Years of Poems and Spirits

Why people are addicted to junk news?

On the one hand, it becomes obvious that, if left to free market, the main stream media will sink even lower than it is today. On the other hand, the guarding angels of serious news are somehow incapable of building a profitable business.

This news story prompted this observation, “Brzezinski Makes Noise With Paris Stand“. Basically, a TV personnel, sickened by the dominance of the Paris Hilton story, decided to thred the newscript on the spot. Of course, she became an instant hero among her peers. Yet at the same time, the one show that devoted everything to the Hilton story–including paying her for the story, the Larry King Show, enjoyed trippling audience.

Another related story is the one Ken Auletta wrote on New Yorker, “Promises, Promises”. As persuasive as ever, Auletta made the case that Murdoch cannot be trusted: he will bring the Journal down, down and down.

Yet why the suddenly beloved Journal is in such a predicament? How come NYT or Washington Post has not bought this obvious “low-hanging fruit”? On the other hand, if one really cares about WSJ, the opportunity RM brings to the table is just too tempting to walk away from.

So what is wrong? Is there a model, with only a few exogenous variables, can explain why most people are inherently attracted to vulgarity AND the high-minded are inherently inept in turning knowledge into profit? I am dying to find out …

This is a title of a NYT article. The author says,

“The answer, say people who have studied the country’s regulatory system, is a cautious yes. ”

Not mine. My prediction is that any “reform” in food/drug safety, if it ever materialize, will likely come at the expense of the rural poor. In other words, the pursue of a “cleaner life” is only to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Here is why: first, China today is not Chicago during the Progressive Era. Second, Chinese leadership is held hostage by the quiet barrons.

When Sinclair Lewis witnessed the carcass floating down Charles River, he could write about it and get his articles published. More importantly, when Teddy Roosevelt decided to act, he did not have to get the consent from the mayor of Chicago.

But today, although the world economies have integrated, the world regulatory agencies have not. Therefore, Americans suffering from poor product safety in China can do little to change the situation. Any American Joe can write about food safety in China, but at the end of the day, FDA can’t bypass the Chinese government to enforce even common-sense rules.

Now that Americans have little leverage over the safety issue, how about the Chinese?

The central government, of course, likes nothing more than a pristine image while its representatives strolling down the hallway of United Nations. However, how much control does the central government have?

It is becoming obvious that the central government is losing control over the nation’s economic life. The Premier may shed tears for deceased coal miners, the central government may chop off the heads of some senior officials, yet the weight of an entire state may not be enough to stop a county bank to lend loans to a doomed business.

In fact, I heard that the very author of this article, Joseph Khan, was once detained in ShenZhen while visiting a factory on a product safety assignment. Even the police could not get him freed. Doesn’t this story tell a bigger truth? The central government certainly wouldn’t like to see Mr. Khan got hurt, yet the state appeared powerless in front of strong local business interest.

One last thing, Khan said,
“… big Chinese cities have already demonstrated that they can do a better job monitoring food and drug safety than less developed counties and rural areas. ”
Sure, big citites don’t manufacture those goods. Therefore, they can afford to behave as Americans do by boycutting certain products. Yet the factories still have to run and the laborers have to be employed. While the production happens in rural area but the cities refuse to buy the products, so who are left to consume those tainted goods? That is what I mean “the pursue of a “cleaner life” is only to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.”