Pre-Rally Prognostication

In case you've been living under a rock, are over 35 years old, or just prefer to spend your time and attention on items of actual importance, you might be interested to know that a few comedians are holding a small get-together in Washington, DC this weekend.

The much lauded, over talked about, and yet still enigmatic "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" - hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show and Colbert Report, respectively - is coming to the National Mall on the intentionally irrelevant October 30, 2010. Irrelevant, perhaps, except for its placement 3 days prior to the midterm Congressional elections.

Enough actual ink, and well more than enough bytes, have already been spilled - even vomited - out onto various print, television and internet sources regarding the Rally - what it will be, what it could mean, if it's a good idea, how many people will show, etc. - that I hardly need to add to it.

At least, not before there's anything to actually report.

Stewart and Colbert announced their - originally separate - events over a month ago, and while they continue to deny it, the concepts seems clearly to have originated as a lampooning of Glenn Beck's tearful "Rally to Restore Honor" that took place in August among considerable fanfare from the Fox network. That rally included "celebrity" appearances by Beck, as well as Tea Party darling Sarah Palin and a line up of Gospel, Country, & Contemporary Christian musical guests.

That rally - as I previously reported - had a few remarkable characteristics. It was overwhelmingly conservative and highly religious - that is, exclusively Christian - and was attended by the least diverse crowd of 87,000 that I have ever witnessed in one location in my life - and I'm from Oklahoma. The median age from my observation was 55+, and in 2 hours of walking around the entire footprint, I managed to count only 10 non-white attendees (not including the 16-person all-black Gospel choir on stage).

My endeavor with this weekend's Rally - which I will also be attending - is similar, and different. For Beck, I vehemently disagreed with the premise, and the host, of the event, but I was also suspicious of my ability to get an honest appraisal of it from different news media. I assumed Fox would over-inflate the important and attendance, while down-playing the more radical things that were said. I was also worried that more liberal news sources would negate the impact, or hyperbolize the crazy.

It turns out, these fears were almost totally realized. Various Fox pundits estimated a crowd of "over 100,000" "at least 300,000" and "almost a half-million" even days after the official attendance count was released confirming it at no more than 87,000.

Arena Stage Comes Home

In its 60th year of operation, Arena Stage - the preeminent local theatre institution in Washington, DC - has much more to celebrate than just its longevity. After two years of roaming productions in Crystal City, VA and the historic Lincoln Theatre on NW DC's U-street corridor, the organization has finally come "home" to its campus on the SW Potomac waterfront where it has been based since 1960 (see photo of Arena Stage below, as it appeared in 1971, with the Fischandler and Kreeger theatess joined by a 2-story office complex).

A legend in DC, Arena Stage was one of the first non-profit theaters in the country, and maintains a reputation as one of the finest regional theatre organizations in the world. And that, frankly, was Arena Stage circa 2008. After years of fund raising and planning, it was in that year that the management and artistic staff of Arena stage decided that in order to achieve their long-term goals, they needed to take drastic steps to increase their potential. The resulting plan was to abandon their main offices and venues for a 2 year period during which time the existing facilities would be almost entirely refurbished, and additional facilities would be built at the same sight.

Juan is the Loneliest Hombre

Last Thursday, NPR announced that it would terminate its contract with Juan Williams, a long-time correspondent and news analyst, in response to comments he made as a guest on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. On Friday, the internet exploded with opinions, outrage, and explanations, from all angles. Williams immediately lashed out at his former employer from the podium of his new employer, Fox News, while amateur pundits across the political spectrum questioned the reason, timing and manner of the dismissal.

In the full context of his comments, and the scope of his career, what Williams said was not as offensive as many other recent examples of journalists speaking their mind. Dr. Laura's infamous insistence that an African-American woman get a better sense of humor about her white husband's friends using racial slurs to refer to their mixed-race child, for example, is abominable, no matter who says it, or in what context. The comments which got Rick Sanchez offed at CNN, while almost as offensive, were less bigoted – unlike Dr. Laura, in listening back to his comments Sanchez realized he had stepped over a line – and more the result of personal frustration and off-color humor.

