A friend of mine on Facebook lamented the lack of coverage of the Panama Papers in American print and broadcast news. She's right. American journalism was slow to cover the Panama Papers. The next question is why.
Let's summarize the Panama Papers in one paragraph, because that's an easy thing to do (note: it is not). There was a huge leak of papers from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 11 million documents — bigger than Edward Snowden's leaks — over four decades reveal the use of offshore tax havens for the political elite, sports officials and business leaders around the world. In short: Rich people have been getting away with things for years, and now we know it for a fact.
So why isn't it getting the press in America that it has elsewhere in the world? I see four reasons why it hasn't gotten the tread in these United States that it has deserved elsewhere.
First, there's the issue of timing. The Panama Papers came out worldwide on a Sunday morning. Where are most American journalists and people? Church and not working, respectively. If there's a day when people kick back and don't follow the news, it's Sunday. That's not to say the news isn't important on Sunday. Two of the traditional Sunday morning things are the Sunday morning political talk shows (which would have been taping while the Panama Papers were breaking) and the Sunday morning newspaper (which wouldn't have had the news, since they had to go to press early in the morning). The only thing that would have had it was the Web and broadcast — whose A teams were probably off that day.
Second, there's a large degree of America-centrism here, in two forms.
• While there was a consortium of international journalists — literally the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists — they weren't the influential media power players. Notably, they largely weren't American. The New York Times had to defend themselves against their readers when they weren't involved. The only involved American media were McClatchy newspapers (Kansas City Star, Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram) and Fusion TV. While these are good media sources, they also aren't consumed on a national basis. So the biggest media sources in America didn't know it was coming and were blindsided.
• American businesses and leaders were largely uninvolved. There are about 200 American passports involved in the Panama Papers. While there are a few billionaires involved in America, these aren't big names here. It's not like our President or major political leaders were involved — it's just a few rich guys you've probably never heard of. And there's a reason for that: As lawyers and journalists have pointed out, rich people don't have to go to Panama to set up shell companies, since it's perfectly legal to do that through Delaware, Wyoming or Nevada. We don't have off-shoring in America. We have legal on-shoring.
Third, the Panama Papers are complicated. It involves tax shelters and havens and off-shoring and LLCs and... that's a lot for a person to handle. Particularly in a world where journalists are told to write to an eighth-grade level, the Panama Papers are a slippery bunch of issues that usually need an explainer piece beside them. Further, what's come out has mostly been accusations and has led to very few charges (I'd argue this is because they just leaked and not because everything is legal, but that's where we're at.). So what we've got is confusion and smoke. The task for journalists will be to ferret out the fire and fan away the confusion. And the smoke. This metaphor and paragraph need to end. In short: tax shelters aren't a sexy issue.
Last, I have one more argument here: cynicism. Let's boil these Panama Papers down to their essence: Rich people around the world use complicated tax schemes to avoid paying taxes. What about that statement is surprising or shocking? There are connections to Vladimir Putin and FIFA, two people/organizations certainly not known for their transparency or lack of corruption. Most of the fallout has been to foreign leaders Americans don't know (Iceland's prime minister!) or don't trust anyway (FIFA, Putin, etc.). I'd argue that we assume the most rich people do this sort of thing anyway, so the shock really doesn't set in as deeply. In America, we're more shocked that Alabama's governor said sexy things to someone who works for him and is not his wife.
Name of the Year update
The first round of voting is over, and a few upsets have happened. I didn't pick the two 2-seeds to fall in the first round, but I did pick both to fall in the second round. Out of 32 matches, I predicted 27 (!) of the 32 first-round matches.
Bulltron Regional
As predicted, Tillmann Buttersack and Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant have advanced to face each other. I did call the Burm Snart upset, and he'll go on to face Brodarious Hamm, as I expected. I also called the Onno Hoes-Charol Shakeshaft matchup, as well as Furious Carney pulling off the upset. What I didn't foresee (though did note was the best 15-seed) was Chizu Shimizu Buckalew pulling off the upset of 2-seed sicnarF loopstoK. Altogether, I'm proud of my picks in this region. 7/8 correct
Sithole Regional
Pope McCorkle III and Oozi Cats waltzed past their competition, as expected. However, I did not see Saint Schwing trouncing Dr. Kim Nazi. Snookie Catholique advanced and so did Cosmo Bjorkenheim and Scholastique Koolimo into the Round of 32. Of course, Dick Tips had no problems with the first round. The big surprise was another 15-seed upsetting a 2-seed. Attila Freska was not fresh enough for Rigoberto Uran Uran. 6/8 correct
Dragonwagon Regional
WOW, did I nail this one. I called the upset by 12-seed Lt. Charlene Sprinkle-Huff and correctly called the coin-toss Ransom Barefoot-IV Seacat matchup (I picked Barefoot, who won by just 16 votes!). Looking at the vote totals, I feel great about this round, but feel scared about the subsequent rounds. 8/8 correct
Chrotchtangle Regional
Remember how good I've done so far? The mighty do, occasionally, fall. Just like 1-seed Shuntavyious Primes-Willes to the underdog 16-seed Billie-Jo Skeleton. I don't think anyone saw that one coming. I correctly called wins by Tre McKitty and Divine Deablo, and also picked the 13-seed upset by Jorja Pound Turnipseed over Jasmine Squirrel. However, I picked the wrong horse in the Muna Tuna-Langstaff Dickerson race, and Muna Tuna came out ahead. I did pick the rest of the bracket correctly to round it out, though. 6/8 correct
Summary Judgments
George Mason University renamed their law school after Antonin Scalia, but forgot about acronyms. The Antonin Scalia School of Law is ASSLaw or ASSoL. I can't believe no one thought about that. Anyway, they've already changed it to Antonin Scalia Law School (ASLS). • • • A Wisconsin Representative said after Tuesday's election that voter ID laws will help Republicans in that state. That's the truth about voter ID laws: Although they sound good, they are really a smokescreen to eliminate minority (often Democrat) votes from the general election. I've done the research and the facts are clear. If you want to stop voter fraud in truth, reform absentee voting. Until then, legislators are focusing on the speck of dust instead of the plank in the proverbial eye. • • • Censorship makes me angry. It makes me further angry when legislators — who should know better — cherry-pick lines to make books sound evil and toxic. It really makes me angry when legislators from former Confederate states seek to cherry-pick lines from Pulitzer Prize-winning books written by black authors. • • • The other day, I was picking up the kids from daycare. I've got Evie in my arms, while Roland is crying while the daycare attendant is grabbing our stuff. I said, "Come on, Roland! Be happy!" Evie then leaned into my ear and whispered, "Happy." It was then that I learned that any word, no matter how nice, is made creepy by whispering.
No comments:
Post a Comment