CONSPIRACY OF THE CUSTODIAN

Unearthing the gone glory of the Media

Society grows or retards according to the information available to it and the actions forthwith which the pieces of information engineered. No other sector of the society makes the information available and effectively spread it other than the media. The media is the custodian of the society. Everything about a people is known through no other means than the media. The richness in culture, tradition not excluding the organisation of the country in politics and economics are portrayed to the outside world through the artistic exertions of journalism. The job of the journalist anywhere in the world can never be circumvented. In this, the journalists are committed to two guiding principles which are the umbilical cords of the job. Professionalism and Objectivity. In keeping to these ethics, they shoulder a large and heavy load; balancing facts and fictions, separating lies from truths and also keeping the nucleus of the society alive.

Many a time the journalists have swayed in their quest in the separation of facts and fictions as well as promoting more of lies than truths especially when the lies are paid for or wanted by the government of the host country. Propaganda. Loss of prestige. Fox News in the US is clearly notorious for propaganda in the US. Even the Canadian government rejected it as a local broadcasting station. It can only be watched via satellite in Canada. Aljazeera is clearly quite in the propaganda race too. I took special time to view the Arab Spring from different angles, always switching constantly consistently from CNN to Aljazeera. CNN was simply awesome in objectivity though the impression I had for long had about it was that of a Western media bulldog. Aljazeera clearly made it flagrantly known that the Qatari government did not like Maummar Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad. Marvelous propaganda. 'Un-professionalism' at its heights. When CNN was keen on the Bahrain protest and that of Saudi Arabia, complaining of Western connivance and silence, Aljazeera mentioned them in passing. Despite this, Aljazeera still has more educative, innovative and factual programmes than most international media.

Back home, the media in Africa is nothing but ordinary news arena, mostly imbalanced and uninteresting. Gory tales. Horrific news. The media is clearly more of an horror movie news industry. There is no gainsaying the fact that Africa has more of outrageous events than those that positively catch the mind but the media has forgotten that there is a generation to be nurtured after the heinous thieves ruling the continent might have been deposed or gone naturally to meet their king, Lucifer. I wonder if the tales of woes now are more than those of the past. Definitely by all standard NO. Africa now only needs more objectivity and problem-solving media criticism. Constructive criticism. Africa needs a media that will charge the system and not continue to make the thieves influential criminals. Africa needs a media that will tell the people what they need to do. Africa needs a media that will not be too quick to announce to the world that there is a riot after election as witnessed in Ghana.

During the US election, the Republicans objected to the process in Florida claiming they will contest the result. Many hiccups occurred in the process that produced Obama but all were kept at the base so that distractions will not occur. So also was that of George Bush. The media knows that it is capable of disrupting even the best electoral process in the world. Did we ever hear of the African-like election tales and stories? Rigging is so cheap in the US that only a $2 dollar microchip will perform the magic. Both the Republicans and Democrats know this. Who heard of Patraeus during the campaign and election? How about the US drone fired at by Iran? Media guides societies. Africa does not need a media that only makes bribery and corruption look institutionalised. Africa needs a media that juxtapose facts and developments in different African countries as well as in the world. Africa needs a media that will unearth the past and remake it for the modern age. Africa needs real investigative journalism.

When the continent was really hot with almost 2/3^rd of the wars and conflicts domiciled in it, the media of then still had time to broadcast educative programmes for children and youths. We also heard more from our parents. They contributed to the morals of many today. All these programmes we reminisce today as growing adults and we silently cry. The Tales by Moonlight (traditional African stories of great and dynamic morals), the Village Headmaster (western education in an indigenous act), Checkmate, Palace (showing real fatherly love). There were many too in indigenous languages. How about foreign ones? The most popular was the 'The Rich also Cry'. This movie gave many of us the strong-will that money is not all. We watched 'Passion' and realised the West (US) has charms and voodoo power too. So educative and informative. Programmes with near-adult contents like deep kissing were always broadcast at night where parents would have guided their children to bed. What we have today is extreme adult movies shown in broad daylight even on weekends when children will be at home mostly likely to view them. Where are the 'Power Rangers' and 'Voltron' that simulate a quasi-technology desire in us? All gone. Mexican soaps and even African-style porn mostly coming from Ghana have flooded the media.

We are a continent of great cultural heritage, envied by many in the world. Taking a leaf from China and India, we would see and realise that their cultural pattern influenced their developments. China's censorship of the media is mostly centred on political events. She did not make the mistake of allowing her awe-inspiring culture to be silenced. India is same. Porcelain today is China's traditional commodity and now re-packaged to be accepted in the modern world. Numerous documentaries about great China are shown on CCTV. India is doing same in NDTV. What do we have in Metro TV in Ghana? AIT and many others in Nigeria? Political news on corruption always; making these nefarious ones popular rather than contrast the past and their acts as well as broadcast programmes to show the upcoming ones that this was not the way it was and it can never continue. One day all must be revolutionalised for good. The media has gone along with the society in the extremely colossal search for wealth; thrown ethics, professionalism and objectivity into the thrash bin. No investigative journalism.