The case of Juan Williams pushes this distinction between bigotry, accident, and unprofessionalism to an even finer point. What Williams said was not hate speech, nor was it intended to cast all members of a particular group – in this case Muslims who choose to wear ‘traditional’ garb, whatever that means – in a negative or extremist light. Williams was quite clear that seeing all Muslims dressed in this fashion as a threat was not the appropriate or rational reaction, just as seeing a Presbyterian from upstate New York driving a Ryder truck should not always strike fear of a Timothy McVeigh copycat. Williams cited this exact example, and then confessed, in a manner that has been praised by some for its genuine honesty, that when he is on a plane, Williams does get (irrationally) nervous around people he can visually identify as Muslims (Williams' full quote, and a good appreciation of its context, can be found in the original story issued by NPR before the controversy heated up).

Rally to Restore Objectivity: NPR and the Question of Journalistic Bias

On October 13, Vivian Schiller, CEO of National Public Radio - recently "re-branded" as just NPR - forwarded a memo originally written by NPR Senior VP for News Ellen Weiss (full text of the letters here). The original memo was addressed to "News Staff," and reiterate the organization's policy regarding prohibition of political activity by its journalists, and to clarify the organization's determination that the upcoming Jon Stewart/ Stephen Colbert "Rally to Restore Sanity/ March to Keep Fear Alive" events taking place in Washington, DC on October 30 do qualify as "political" rather than "entertainment." Schiller's addition was to forward the memo to all NPR staff, and reiterate that in this instance, the policy would also apply to staff in the "digital, programming/AIR, legal and communications" departments.

The full policy, which falls under the NPR News Ethics Policies and Social Media Guidelines adopted in 2004, can be found here. The "relevant excerpts" included the the memo were as follows:

NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. This restriction applies to the upcoming John [sic] Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.

The memo was in response to a debate percolating around water coolers at NPR's headquarters in Washington as to whether the Stewart/Colbert event, taking place just 12 blocks away, would qualify as "political" - a label the event's organizers flatly deny - or merely as an entertainment gathering. In the context of the upcoming midterm elections and the often-attributed center-left leaning of the Comedy Central audience - what Bill O'Reilly repeatedly refers to as the "Stoned Slacker" demographic - NPR execs decided they would cover the event as if it were a political rally, and due to the ambiguity, needed to clarify that decision to their staff.

Since sending out the memos - and even intentionally forwarding them to other media outlets in order to avoid malicious rumors or confusion - NPR has taken a beating in the blogosphere. Pundits from the conservative fringe have accused NPR of "protesting too much;" asserting their impartiality as a cover for their actual arch-liberal bias, while those in the center, left and right have focused on the uncomfortable precedent of telling employees how they are allowed to spend their time off the clock - the rally will take place on a Saturday from noon to 3 pm.

In an effort to quell the monsoon of speculation, NPR quickly issued an official clarification through the blog of its Ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard. In it, Shepard responded to the more lunatic accusations, basically clarifying what everyone already knew: NPR is not secretly an organization of neo-fascists masquerading as a journalism organization, only to be caught by the leaking of this internal memo.

By 6:30 that evening, NPR Senior VP of Marketing, Communications and External Relations, Dana Davis Rehm, published the full text of the memo in question as well as a further official defense of the policy and its application. In particular, she suggests that the NPR policy is standard among respected journalism organizations, and that NPR is "curious about what other news organizations – The New York Times, CBS, ABC, NBC and The Washington Post – are thinking about whether their own ethics policies are consistent with their staffs' attendance at these events."

The following day, the Washington Post announced it would enact a similar policy. According to its press release, "Events, like those organized by Glenn Beck or involving Jon Stewart and Steven [sic] Colbert, are political, and therefore Post newsroom employees may not participate." (link)

Learning from NPR's guffaw, the Post announcement continues, "By participate, we mean that Post newsroom employees cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause. That means no T-shirts, buttons, marching, chanting, etc. This guideline does not prohibit Post newsroom employees from observing—that is, watching and listening from the sidelines. The important thing is that it should be evident to anyone that you are observing, as journalists do, not participating, whether you are covering the event or not."

