Manufactured Conflict

So the 'thrilling' feud between "Daily Show" host, Jon Stewart and "Mad Money's" Jim Cramer has come to an end. Both TV Celebrities shook hands and forged an agreement to return to their respective programming goals. For Cramer, that is asking tougher questions and more investigative tactics with regards to reporting and for Stewart: "making funny faces and fart noises".
Regardless of who you supported, plenty of interesting points were made. The question to what extent CNBC are responsible for their role in ensuring corporate governance and the audience to which it caters was the biggest area of inquiry. Stewart's biggest qualm was the fact that CNBC's overall reporting seemed to cater to different areas and the fact that they are unable to concile these views into a more thorough reporting style. CNBC (and Cramer) shot back that what would a comedian who presents a 'news' show on Comedy Central have with regards to true reporting and that he is guilty of the same thing, presenting serious issues with a flippant view.
What much of the media outlet did not present was that the 'feud' was strictly manufactured. Stewart never personally attacked Jim Cramer in his initial report about CNBC. He was attacking the network in general for what he saw was indirect manipulation of the market by ameliorating fears and hiding misgivings with a number of the big banks and corportations. Cramer happened to respond to Stewart's report as a means to defend himself from an attack that wasn't singly aimed at him. The response internalized the conflict to Cramer and Stewart, and CNBC simply gave Cramer a pat on the back and sent him as a 'scapegoat' of sorts to divert Daily Show's fire.
Of course once this happened, the remainder of the media outlet jumped on it and added fuel to the fire by emphasizing the Cramer vs. Stewart angle, as opposed to the original intention...Stewart vs. CNBC. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Internalizing the conflict means that we are directed away from the real issue- whether today's media outlets aren't asking hard enough questions or whether corporate interests overlay clear, insightful reporting. If the conflict remained situated to its original case of inquiry, I think we would see much more investigation about the level of 'collaboration' we see between reporting media and the subjects at hand. Despite the tone of this post, I think even if we didn't hit the mark with respect to asking and answering the right questions, it is a step in the right direction.

Nostalgia without the guilt

Tonight I decided to visit my campus, specifically a frat party, but not as a geezer, shamelessly trying to "hook-up" with those younger with me, but as an observer, of what it feels like to be the insider of a frat-house.

I came to the realization that a fraternity was much more than a monopoly on the college pussy and a bastion of power over the non-initiated and the individualized masses who yearned for an environment to drink and have fun on the expense of others. It truly was a brotherhood of people who supported one another, and ensured the maximum possible enjoyment and utility for all the members and partakers involved. As much as I opposed being chained to a single organization for enjoyment and experience of the college environment, I found myself a little jealous of the intimacy and general camaraderie enjoyed by the members of the frat. I think if I could experience college all over again, I would make an attempt to join a frat, despite the stereotypes and general connotation associated with the fraternity environment. It was something that couldn't be explained through a logical argument or through monetary concerns. The bond between members was more than the general association experienced between workmates or even friends in a collegiate environment. It was the fact that they had the same set of Greek letters which described their affiliation and the intimacy (in a non-sexual way as far as I can tell...) they shared. There truly was something indescribable from my limited vocabulary or my inept choice of words.

My role was strictly as an observer; of the experience I oversaw as a member of Penn's undergraduate student body. As much as I share an appreciation for a group that supported me both in academic and non-academic pursuits, I was always independent, relying on my own skills and a fair amount of luck to pull me through any endeavor I faced. This is how I came to the realizations above. I did my best (and succeeded) in observing the side of college I never faced...the role of a fraternity insider, one of the "bros" -if you will. Despite all the negative connotations associated with the average fraternity brother, there is a degree of moral standard that they follow, and while it is not in correspondence to the moral standard that society as a whole follows, from an outsider's perspective, it can be ordained as "good", at least for the members of the respective fraternity as a whole.

This is the impression I was left with. All in all, it was an experience in a good context. Eventually I would have to come to accept that college was over. The carefree attitude associated with the college experience had to come to an end, and the realization that I had to decide what to do with my life was to come. And the experiences and observations I made this weekend only emphasized this. I am no longer the undergrad. It is the opportunity for me to make my mark and make the world truly a better place.