Manufacturing Discontent

I went to 9th grade "Back to School Night" last week and learned that my son's history teacher focuses on critical thinking skills before teaching history. He explicitly aims to give students the tools to analyze history, understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and ultimately be prepared to live as discerning and engaged citizens. The importance of this 9th grade lesson came alive last week as a single account of a conference call during which artists were encouraged to participate in the White House's United We Serve initiative ballooned into a broad attack on the NEA.

I've yet to find any analysis of the background or motives of Patrick Courrielche, the author of this account, or his publishers. Instead, the most fervent follow up reporting has magnified his interpretation of the call as an accurate and unbiased representation of what happened and trumpeted subsequent inconsistencies as evidence that he is right. I've decided to apply 9th grade critical thinking lessons to understand this very recent history as it is still unfolding.

Mr. Courrielche published an opinion piece for Reason.com three days before the conference call entitled "The Artist Formerly Known as Dissident: Artists have a duty to dissent--even against Obama." There are three passages in the article that specifically inform us of the personal bias Mr. Courrielche carried into his participation on the conference call. (I've added bold to his italics)

I've personally known the key players behind the Barack Obama "Hope" posters for many years--one being a former employee of mine, another a former colleague...When asked by my former employee to be involved with the Hope poster distribution, I declined on philosophical grounds...

...it feels to me, as it did during the campaign, that the art community is not meeting its duty of always questioning those in power. And I say duty because the art community, as a counterpart of the press, has been given special rights written into the Bill of Rights, known broadly as freedom of the press, for the explicit purpose of keeping power in check.

It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.

Mr. Courrielche makes it clear that he does not believe all private citizens have the freedom to participate in civic life as they choose. Instead, he argues that artists must only act in opposition to government and political leaders. The logical extension of his argument is that artists are obliged to never participate in solutions developed by the government.

Mr. Courrielche's juxtaposition of President Obama and the tyrannical despots of the last century echoes the President's most radical opponents who have spent the summer seeking to convince the nation that he is their doppelganger. In this environment, it is impossible to believe the author casually linked the President and these dictators. His bias is clear.

The website Big Hollywood published his account of the conference call fifteen days after it occurred. Based on the fact that he didn't take advantage of the web's ability to publish immediately and a controversy has unfolded through his incremental release of information, it appears he used his skills as a marketing strategist to collaborate with his publishers on a roll out plan for generating as much controversy as possible.

The next publication to pick up the story was the Washington Times where the publisher of Big Hollywood works as a staff writer. When the NEA's then Communications Director Yosi Sergant responded to Kerry Picket of the paper that the NEA had not sent invitations to the call those trolling for a controversy had the inconsistency they needed. In fact, Mr. Courrielche received his invite via email from Mr. Sergant. They've used this inconsistency to suggest wrong doing ever since. (Mr. Sergant has since been reassigned to an undisclosed new position at the NEA.)

The next day, August 28th, Foxnews.com reported on Mr. Courrielche's post and interviewed both him and another participant who disagreed with his depiction of the call. From this point the ricochet of cross referencing by Mr. Courrielche on Big Hollywood, Ms. Picket at the Washington Times, and Fox News accelerated. Mr. Courrielche published a portion of the email invite he received in a second posting though the bottom portion was not included to show its full content nor the attachments. The Washington Times published an editorial calling for the NEA to reconcile the discrepancy between the email and Sergant's denial of sending it. Mr. Courirelche saved his ultimate revelation for an interview with Glen Beck on Fox News where audio clips he'd clandestinely recorded of the conference call were broadcast. Previously he'd only referenced having notes of the call. This interview occurred on September 1st, the same day a shortened version of his August 25th posting appeared as a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal, another paper for whom the Big Hollywood publisher writes.

Carefully planning the launch of his attack on the propriety of the NEA's participation in the conference call had worked. In the course of one week Mr. Courrielche and his allies successfully caught the attention of the main stream media. From this point he sited other commentators to reinforce their position though most were only speculating based on his account. Those references include Lee Rosenbaum's AJ posting about her experience on a similar call later in August, George Will's reference to the NEA having likely broken laws, and former NEH Deputy Chairman Lynne Munson's negative assessment of the situation. In this same posting Mr. Courrielche plays his hand as a collaborator in a coordinated attack on the NEA by sticking to the exact same message points as the Washington Times and using the plural when recounting their success in exposing inconsistencies in comments from the White House and NEA. On this same posting he rolls out another clip from the conference call to fan the flames of indignation over the inconsistencies without posting audio from the entire call.

The Washington Times used the news that a second conference call with members of the arts community took place to widen the scope of it its attacks. Not surprisingly it credited Mr. Courrielche as breaking this news and links back to his posting instead of the Lee Rosenbaum posting he sites. At the end of last week the paper used Americans for the Arts CEO Bob Lynch's podcast account of his interaction with the Obama administration, and the fact that AFTA received an NEA stimulus grant as further evidence that the agency has become a political tool. They immediately followed this posting with a timeline they contend tracks the transformation of the NEA. Today, the paper is running a longer version of this editorial consolidating all of the assertions it has made over the past two weeks into a call for the NEA to answer its accusations.

The NEA conspiracy frenzy started by Mr. Courrielche and whipped by the Washington Times and Glen Beck has completely short-circuited any examination of the full content of the conference calls or their purpose. While Mr. Courrielche and the Washington Times have called for transparency at the NEA they have not held themselves to the same standard. They seem to be purposefully withholding of the full recording of the August 10 conference call so that it won't undermine their agenda. Without releasing this primary source material or the second half of the original email invitation and its attachment they are only employing smoke and mirrors. They would further bolster their credibility by releasing all communications concerning this matter between Mr. Courrielche, associated Big Hollywood staff, Ms. Picket, and other involved staff at the Washington Times. The evidence that exists implicates them in a conspiracy of their own.

I ask those journalists working to gather more details from the NEA on this story to also request transparency from Mr. Courrielche and the Washington Times. He has primary source material that can elevate the controversy out of the realm of conjecture and innuendo.