This is exactly the type of specificity and limitation that the NPR memo lacked, when Schiller said, "no matter where you work at NPR you should be very mindful that you represent the organization and its news coverage in the eyes of your friends, neighbors and others. So please think twice about the message you may be sending about our objectivity before you attend a rally or post a bumper sticker or yard sign. We are all NPR."

CNN, MSNBC, and all 3 broadcast networks have announced their intention to cover the rally live, but not all media organizations are on-board with the objectivity-boycott. Consider the coverage of this little tryst afforded by the generally-controversial Huffington Post. Spearheaded by its leader, Arianna Huffington, the site has taken on Stewart's charge of returning political discourse to a more civil, moderate temperature. Fashioning itself as almost a co-sponsor of the rally, Huffington Post has clearly stated that while it views the rally as political, it is not partisan - that is, the rally is against both Republican and Democratic excesses, and so the only way to be unobjective about it would be to give the radical fringe of both parties equal credit with the "moderate majority" the rally hopes to represent.

And this brings us to the issue that is being overlooked in this minor media fracas - to what degree NPR trusts the judgement of its staff, and how far it is willing to go to protect itself from unfounded accusations of bias by those on the political fringe of either extreme.

It seems clear that journalists actively covering political topics should not themselves be actively engaged in political campaigning, promoting a particular candidate, or attempting to persuade public opinion. This is "Journalism 101" and - frankly - disqualifies the majority of Fox pundits from the categorization of "journalist." In reality, things can get more complex, with respected newspapers openly backing political candidates, and cable news programs overwhelmingly favoring one party over the other. Neither seems especially savory, and are exactly the type of actual media bias that NPR has worked hard to avoid, aided for many years by FCC equal-time requirements, and other bygone efforts to regulate media accountability.

But many individual journalists, especially those that attended Journalism school, stick by the highest standards of objectivity. Nathan Cone, Classical Programming Director and occasional reporter for Texas Public Radio, an NPR affiliate station in San Antonio, posted on his facebook in response to my inquiry:

"I actually agree with this policy, and held myself to it long before it was in place. I don't go to rallies (unless I'm covering them), I don't sign petitions, and I don't make cracks about politics around the office. When he was at ABC, Ted Koppel went even further and never voted. Well, I do vote, and vote my conscience. My close friends and family know my views, but I strive to remain, to the outside world, apolitical."

In other words, the ideal is to be 100% neutral in every word, deed and thought, but this is virtually impossible to achieve. As an acceptable alternative, serious journalists are allowed to have personal opinions, but expected to put those aside in order to produce professional-caliber news. To the lay person, this seems an impossible segregation, especially on emotional topics, and the wealth of vindictive-laced pseudo-journalistic blogs (and, ahem, cable news channels) speaks volumes to how much easier it is to forgo the extra effort objectivity requires. But it is not an impossible feat, only requires a higher degree of sensitivity and self-sensor than the average person must employ.

I am reminded, as a personal example, of my father's ridiculous attention to grammatic detail. He is a veteran title attorney, and in his line of work the placement of a comma can dramatically alter legal property lines, with incredible ramifications in the competitive Oklahoma oil and gas industry he serves. In grade school - and indeed today, even after graduate-level work at Columbia University - I have great difficulty respecting the same arcane rules of grammar which, for my father, are an essential quality of the professionalism of his craft.

Likewise journalistic objectivity.

It is essential to the proper achievement of a basic job function - accurate communication of facts and events - and as such every effort must be made to not only protect it, but to ensure audience confidence in a journalist/ organization's maintenance of that objectivity.

But how far do we pursue this? Among journalists themselves, especially those covering the political spectrum, presumably no length is too far, as the Ted Koppell reference suggests. But what about those outside the realm of journalistic content at news-focused media organizations? Can janitors, security guards, auditors, and IT technicians jeopardize a newspaper's objectivity? Presumably not, though one must admit that a hypothetical cluster of 30 NY Times telemarketers at a Glenn Beck rally, decked out in Times apparel, would (improperly) raise questions.