Youths need to know that African women were not slaves as portrayed by Western media. They need to know that traditional leadership in Africa was based on the interest of the people not the pockets. They need to know that slave trade and colonialism changed all these. They need to learn about the Amazon of Dahomey. They must know about Queen Amina of Zaria. They should be enlightened about Funmilayo Ransome Kuti. They must know about the Queen mother in the Kikuyu and Ashanti kingdoms. They must know how powerful they were before and immediately after Western-infested contacts. The West bribed African leaders and media not to broadcast 'The Root' again claiming it makes African children and youths hate them. What nonsense! So they never wanted hatred and they destroyed the future from slave trade to colonialism and now neocolonialism. Besides, 'The Root' never made us hate anyone, it built our resolve back then to build our Africa because we could not withstood the sufferings and felt we need to tell the world that Africa shall be free and advanced. I am so sure it will do same magic to the coming ones too.

They must learn that when African women were great traders and farmers, German men used chains and padlocks to lock the private parts of their women till around the 16^th century. They must know that no African woman ever disguised her name to be accepted by the society. The TS Elliot and others of today were women with the pseudonym of men because of the European male stigmatisation of women. African youths must know that all these historical and indigenous feats can be brought back and re-fashioned with modern trends. They need to know that no place is like home. The media needs to bring back the African nucleus for the coming generation if truly Africa must advance.

On Tax: Americans Renounce Citizenship

Thousands of Americans pack their suitcases, rip up their US passports and move permanently overseas to prevent Uncle Sam from taking their money evey year in anger over the latest tax hikes each year. In the first three quarters of 2012, more than 1,100 Americans renounced their citizenship and made their homes elsewhere, according to the Federal Register.

Available data does not yet include those who left in the fourth quarter, but it is on track to surpass the 1,781 Americans who relinquished their passports in 2011. And the number of Americans who ditched the US in 2011 was seven times higher than those who left in 2008.

With 6 million US citizens living abroad and continuing to pay US taxes, expatriates increasingly abandon their citizenship for the sake of saving cash. The US is the only industrialized country that requires its overseas citizens to pay income taxes – even if their income is generated abroad.

And for wealthy expatriates, the financial consequences of remaining a US citizen are most severe. Individuals earning more than $400,000 a year and married couples earning more than $450,000 a year will be paying an income tax rate of 39.6 percent – which is up from last year’s rate of 35 percent.

Those who earn more than $1 million annually will pay Uncle Sam about $170,341 more this fiscal year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Those who fear losing their savings frequently move to countries that do not tax their incomes.

One third of all billionaires that moved from the US to another country chose to go to ‘tax havens’ such as Switzerland, Bahamas, and Singapore, according to a 2012 study by the Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

While those who forego their citizenship will lose protection from the US government and could face difficulty in visiting the US, expatriates increasingly consider it worth it – including high-profile celebrities like 73-year-old American-born singer Tina Turner and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin.

Turner, who is worth an estimated $200 million, in January became a Swiss citizen and ditched her US citizenship. Saverin, whose net worth is an estimated $2.2 billion, holds Brazilian citizenship and lives in Singapore. Bloomberg estimates that the Facebook co-founder saved at least $67 million in federal income taxes by cutting his ties to the US.

But while the rich and famous make headlines for escaping the IRS’ grip on their finances, all American expatriates are subject to US taxes and are required by law to file estimated taxes and income, estate and gift tax returns. Some lawmakers are even trying to subject Americans to taxes even after giving up their citizenship. Sens.

Charles Schumer and Bob Casey last yearsuggestedthat Congress vote for a law that would force former US citizens to pay taxes for years after renouncing their citizenship – as well as ban them from ever returning to the US.

But in the short-term, ditching the US comes with its own financial penalties: Americans renouncing citizenship are required to pay an often-hefty exit fee. Those whose net worth is more than $2 million or whose annual income tax average is more than $145,000 are required to pay a 15 percent tax on capital gains above $641,000 and taxes on other assets including retirement accounts at the income rate of 39.6 percent.

As the only country to tax its citizens abroad, the US is pushing thousands of its citizens away.
“If you don’t mind where you live and the tax becomes excessive, then leaving might be a good choice,” Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, told Yahoo! Finance. “Countries have less of a hold on people. Governments have to raise more taxes, but they can’t go too far.”

