Well, it's a new year (2012), and I'm finally back to writing my blog. Much has happened in the interim: My father got very sick and died, my mother's cat got very sick and died, and it seemed like so many good people from our church got sick and died--some of them well before their time. I got bogged down by all of this; I felt weighted down by loss, and as my father so beautifully put it, "the land of diminishing returns" seemed to be a constant reality of my daily living.
As I said, it's a new year, and once more, the sun has come out, with hope springing up like tulips in the spring. I now know that cloudy weather may be out of my control, but my reaction to it is entirely within my grasp. Will I finally act on my to-do list, lingering bad habits, and persistently poor self-image by slicing through the wall of fear that stands between me and real happiness?
Stay tuned....
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Past Makes a Comeback
Live long enough and you’ll be amazed at which ridiculous trends, long forgotten, will come back in style. Some are not so bad—I remember when I used to fight with my daughter about which radio station to listen to in the car, and then one day, she magically turned on Rock 105 and left it there. Led Zeppelin had finally trumped Britney Spears—thank God!
But once again, the past is making a comeback, this time in the form of recession marketing. Advertisers are choosing to use images and slogans of the 1950s through the 1980s to remind consumers of “better times.” Quoting Frank Cooper, marketing chief for a unit of PepsiCo, “It’s about yearning for the past, a simpler time, even though the ‘60s and ‘70s were not simple. They just seem simple, looking back.”
He has a point. I distinctly remember the Carter era of rampant inflation, the Vietnam War, campus riots, civil rights injustices, racism, sexism, bubblegum pop music, hideous shoulder padding in women’s fashions, big hair, leisure suits, disco, etc. I could go on, but I grow tired thinking about this.
Somehow, the glossy illusion of a better past (“Leave it to Beaver,” “Happy Days”) is what advertisers now believe will make consumers forget the present, and the fact that they have no surplus funds to spend. Target is now selling sock monkeys and gumball machines as part of a sale on “selected retro toys.” I’ll have to whip out my old Eight Ball to predict the success of this latest venture (“Signs are unclear at present”).
And Madison Avenue is launching a 1950s family in the "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" commercials and resurrecting the “Yum, yum, Bumble Bee, Bumble Bee Tuna” song to help sell these products. Ouch! I’m waiting for the Shake and Bake commercial (“And I Helped!”) and Mr. Whipple’s “Please Don’t Squeeze the Charmin” to come back to life in some form. And then there’s always obnoxious Marge plunging the fingers of innocent women into Palmolive Dishwashing Liquid to “soften them.” I didn’t like this stuff when it was current!
Advertisers admit that these new ads could lead consumers to believe a brand is outdated—like maybe anyone under the age of 30—and therefore not for them. But who knows? Perhaps the new campaign will succeed after all. Especially since income levels have fallen to about what they were in the 1970s, maybe we finally have a match.
But once again, the past is making a comeback, this time in the form of recession marketing. Advertisers are choosing to use images and slogans of the 1950s through the 1980s to remind consumers of “better times.” Quoting Frank Cooper, marketing chief for a unit of PepsiCo, “It’s about yearning for the past, a simpler time, even though the ‘60s and ‘70s were not simple. They just seem simple, looking back.”
He has a point. I distinctly remember the Carter era of rampant inflation, the Vietnam War, campus riots, civil rights injustices, racism, sexism, bubblegum pop music, hideous shoulder padding in women’s fashions, big hair, leisure suits, disco, etc. I could go on, but I grow tired thinking about this.
Somehow, the glossy illusion of a better past (“Leave it to Beaver,” “Happy Days”) is what advertisers now believe will make consumers forget the present, and the fact that they have no surplus funds to spend. Target is now selling sock monkeys and gumball machines as part of a sale on “selected retro toys.” I’ll have to whip out my old Eight Ball to predict the success of this latest venture (“Signs are unclear at present”).
And Madison Avenue is launching a 1950s family in the "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" commercials and resurrecting the “Yum, yum, Bumble Bee, Bumble Bee Tuna” song to help sell these products. Ouch! I’m waiting for the Shake and Bake commercial (“And I Helped!”) and Mr. Whipple’s “Please Don’t Squeeze the Charmin” to come back to life in some form. And then there’s always obnoxious Marge plunging the fingers of innocent women into Palmolive Dishwashing Liquid to “soften them.” I didn’t like this stuff when it was current!
Advertisers admit that these new ads could lead consumers to believe a brand is outdated—like maybe anyone under the age of 30—and therefore not for them. But who knows? Perhaps the new campaign will succeed after all. Especially since income levels have fallen to about what they were in the 1970s, maybe we finally have a match.