So, can off-the-clock actions of non-journalists affect the objectivity or perceived objectivity of a media organization?

The unsatisfying answer is, "maybe," and therefore the NPR policy, and its extension to broad departments like Programming, Digital, Communications and Legal, can be seen as a 'safe bet.' They represent, at most, a minimal threat to the organization's ability to cover events objectively, and admittedly a more robust weapon for critics to bludgeon about accusations of institutional bias.

But this is exactly where I have my issue with NPR. The organization, now celebrating its 40th anniversary, is enjoying some of its greatest success despite years of decreasing government funding. New programs are constantly under development, and membership - both nationally, and at local affiliate stations - continues to grow. The causes are complex, but the most commonly cited are NPR's continuing commitment to the journalistic standards eschewed by other mainstream news channels, its strong focus on localism, and its dynamic embrace of digital media. When newspapers and TV stations are cutting staff reporters, NPR consistently adds salaried positions, and is presently launching a new "blog network" of locally-produced series specialized by topic. It's all very exciting, and its all built on a two-part contract. NPR trusts in the intelligence and humanity of its audience, and that audience trusts in the professionalism and ethics of NPR individuals, and as an organization.

So my query to NPR is this - why would you let a collection of admittedly sharp political satirists shake your faith in your audience or your staff? Why do you think Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert can shake the mighty foundations of trust and confidence that you have spent 40 years creating, and which your dedicated audience reaffirms in bi-annual fund drives and quarterly Arbitron ratings?

This is an awfully long blog post about what is, in essence, a minor memo mis-step, but I would hope that in the future, NPR returns to the policy that has served them best - to maintain professional objectivity through serious treatment of serious issues, rather than expend their energies trying to protect their reputation from assault by the highly-partisan amateur "press," who will doubtless find excuses to pan them anyway.

But what about Huffington's point, that the real purpose of the event itself is the promotion of objective, civil discourse on the subject of politics? How is it that rational news outlets like NPR, the Washington Post, and others, identify this as a - let's be blunt - "liberal" political event to the same degree that Glenn Beck's Tea Party-inspired rally was a "conservative" political event? While Stewart has repeatedly denied his Rally is a counterpoint to Beck's, the exact opposite is true. But this is not a question of partisan politics, but rather political practice. Do we believe in reasonable debate based on verifiable evidence, or do we prefer shouting lies and half-truths until we're red in the face. Which presents a more likely prosperous, just, transparent future for our venerable democracy, and which is simply better at driving up commercial ad sales?

I will be attending the 10/30 Rally to Restore Sanity, and intend to report on the event in this online format. I will not claim to be objective, but will present my opinions in such a manner as to clearly identify what biases I have, and perhaps where my actual observations contradicted them. I greatly enjoy the freedom of not being a real journalist, and sincerely invite you to appropriately take me not entirely seriously.

I will be at the Rally, and easy to find.

I will be the one wearing an NPR t-shirt.

Weber

::(lame)Texpatriot

On This Day

For those of you who don't closely follow 20/30-something pop culture, it might interest you to know that comedians Jon Stewart of the Daily Show and his pseudo-nemesis/protege Stephen Colbert are planning to hold a series of politically-oriented, but technically apolitical, events in Washington, DC. Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" and the co-/counter "March to Keep Fear Alive" will both take place on October 30 in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall.

As it turns out, the Daily Show already had plans to tape a week of live shows at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC in anticipation of the Midterm elections the following Tuesday. Some local papers have already pointed out the irony of holding a Congress-focused week of shows in Washington, ostensibly to be closer to the action, at a time when every single member of Congress will be back in their home district or campaigning for a fellow party member.

Regardless, the Midterms themselves set the date for the cast & crew's DC visit. Following Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor 8-28 Rally, Daily Show fans started suggesting Stewart & Co. host a rally themselves in response. The two ideas came together somewhat accidentally, as Stewart himself explains (paraphrased): "We were already in town for the shows, and thought about doing it Friday, but were like, hey, we need a day off. Sunday would have worked, but we like to relax on our weekends. So Saturday is it."