Prevent Social Disorder Through Money-Making: The Economist

ALBERT HIRSCHMAN knew what he was talking about when he called one of his books “Essays in Trespassing”. He was an extraordinarily peripatetic practitioner of the dismal science. Born in Berlin in 1915, he fled the Nazis in 1933, studied in Paris, London and Trieste, joined the anti-Mussolini resistance, fought on the Republican side in the Spanish civil war, served in the French army until France’s collapse in 1940, helped to organise an “underground railway” for refugees, emigrated to America, joined the army and was a translator at Nuremberg. He applied the cosmopolitan spirit that he had acquired in these years to everything he wrote.

He made his reputation as a development economist, focusing on Latin America, but he soon found himself trespassing obsessively—not only into other sub-disciplines such as the theory of the firm but also into other disciplines entirely such as political science and the history of thought. Mr Hirschman was never awarded the Nobel prize in economics he so richly deserved, perhaps because his writing was hard to classify. However, as if by way of recompense, Princeton University Press is about to publish a 768-page biography by Jeremy Adelman.

Mr Hirschman’s most famous book, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations and States”, remains as suggestive today as it was when it first appeared in 1970, for managers and policymakers as well as intellectuals. Mr Hirschman argued that people have two different ways of responding to disappointment. They can vote with their feet (exit) or stay put and complain (voice). Exit has always been the default position in the United States: Americans are known as being quick to up sticks and move. It is also the default position in the economics profession. Indeed, when his book appeared, Milton Friedman and his colleagues in the Chicago School were busy extending the empire of exit to new areas. If public schools or public housing were rotten, they argued, people should be encouraged to escape them.

Mr Hirschman raised some problems with the cult of exit. Sometimes, it entrenches the status quo. Dictators may rule longer if their bravest critics flee abroad (indeed, Cuba uses emigration as a safety valve). Monopolies may have an easier life if their stroppiest customers find an alternative. Mr Hirschman got the idea for his book during a ghastly train journey in Nigeria: he concluded that the country’s railways were getting worse because the most vocal customers were shifting to the roads.

Exit may also reinforce the cycle of decline. State schools may get worse if the pushiest parents take their custom elsewhere. Mr Hirschman worried that a moderate amount of exit might produce the worst of all worlds: “an oppression of the weak by the incompetent and an exploitation of the poor by the lazy which is the more durable and stifling as it is both unambitious and escapable.” (Mr Hirschman wrote better in his third language than most economists do in their first.) Exit may also entail costs. If you have invested heavily in a company that starts performing badly, then you may be better off agitating for a change in management rather than selling your shares at a loss.

Mr Hirschman overstated his case. Plenty of evidence suggests that choice can act as an energiser, not a soporific. The most comprehensive study of school choice, in Sweden in 1988-2009, by Anders Bohlmark and Mikael Lindahl, found that “free schools” (private schools that are paid for by the state) were not only good for their own pupils but also forced ordinary state schools to shape up. But Mr Hirschman’s overall point was not that exit is bad but that exit and “voice” work best together. Reformers are more likely to be able to fix an organisation if there is a danger that their clients will leave. The problem with Friedman et al was that they focused only on exit and not on how exit and voice could be used to reinforce each other.

Modern technology is adding to the power of both exit and voice. Consumers can abandon expensive middlemen for electronic commerce. They can also organise online armies to protest against poor service. But companies are also fighting back—making exit more difficult by persuading people to sign long-term contracts (particularly with teaser rates) and encouraging loyalty by offering rewards such as air miles. They are also adding their own voices to the hubbub via social media.

Squawk or go

Mr Hirschman wrote so much about so many different subjects that it is easy to see why his biography stretches to 768 pages. He challenged the conventional wisdom among his fellow development economists that poor countries need “balanced growth”; he argued instead that the “disequilibria” generated by unbalanced growth might do a better job of mobilising resources. He also challenged the conventional wisdom among sociologists and historians that the Protestant ethic prepared the way for capitalism. He suggested, rather, that the starring role should be given to a group of thinkers, such as Montesquieu, who argued that the best way to prevent social disorder was to channel people’s passions into moneymaking.

The Economist claims to engage in a “severe contest” with “an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”. Mr Hirschman was an eloquent ally. In “The Rhetoric of Reaction” he wrote that purveyors of “timid ignorance” rely on three types of argument: jeopardy (reforms will cost a lot and endanger previous gains); perversity (reforms will harm the people they are intended to help); and futility (problems are so huge that nothing can be done about them). That certainly describes the current debates about global warming, illegal drugs and countless other topics. With luck, Mr Hirschman’s exit will not silence his voice.