Friday, April 3, 2009
How the Media Could Help Athlete$ (and the Rest of U$)
While scrolling through the NPR stories I missed last week, I spotted yet another financial story, this one about professional athletes and their lack of financial savvy. This was a summary of a larger piece in Sports Illustrated on how a very large percentage of professional athletes are often bankrupt not long after retirement. The causes are varied--from poor investments, to divorce to out-of-control paternity payments.
Media Stresses Performance, Not Finances
Well, nothing new here, and nothing to blog about regarding the press, until I noticed the subhead, “no financial education,” which described how the media is good at encouraging talented athletes to worry more about performance and less about a financial education. And this is true—I remember when Derrick Harvey finally signed his contract with the Jaguars for over $17 million in guaranteed money, and the article stressed that Harvey was now a millionaire with a huge responsibility to—the Jaguars and fans. What about his responsibility to himself and the people depending on him to take good care of all that money?
Well, given this article and all the recent woes about the economy, I just had to know how many articles The New York Times had written recently on the benefits of early financial education. I found an excellent article on teaching personal finance in our high schools—from 2003. I also found a terrific article on credit card abuse by college students, and how high schools spend precious little time teaching students about budgeting and banking—from 1995.
Of course, here’s an interesting article about necessary courses in business for high school students, dated March 19, 1897!
Why Not Talk About Importance of Financial Education?
Maybe I could have done a more thorough search, but my point is, with all the problems caused by credit card debt, dishonest investors and mortgage madness, where’s the emphasis in our society on learning financial basics? There are plenty of stories on the broken economy—how about some more on ways to fix it, beginning with what’s offered in our schools? Why not report on ways to make the courses that are left, after the legislators chop up the budget, really count for something? (Maybe requiring that all economics or math classes include a segment on understanding interest, writing checks and balancing a budget.)
It seems like the media could perform a real public service here, since education may be the only way for the general public (and professional athletes) to understand the importance of learning basic finance.
If you make $17 million or $17,000 a year, it’s crucial to understand money management so you don’t go broke and take down innocent people with you.
Media Stresses Performance, Not Finances
Well, nothing new here, and nothing to blog about regarding the press, until I noticed the subhead, “no financial education,” which described how the media is good at encouraging talented athletes to worry more about performance and less about a financial education. And this is true—I remember when Derrick Harvey finally signed his contract with the Jaguars for over $17 million in guaranteed money, and the article stressed that Harvey was now a millionaire with a huge responsibility to—the Jaguars and fans. What about his responsibility to himself and the people depending on him to take good care of all that money?
Well, given this article and all the recent woes about the economy, I just had to know how many articles The New York Times had written recently on the benefits of early financial education. I found an excellent article on teaching personal finance in our high schools—from 2003. I also found a terrific article on credit card abuse by college students, and how high schools spend precious little time teaching students about budgeting and banking—from 1995.
Of course, here’s an interesting article about necessary courses in business for high school students, dated March 19, 1897!
Why Not Talk About Importance of Financial Education?
Maybe I could have done a more thorough search, but my point is, with all the problems caused by credit card debt, dishonest investors and mortgage madness, where’s the emphasis in our society on learning financial basics? There are plenty of stories on the broken economy—how about some more on ways to fix it, beginning with what’s offered in our schools? Why not report on ways to make the courses that are left, after the legislators chop up the budget, really count for something? (Maybe requiring that all economics or math classes include a segment on understanding interest, writing checks and balancing a budget.)
It seems like the media could perform a real public service here, since education may be the only way for the general public (and professional athletes) to understand the importance of learning basic finance.
If you make $17 million or $17,000 a year, it’s crucial to understand money management so you don’t go broke and take down innocent people with you.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Health Care Coverage Overshadowed by Everything Else
In a report on the status and health of American journalism, the Project for Excellence in Journalism revealed that health care press coverage over the past two years has totaled six tenths of a percent. That’s right, not even a full one percent. Apparently, health care has had trouble getting its fair share of press coverage due to racier headlines like the economy, the pecking order of prominent Republicans, the latest celebrity scandal, etc.
Health care was finally in the news on March 5, when President Obama hosted a health care summit to address what many recognize as an enormous problem in America. Even so, the coverage paled when compared to that of the financial crisis, and according to the article, the summit generated about half the attention created by the debate over who is leading the Republican Party.
That’s something we all need to know right now, isn’t it?
A couple of weeks ago, Time Magazine did a big story on peanut allergies. This week, NPR aired a few stories on AIDS, and I guess both of these topics could be considered “sexy” health care pieces, as opposed to a story on the sorry state of the American health care system.