Stewart & Colbert have both admitted, even stressed, that there is no significance to the date of their event - October 30, 2010; 10-30-10; the day before Halloween '10 - and have amped up just how unspecial it is as a jab at Beck's sudden attribution of his 8-28 date to divine intervention. When Beck first announced the date, he admitted that it was only chosen because it was a rare otherwise empty date in the popular comedian/speaker's book tour. When he was informed that it marked the 42nd anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.s famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the same popular rally location, Beck suddenly saw the hand of God directing his choices a la Bush Jr.

For those brave enough to question authority in the former Soviet Union, October 30th has been consecrated since 1991 as the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Political Repressions. A somber, reverent tribute to the millions of people who lost their lives through starvation, forced labor, and outright execution as a result of their political views or ethnic background. It is not in any way a fitting parallel to the situation or sentiments of the Comedy Central crew. Of course, that won't stop some devoted fan from making a humorous connection to the upcoming event (see picture below, or this link).

For this and other reasons, I am not entirely convinced of the meaninglessness of October 30 for the context of the farcical/satirical events on tap. Below are several relevant/irreverent historical events that also took place on October 30, and which may provide some insight into what we can expect from the Greatest Newsteam on Comedy Central, and some of the most poignant social commentators of our generation:

1270 - The Eighth Crusade, which began in July and was exclusively fought outside Tunis, ended with an agreement between Charles I of Sicily and Muhammad I al-Mustansir, the Khalif of Tunis.

And now for the first installment of our new segment, Better Know a Crusade. We start with France's Eighth Crusade - the Fightin' Eight - in which French king Francis I invaded nearby Tunis in order to ostensibly stage future assaults on the Holy Land, while gaining access to the city's lucrative trade networks in the meantime. After a botched landing in July 1270, the ensuing seige didn't go well for the Europeans, including Francis himself, who took ill and died. By October, the invaders were emaciated and restless, and Francis' brother, Charles I, signed an armistice with the Khalif of Tunis to open trade relations in return for a "strategic withdrawl."

930 years have taught us a lot about how to properly run a Crusade. Here's what Francis should have done. First - don't go out to the front yourself! That's what you have immigrants, teenagers, and British Royalty for. Second, you have to make up a frightening pretense to justify the utter destruction of a foreign people - national security works great. Then you claim to be "liberating" all those poor, huddled, rich Tunisians and their selfishly privatized wealth. Now stay there for 7 years and bemoan the Tunisian's inability to provide their own infrastructure - never mind that they have a more advanced irrigation system than you do. Irrigation? How primitive! In Sicily, we use women, children and slaves to carry our water.

1905 - Czar Nicholas II grants Russia's first constitution, limiting (slightly) the powers of the monarch and creating a legislative assembly, the Duma.

For the 105th anniversary of the signing of the Russian constitution, Colbert will call on his loyal followers to respect the sanctity of not only the American founders' wishes and historic intentions, but the wishes of all founders of any constitution throughout history. He will then declare himself Czar of Cable News Opinion Journalism, and promptly order Keith Olberman to carry Rick Sanchez on his back to meet Dr. Laura in Siberian/internet exile. After 12 hours of plotting and rewrites, Stewart will call for a Communally-Rationalist uprising against Colbert's tyranny, but only so long as a compromise can be reached by dinner time.

1938 - Orson Welles broadcasts the famous live radio reading of H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds, causing mass panic as American audiences believe they are under assault from space invaders.

