only because my music is not the kind that needs censorship. History however shows us that whenever censors have gotten hold of something the masses have also flocked towards it also. Censorship has become a form of marketing almost.

However, I think the more interesting point you have raised is how the traditional route for music to reach an audience has been changing. If you are a band without the support of a major label and huge amounts of money then essentially you will not be played on radio. For those who don’t know, radio rarely plays things because it loves them, it plays things because a label pays them to. So, for most artists, the grassroots approach is coming back. Get on the road and play as many shows a year as possible until you build a following.

P+P: Have we seen a burst of creativity in the last four years under President Bush?

RK: Yes, I think we have. Just look at how many musicians, actors and comedians are getting political, how many have tried to shake audiences to their senses; some have been rude, some have been aggressive but all the time they are all being creative.

P+P: Is there a policy if implemented by the Bush administration that would force you to create a work(s) in response? If so, what is the policy and how would you respond?

RK: The policy that I most dread is War. More specifically: more war without content. I am not sure how I would respond, or in particular how I would respond musically, but I am sure that would rattle me to the bone.

P+P: What are you looking at, reading or creating, or looking to create right now?

RK: Looking at: Unfortunately, my laptop. Reading: Last weeks edition of Time magazine. Creating: New songs for the next Buddahead album. Looking to create: An amazing, incredible, and timeless second album.

JH: I'm reading Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America." I can't tell you what I am making because it is a secret. I'm looking for something to look at, think I'll go to the Frick.

On journalism:
Pop and Politics: What was your first reaction following the 2004 election as a citizen and as a journalist?

Kim Zetter of Wired News: My first reaction as a citizen was the same as my first reaction as a journalist -- sadness for the lost value of truth. As a journalist you aspire to find the truth in every story. Your job is to inform readers about facts so that they can be engaged with the world and understand issues. But the campaign this year made it apparent that truth and facts weren't valued by our society anymore.

After the election was over, a friend of mine remarked that we're living in the age of the Ministry of Misinformation -- when black is white and up is down. In all of the post-election talk about the triumph of moral values, the value of truth was forgotten. That makes me wonder about the future and the futility of my profession.

P+P: Can you define the role of a journalist or a news reporter?

KZ: The role of a journalist is to inform and, depending on the kinds of topics you cover, to expose important issues that otherwise would remain hidden. Your job is to collect information and synthesize it in a manner that helps readers understand complex issues. Your job is to be a stand-in for the reader, to ask the tough questions that the reader would ask if they were in your place. And your job is to be a skeptic and to hold governments and public officials to task for the things they say and do -- to make them adhere to the social contract they sign when they agree to become public servants.

P+P: Turning to the policies instituted by the Bush administration over the past four years has the Bush administration curtailed the freedom of the press over the past four years? If so, how have they curtailed this freedom?

KZ: I don't think the administration has curtailed the freedom of the press but it certainly has made it more difficult for journalists to get at the truth. Unlike journalists in other countries, journalists in the U.S. don't have to fear being jailed or tortured for what they write -- although they may find themselves facing jail time to protect their sources.

But that doesn't mean the administration hasn't made it more difficult for journalists to do their job. The administration has rolled back years of effort by previous journalists and activists to make government more transparent. They've classified documents that have no business being classified and they've shut out journalists who don't toe the line. They've been the ultimate pr machine, staying on message and controlling the message. And that has hindered the ability of journalists to report on the truth.

P+P: Is an embedded journalist truly a journalist? That is, is there an inherent conflict of interest for an embedded reporter?

KZ: I think that embedded journalists have a legitimate role to play if that is the only way that a publication can obtain information. But I think that if media outlets have to use embedded journalists they should hire reporters who know the region and speak the language and don't have to rely on the troops they're traveling with to provide them with all of their information.

And given that embedded journalists often fall prey to the Stockholm syndrome -- that is, they become too identified with the troops they're traveling with -- they and their editors have to be especially careful to maintain objectivity and balance and avoid tones of awe in their writing. This is probably more easily achieved if reporters are swapped out at regular intervals so they don't become attached to the people their covering.

Also, the practice of referring to U.S. troop movements in the first person (as in, "We advanced to Fallujah today") is something that all journalists should avoid. It's unseemly. And, ideally, publications should not rely on embedded journalists for their sole source of information if they can help it.

P+P: If you could pick the four top stories to report over the coming weeks and months what would they be?

KZ: 1) The surveillance creep -- how American society is slowly becoming acclimated and losing its resistance to government surveillance. One surprising and interesting phenomenon that has come out of this, however, is the cooperation between liberals and libertarians who stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum yet share similar interests in keeping the government out of their lives and preserving constitutional rights.

2) How western governments failed in the Middle East -- the 80-year history of western meddling in the Middle East and how it led us to 9/11. Also, how we've learned nothing from those mistakes and are repeating them in Iraq.

I once went to hear one of the editors of the New York Times speak at a university. Someone asked him why, in writing about Iraq and the Middle East, the paper never placed the present-day issues into their historical context to help readers understand what led to the present-day conflicts. He replied that the paper doesn't deal with history, it only deals with news. The audience was a bit stunned. The nation's paper of record didn't want to deal with the past any more than the government wants to deal with it.

More reporters should become immersed in the historical context of the issues they're covering so that they can understand the genesis of the issues and put them into proper context for their readers.

3) How the current administration is co-opting science to further its religious, social, and economic agendas, and how the work of the government is being outsourced to private corporations -- think military operations and the administration of our elections.

4) I'd watch how certain factions in and from Iran are making a claim for the U.S. to attack their country, in the same manner that the debunked Ahmed Chalabi did for Iraq, so that they can assume power or impose a government that is sympathetic to their interests.