As of October 2008, 46 million Americans, including 9 million children, were living without health care coverage. Ho hum, says the American press. Our system isn’t convenient either--on same day appointments, only 30 percent of Americans report that they can access a doctor on the day they need one as opposed to 55 percent of Germans. Boring, says the American press—give us something sensational to write about.
How about this? A friend of mine was recently admitted to Baptist Hospital for a routine appendix removal--too bad for her that it was the weekend, because Baptist doesn’t employ an on-call surgeon on the weekends. So, she waited in agony for Monday to come while getting sicker and sicker. By the time she was transferred to another hospital, which had only one on-call surgeon, she had to wait her turn. Meanwhile, her appendix had ruptured, necessitating the removal of most of her bowel and landing her in intensive care for a week. She almost died.
Maybe our new president can jump start some interest in health care with our press. Outside of what Bernie Madoff and AIG executives did, I think health care is the biggest scandal currently taking place in our country.
Health care was finally in the news on March 5, when President Obama hosted a health care summit to address what many recognize as an enormous problem in America. Even so, the coverage paled when compared to that of the financial crisis, and according to the article, the summit generated about half the attention created by the debate over who is leading the Republican Party.
That’s something we all need to know right now, isn’t it?
A couple of weeks ago, Time Magazine did a big story on peanut allergies. This week, NPR aired a few stories on AIDS, and I guess both of these topics could be considered “sexy” health care pieces, as opposed to a story on the sorry state of the American health care system.
As of October 2008, 46 million Americans, including 9 million children, were living without health care coverage. Ho hum, says the American press. Our system isn’t convenient either--on same day appointments, only 30 percent of Americans report that they can access a doctor on the day they need one as opposed to 55 percent of Germans. Boring, says the American press—give us something sensational to write about.
How about this? A friend of mine was recently admitted to Baptist Hospital for a routine appendix removal--too bad for her that it was the weekend, because Baptist doesn’t employ an on-call surgeon on the weekends. So, she waited in agony for Monday to come while getting sicker and sicker. By the time she was transferred to another hospital, which had only one on-call surgeon, she had to wait her turn. Meanwhile, her appendix had ruptured, necessitating the removal of most of her bowel and landing her in intensive care for a week. She almost died.
Maybe our new president can jump start some interest in health care with our press. Outside of what Bernie Madoff and AIG executives did, I think health care is the biggest scandal currently taking place in our country.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Community Newspaper Makes Light of Fowl Fury
The news industry isn’t all that glamorous for everyone, especially if you happen to get a job with your local, community newspaper. It must be hard to feel inspired writing about broken water mains, so when a piece shows up in print that takes an ordinary event, mixes it with humor and manages to stay within newspaper parameters, it’s worthy of a second look.
On a lighter note this week, The Beaches Leader had been following a story involving the discovery by the Atlantic Beach Police of chickens in the front yard of a resident’s home (the online articles cited are dramatically reduced from the more descriptive print versions). This Atlantic Beach couple was trying to teach their daughter about responsibility and about being creative during a recession by using the chickens’ eggs for food. The reporter details how the family presented a slide show to city commissioners, explaining the benefits of “urban chickens,” in an attempt to bypass the ordinance banning livestock.
And before you laugh, there is a wealth of material out there about urban chickens—the article on transgender hens is especially enlightening.
The reporter straightforwardly goes on to say that the “chicken controversy” couldn’t be addressed initially because the ordinance prohibiting chickens was not on the commission’s agenda.
If this is the most controversial thing happening in Atlantic Beach, life is good.
Anyway, of course the inevitable happened, and the commission rejected the family’s request to keep the chickens. Did I mention that this involves just TWO chickens? While the reporter started off with a straight hard news lead, the headline for the print version read, “Clucks Out of Luck in AB.” The reporter quoted Mayor John Meserve as saying, “We can’t see a way to do it, that it won’t create a mess.” Ok, a bureaucratic mess or a literal mess?
Then the reporter probably skipped a few "in-between" quotes from Meserve and ended with, “I don’t know if people thought about what would happen if people don’t take care of chickens properly.”
Whoa! I had not thought about that! Something worse than Iraq?
It’s good to know that even if you work for a weekly paper, there’s still some fun to be had as long as style rules aren’t bent to breaking. The value of interjecting humor in print is not just for entertainment but also for humility, to keep us laughing at ourselves. Here's a nod to The Leader for giving me my laugh of the week.
