The Roger Clemens Trial: Why Do We Idolize Professional Athletes?

The recently concluded Roger Clemens trial ought give all Americans pause to consider what’s gone so wrong with sports in the United States. And I’m not talking about steroids. Whether a professional athlete is using entirely legal means to grow his body to an insanely unhealthy weight and compete in the National Football League, or is taking growth-enhancing drugs to accomplish the same end result is truthfully of very minor significance. That is, to anyone other than headline-seeking members of Congress or advertising-seeking news media.

Who really cares what a professional athlete voluntarily chooses to do to his body anyway?

To me, the real significance of the Roger Clemens trial is not the alleged crime itself, but rather the incredibly widespread fascination over whether yet another sports idol was about to be publicly disgraced.

Are there too many lawsuits in the U.S.?

Americans spend billions of dollars every year for the sole purpose of resolving disputes with one another. It’s great for lawyers, but it adds nothing of value to the country’s gross national product. In reality, the enormous amount of money spent on lawsuits actually reduces our overall productivity as a country. And as a result, many American companies are uncompetitive with foreign companies who do not have these litigation expenses, and this of course contributes to the loss of jobs in the United States.

No other country in the world devotes so much of its gross national product to this process of resolving disputes with one another. To make the point, let’s remove from consideration all of the countries that provide very few rights to their citizens and make the comparison only between countries with similarly sophisticated judicial systems – the United States, Canada, England, Australia, Western Europe, and Japan. Of all these countries only the United States has any significant amount of civil lawsuits. Why? Is everyone in all these other countries less happy? Does everyone in other countries think they live in an unjust environment where their complaints go unheard? The next time you have an opportunity to talk with someone from one of these countries ask them if they feel they live in an unjust land with an ineffective legal system. I have asked these questions, and no one I have spoken with can frankly understand the American fixation on lawsuits.

Under the Microscope: Political Campaigns and the News Media

I doubt there are many Americans who think the news media fairly and accurately reports political news. The more important issue,however, is not whether individual stories are reported accurately, but which stories the media chooses to report at all. TV newscasts are drastically limited in time, and newspapers neither have the staff to report, nor the paper to print, every story that may be of interest to the public. Of course, the first amendment protects the media no matter what it does, but with those rights also come important responsibilities that the media are neglecting.

Let me give you an example. The two-party system in the United States largely exists, for better or worse, because the media chooses to give almost no attention to third party candidates. Forget about national politics where third party candidates have absolutely zero chance of success today; let’s focus on state-wide races for governor, congress, senate, and state legislative offices. There have been numerous highly credible, well-credentialed candidates for these offices all across the United States, and virtually none of them are able to get their campaigns off the ground because the news media refuses to follow them and report their ideas to the public. When there is some news report, it typically focuses on the candidate’s low public following in the polls rather than on the ideas the candidate espouses. By reporting only on the major party candidates, even when the stories are fairly written, the media are actually making news more than they are reporting it. They are making news by ensuring that the current parties, which every poll has shown represent only a minority of Americans, maintain control of government indefinitely.

Under the Microscope: Sensationalized Celebrity Crimes

“Do you think the press sensationalizes celebrity court cases in order to sell ads?”

I frequently get asked this question by friends who want to get my take on the latest perceived celebrity indiscretion that has made it into our court system. Of course the answer is, “absolutely.” That’s just the economic reality of the media business—too much media, too little news.

But if we take a closer look, we realize that the press is actually playing a far more important role than this accurate, albeit cynical, response to the question would have us assume. Were it not for the close media attention these cases receive, most celebrities would likely escape their day of judgment entirely. Of course, not all of them are guilty, but virtually none of them would be found guilty were it not for the American press. That is because men and women of wealth and influence are often capable of buying their freedom if no one is watching the process. Consider the justice system in virtually every country where the media are excluded from the courtroom. Without a doubt, corruption trumps justice, and corruption breeds more corruption. The very same thing would happen in the United States if not for the freedom of the press to tell the world what is going on in these cases, moment by nausea-inducing moment.

We all tend to view the court system through a wide-angle lens, but if we examine it under the microscope, we see things from a rather different perspective.