Americans are no less gullible, and no less afraid of aliens 72 years later. I don't know what color on the National Terror Alert System corresponds to Ray-gun wielding extra-terrestrials and their interstellar death machines - perhaps ultra-violet - but I do know that at the first signs of trouble Lou Dobbs will issue his Brown Alert and start shooting every illegal alien that dares to mow his lawn. In a decade in which the US has invaded 2 sovereign countries, and at times considered more (Iran, Somalia, Pakistan?), it is difficult to believe that we maintain the moral high-ground as "victims" of invasion. Luckily, in addition to Welles' tried-and-true radio format, we now have a potent brew of mass media broadcasts to keep the American public in a constant state of irrational hyper-fear and paranoia-fueled hatred and acquiescence. Whether denying the First Amendment's guarantee of free religious assembly, invading the privacy of US citizens, or allowing internationally-denounced torture techniques, there can be no doubt that America today permits insane abuses of its founding values under the excuse of 'protecting' those values. And that's the kind of tragic death scene a diva like Orson Welles could only dream of landing.

1945 - Jackie Robinson signs a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, for the first time breaking the "color barrier" in American Baseball.

For the 55th Anniversary of the Contract with America's Pasttime, Jon will announce his own candidacy for the Senator from the great state of Manhattan, breaking once and for the the State Barrier in the US Senate. Critics will quickly point out that Stewart doesn't even live in Manhattan, but only travels there for work and to flatter his crowds of supporters. This will spark a nation-wide fact-checking campaign on how much time Congress members spend in their respective districts, the full disclosure of which will result in Christine O'Connell being elected to the House of Representatives from the 13th District of Crazyville.

1961 - The Soviet Union tests a 58 megaton hydrogen bomb over the Arctic Ocean. Called "Tsar Bomba" it stands as the largest and most powerful Nuclear device ever detonated.

Stephen Colbert will drop his own H-bomb on Washington, DC, calling Freedom hating MSNBC anchor Rachael Maddow, "a Hoity-toity Hippy Hoodlum Harbinger of Horrible Hijinks Harboring Hyper-serious Hindrances for Hope, Happiness and Ham by-products." The comments are believed to be in response to Maddow's recent assault on Papa Bear O'Reilly. The ensuing media firestorm of vitriolic exchanges and lingering lack of substance across the cable news spectrum will overshadow the Midterm elections and herald the beginning of a political twilight as Americans sift through the rubble of a once-respected media culture. Ironically, National Proletarian Radio will be the sole survivor after cannibalizing the New York Times, and slowly peace together a network of socialist operatives across the country giving away quality, balanced journalism for free. Deep in his underground bunker, Colbert will await the second coming of Zombie Reagan.

1974 - The famous Rumble in the Jungle boxing match arranged by Don King between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman takes place in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

Remembered more for the export of African-American deep Soul and Funk back to the "Motherland," Colbert, Stewart, and probably John Oliver, will commemorate the 36th Anniversary with their own Brawl on the Mall. The event will begin with Colbert singing favorites from the Rodgers & Hammerstein songbook, while John Oliver lays down his best Mike Skinner impression and Stewart inexplicably performs a vocal trio with Michael Buble and Mary J. Blige. The main event will be interrupted, ceremoniously, by defending Brawl Champ Conan O'Brien, who will be stripped of his belt to return it to Jay Leno on the grounds of using performance-enhancing substances, namely his hair. Decades later, Oliver will sell electric beef cooking appliances on HSN.

1995 - Quebec Separatists narrowly lose a referendum (50.6% to 49.4%) seeking secession and independence from Canada.

In 2000 and 2004, the Red State/Blue State (myth) had some Americans calling for a redrawing of national borders, and Texas has further flexed its secessionist tendencies. Now 15 years after the defeat of Les Quebecois, Colbert rallies Glenn Beck's Tea Party Nation to abandon their amoral liberal-infested homes and move to greener pastures in the unoccupied territory of Utah. There they can establish a Christian Nation of minimal state intervention, strong Church rule, low taxes, and strict anti-immigration laws. What few current inhabitants stand in their way will face the certain end of all who oppose the (self) Chosen (self) Righteous.

2007 - Washoe, the first chimpanzee trained in American Sign Language, died at her home in the Chimpanzee and Human Communications Institute at Central Washington University. She was 42, and is survived by her adopted son, Loulis, as well as beloved co-workers Tatu and Dar.

