As 2016 matures, one clearly identifiable emerging trend is that anti-institutionalism sells. Democrats bristle with indignation at the faintest suggestion that seven years of feckless, divisive governance, stagnating economic and wage growth, and proliferating crises overseas have made Americans a tad uneasy, but to argue the opposite is to pound the table. This observation is, however, the philosopher’s lament. For the executive, at least those worthy of the faith of their shareholders, a crisis is also an opportunity. Shorting the American institutions in which the public has lost all faith seems like a safe bet. It’s also a remarkably callous, contemptibly self-interested approach to life and it reveals the extent of the damage that has been done to the nation’s moral compass.

When the firm’s dispute with the federal government first became the subject of public debate, Apple’s defenders initially wrapped themselves in the flag of the United Nations. COMMENTARY’s Max Boot observed when the story first broke that Apple CEO Tim Cook had publicly refused a request from the FBI to allow them to access the locked iPhone that had belonged to one of the terrorist attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino in December 2015.

Apple and its supporters contended strangely that if they were to comply with the request of the federal government and create a “back door” to access this iPhone, they would be opening the door for autocratic governments to do the same so as to undermine local dissidents. To comply with the FBI would be to usher in a new dark age, and Apple would boldly stand in defense of freedom fighters and underground resistance networks around the world.

This assertion didn’t withstand even cursory scrutiny. Many have since noted that Apple has already acceded to the wishes of a variety of illiberal governments like China’s in order to tap into those markets. Apple’s story soon evolved into the claim that the costs of such an operation would be substantial, albeit a tiny fraction of its annual $200 billion revenue, and the United States government would reimburse it anyway.

The company’s true goal was to protect its brand in the age of Edward Snowden and to preserve Silicon Valley’s self-image as a global city beholden to no government. But this is not some hypothetical case. This is a real-world incident in which Islamist terrorists with foreign connections executed a sophisticated low-tech attack on a civilian target, and there is a limited window to prevent the next event or to break up terror networks abroad. As Boot noted, the selfless spirit of patriotism that inspired American business executives to sacrifice for the country of their birth in World War II has been replaced with a venality that masquerades as principled libertarianism or internationalism.

That same disregard for the best interests of the republic that nurtured them and created the conditions for their success is evident in media, too. Although it is also a staggeringly callous display of selfishness, a recent and revealing quote from one of the most powerful men in the news business provides a window into the thinking of network executives as they watch Donald Trump blitz his way through primary state after primary state. Asked for his thoughts on the presidential race, CBS CEO Les Moonves reportedly confessed that he had serious misgivings about Trump, but that he appreciates the revenue his network’s near myopic focus on the GOP frontrunner has yielded. “It may not be good for America, but it’s good for CBS,” Moonves said.

Think about that for a minute. Ruminate on the perverse incentive structure that would lead a media mogul to confess that their professional role may be at odds with the best interests of the nation they call home. Contemplate the pathology that compels any American to believe that their fortunes are in some fashion divorced from the prospects of the country as a whole. Surely Moonves did not set out to sound as seditious as he did, but this admission is also laudably honest. His is an industry that bears quite a bit of responsibility for Trump after having provided him with months of shallow, saturation-level coverage.

According to an analysis conducted by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, 46 percent of media coverage of the Republican presidential race was devoted to Trump as of mid-January compared to just a few percentage points each for his six other most potent rivals (among many others). Considering how campaign reporters are so frequently shocked by how little Trump supporters know about the candidate’s past or his present positions, it is fair to note that the majority of that coverage has not been hard-hitting or fact-based. “It is hard to put a price tag on what this avalanche of free media coverage has meant to the Trump campaign,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported. Citing information from the data firm Optimus, the Journal reported that the cost of broadcasting one 40-minute press conference on a cable news channel, like the Trump presser carried live on most networks on February 15th, would cost a campaign approximately $2.8 million. But cable and network news have been doing just that for Trump for months.

Ahead of the Iowa Caucuses, the Trump campaign actually scaled back their extraordinarily minimal ad spending with the proper understanding that it was the beneficiary of so much earned media it could afford to do so. By January 20, Trump’s campaign had spent a grand total of $4 million on advertisements compared to over $100 million from other campaigns and supportive PACs. As of February 23, Donald Trump had not spent a single dime on advertisements in Super Tuesday states. Why should he have? There will always be a Les Moonves to help put Trump over the top, so long as the candidate can keep the manufactured controversies coming.

Donald Trump’s supporters so often contend that his success is merely a symptom of a more serious illness that afflicts the nation as a whole. When it comes to the press, they’re absolutely right. There is a corporate culture that has determined worldliness and global integration absolves them of their responsibilities to the country in which they were born and where they call home. When this campaign is over, hopefully someone will ask Moonves if he thought it was worth it.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link