Cross-species communications has never been more important, and I'm not talking about seducing a dolphin so we can start breeding a race of humans capable of surviving Global Warming. I mean the ability to have a meaningful conversation with a hard-headed, feces-throwing, knuckle-dragging mammal ruled by solely by its instincts. We have Got to reach out to these Tea Partiers. Of course, as coach Chuck Cecil of the Tennessee Titans knows, there's only so much you can say with hand gestures. Still, I think Congress has a pretty clear idea what the American public thinks of their inability to work together, and if the kind folks at the CHCI succeed, we may one day have enough informed voters to send the right message. Zoo Workers of the World, Unite!

Weber
::(lame)Texpatriot

Receptionism

From the cataclysmic doldrums of complete unemployment, through the dark and choppy seas of one-day temp assignments, I have finally sailed into the calmer currents and partly-cloudy skies of a 6 week temporary assignment.

The gig entails manning the front/reception desk 25 hours a week for the World Resources Institute, a major international research/policy advocacy organization focused on issues like Global Warming, Energy policy, transportation infrastructure, and forestry preservation. Al Gore is on the board of directors. The offices, spanning two floors of an 8-story eco-friendly tower built immediately next to DC's Union Station, is dynamic. The staff includes a good combination of slick young professionals and relaxed confident veterans. The resulting office environment is friendly, intelligent, and generally high-brow. In my limited capacities I've already spoken to members of the British and Australian embassy, and directed calls from NPR, the Guardian, and other media organizations.

It's a long way from what I want to be doing - in all of WRI, they have only one project that even vaguely hits upon Central Asia, a study on government policies involving electricity governance in Kyrgyzstan, which was rather well-timed as it was written just months before rising energy costs and government corruption in the electricity sector sparked the major public protests that culminated in the ouster of President Bakiev in April 2010. It makes for an interesting read - if, and only if, you're obsessed with Central Asian techno-politics.

However, it is a job, and as far as temp jobs go, it's second best only to my ideal post at DAI, NDI, or one of my other potential International Development target firms. I go in every day at noon - leaving plenty of time for errands, interviews, and job applications in the morning - and then am tasked with 5 hours of sitting at a desk in the lobby. When the phone rings, I am expected to answer it and transfer to the appropriate party. When guests walk in, I have them sign the guest book, then call their appointment to notify of the guest's arrival. Every day UPS and FedEx bring in packages, which then necessitates notifying the receiving parties via e-mail. On a rare occasion, I have to help with a fax. Once I was asked - with trepidation - if I would be willing to do the menial task of labeling pages on a stack of petty cash receipt books.

With the "remainder" of my time, that is a cumulative 4 hours and 40+ minutes of my day, I am free to surf the web, write e-mails, read the newspaper, etc. So long as it doesn't interfere with my duties, keep me away from my desk, or disrupt the office, it seems to be fine. That means no listening to music - or worse, no listening to radio! - as well as making Hulu & the Daily Show off limits. It's certainly not too great a burden for $12/hour.

The situation is no pastoral idyll, but as I've been remarking recently, "I'm doing the same thing as I did all of August, except I'm no longer doing it in my apartment wearing just my boxers. And I'm getting paid."

In other words, it's a unquestionably step forward. Progress. The Right Direction. And yet day after day, hour after dull hour, it feels less and less like a triumph. More importantly, my productivity with this nice chunk of barely distracted time is seeing a gradual decline. I have job applications I just never get around to submitting. The Daily Sudoku takes precedence over resume revisions. I search endlessly for articles I haven't read on the NY Times, CNN, RFE/RL, Eurasianet, The Guardian, and even the Huffington Post. I actively resist the urge to post links to all the articles I read, as my main motivation is only to justify the time I spent hunting it all down. I write ridiculously long, uninteresting blog posts. ahem.

This has me thinking about the nature of the work in which I am just recently employed, the correlation between duties and abilities, and the primacy of responsibility over ability.

Let me begin(ish) with a glib gchat conversation I had with a friend who knows a good deal more than I do about the rigors of mindless temporary employment:

1:28 PM me: receptionISM - the act or state of being an underutilized mindless automaton.

8 minutes

1:45 PM her: Sorry, working

“receiptionEST” - a colloquialism used to describe one who excels at administrative tasks because they are so far underneath his or her abilities that a state of ennui (characterized by “Existential Sinkhole Thinking”) occurs.

1:50 PM See also, "Ego Shrinkage Trauma"

After some time to reconsider, I think I prefer my term, but her concept. Our combined thesis might look something like this:

Receptionism (n.) - the act or state of excelling at administrative tasks in spite, rather than because, of one's highly-developed technical, managerial, or analytical abilities; becoming so bored with one's assigned tasks that job efficiency actually increases as a result of decreased personal dynamism.

There seems to be a humorous parallel to the post-modern Zombie movies in which the world finds ways to profitably employ the undead in the wake of the would-be apocalypse. They make good Network TV review panelists. Ideal Japanese obstacle course contestants. Loyal Republican/Democrats, etc.

First let me clarify that I am adamantly not referring to the career-path professions of receptionists, secretaries, office managers or executive assistants. I understand and greatly respect the talents required to keep large bureaucracies functioning, and to provide organized environments conducive to the more widely-appreciated "real" work. I am specifically considering the type of work in which I am currently involved - a temporary receptionist of whom only the barest minimum of competence is expected, and for whom no professional creativity is allowed.

Of course my friend's various EST abbreviations get to the heart of the accompanying personal phenomenon as well. Put succinctly, the work maybe be easy but the non-work is hell. Issues of self-worth and professional confidence are eroded like the Scottish cliffs by the tidal slosh of dull monotony. While "some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them," the same may be true for mediocrity, and what I face now is the frightening prospect of this as self-fulfilling prophecy. Namely, that mundanity (so long as we're in the habit of creating words) breeds further mundanity.

A quick excerpt from my a hypothetical Friday afternoon at the office:

A 29 year old with an Ivy-league M.A. and several years experience running a non-profit organization sits quietly behind a desk and listens to a cluster of 23-year old policy analysts talk about how their current project may some day turn into an M.A. thesis. They discuss what happened on last night's episode of The Event, and how it's really not as good as Lost. The elder of the group, who is just celebrating his 25th birthday, bemoans old age and his lack of further professional success by this point in his career. Not a single one is married, nor seems to be in any rush to be. For most this is their first job aside from a college internship.

In fairness, the individuals in questions are all very, very smart, speak at least 2 languages, and had the good sense to come out of undergrad with a degree focused in environmental studies, public policy, or media relations. Further, young or not, they were hired by one of the premier environmental research/advocacy organizations in the world, so it would be foolish to let their youthful indiscretions blur the fact that they are among the elite of their age within their chosen field. And finally, if the 29 year old with an M.A. delivering their mail happens to have spent his undergraduate working on degrees in Classics, History and Drama, then perhaps this outcome is not entirely unpredictable.

But this is not a sob story. The choices I have made - personally, professionally, pyrotechnically - are not ones I regret in the slightest. The life path that has brought me where I am today, and with the perspective through which I view it, is not one I would trade for all the environmental studies degrees or career-track positions from now until Revelation.

What interests me is the phenomenon of decreasing returns. How hard-working, enthusiastic, creative talent can slowly seeps away into wastage when it is not required in active use. As if all the energy of Hydrogen Fusion in the sun were to stop cold at dusk. Of course, that's not what happens. As San Francisco goes to sleep and the great Helios dips into the Pacific, it's Sunrise in Mogandishu, and Sol Invictus climbs out of the turbulent waters of the Indian Ocean to once more bake the arid Sahara.

So it is a matter of perception, the acquiescence into "receptionism" as here defined is categorically optional, and this post is clearly a maneuver more in self-motivation than mass communication.

And while the phone may interrupt me on occasion with inquiries about Climate Analysis Indicator Tools and Biodiversity Studies, I have work to do beyond the horizon of this small, environmentally sustainable lobby.

Work to do, and no more time to waste.

Weber

::(lame)Texpatriot