On a lighter note this week, The Beaches Leader had been following a story involving the discovery by the Atlantic Beach Police of chickens in the front yard of a resident’s home (the online articles cited are dramatically reduced from the more descriptive print versions). This Atlantic Beach couple was trying to teach their daughter about responsibility and about being creative during a recession by using the chickens’ eggs for food. The reporter details how the family presented a slide show to city commissioners, explaining the benefits of “urban chickens,” in an attempt to bypass the ordinance banning livestock.
And before you laugh, there is a wealth of material out there about urban chickens—the article on transgender hens is especially enlightening.
The reporter straightforwardly goes on to say that the “chicken controversy” couldn’t be addressed initially because the ordinance prohibiting chickens was not on the commission’s agenda.
If this is the most controversial thing happening in Atlantic Beach, life is good.
Anyway, of course the inevitable happened, and the commission rejected the family’s request to keep the chickens. Did I mention that this involves just TWO chickens? While the reporter started off with a straight hard news lead, the headline for the print version read, “Clucks Out of Luck in AB.” The reporter quoted Mayor John Meserve as saying, “We can’t see a way to do it, that it won’t create a mess.” Ok, a bureaucratic mess or a literal mess?
Then the reporter probably skipped a few "in-between" quotes from Meserve and ended with, “I don’t know if people thought about what would happen if people don’t take care of chickens properly.”
Whoa! I had not thought about that! Something worse than Iraq?
It’s good to know that even if you work for a weekly paper, there’s still some fun to be had as long as style rules aren’t bent to breaking. The value of interjecting humor in print is not just for entertainment but also for humility, to keep us laughing at ourselves. Here's a nod to The Leader for giving me my laugh of the week.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Is This the New Face of U.S. Journalism?
Can Alexander Heffner, a 19-year-old first-year undergraduate at Harvard transform the face of journalism for his generation?
This piece was a day brightener for me because a young person got involved in making the world a more informed place for people who have been largely ignored in previous elections. Last year, Heffner created an online magazine entitled Scoop08 that was exclusively written by 18-to-25 year olds, with a mission to bring a new generation to a better understanding of politics. According to the article, it became a national student online newspaper and caught the wave that carried Obama all the way to the White House.
This election answered the question for me, where are all the college students and why aren’t they voting? Apparently, the answer was that traditional news sources (television, magazines, newspapers) weren’t reaching this audience of Americans. So, this enterprising young man found a way to connect with a large group of people by using writers who could relate to this particular audience and placed the end result online.
And you saw the results in this past election—college students came out in droves to vote for the first time in ages. Politicians and traditional media outlets could hardly ignore the numbers of student voters exercising their political muscle and registering their mark as a voice to be reckoned with in the future.
Scoop08 has been reinvented as Scoop44, a daily online magazine designed to “serve as the distinct source of news affecting young Americans,” according to Heffner, who believes that there is a place for his magazine given the American press’s loss of credibility during the Bush administration.
My generation has left a truckload of unsolvable problems for the next group to deal with, and some of us, (myself excluded, of course), have voted out of ignorance and tradition rather than paying attention to the issues. Smart, young minds need to be involved, and more importantly, need to be informed in order to make wise political choices.
If online newsmagazines are the answer for reaching this new generation of voters, I’m all for it. If print newspapers want to stay in business, now is the time to get creative and stop doing “business as usual.”
This piece was a day brightener for me because a young person got involved in making the world a more informed place for people who have been largely ignored in previous elections. Last year, Heffner created an online magazine entitled Scoop08 that was exclusively written by 18-to-25 year olds, with a mission to bring a new generation to a better understanding of politics. According to the article, it became a national student online newspaper and caught the wave that carried Obama all the way to the White House.
This election answered the question for me, where are all the college students and why aren’t they voting? Apparently, the answer was that traditional news sources (television, magazines, newspapers) weren’t reaching this audience of Americans. So, this enterprising young man found a way to connect with a large group of people by using writers who could relate to this particular audience and placed the end result online.
And you saw the results in this past election—college students came out in droves to vote for the first time in ages. Politicians and traditional media outlets could hardly ignore the numbers of student voters exercising their political muscle and registering their mark as a voice to be reckoned with in the future.
Scoop08 has been reinvented as Scoop44, a daily online magazine designed to “serve as the distinct source of news affecting young Americans,” according to Heffner, who believes that there is a place for his magazine given the American press’s loss of credibility during the Bush administration.
My generation has left a truckload of unsolvable problems for the next group to deal with, and some of us, (myself excluded, of course), have voted out of ignorance and tradition rather than paying attention to the issues. Smart, young minds need to be involved, and more importantly, need to be informed in order to make wise political choices.
If online newsmagazines are the answer for reaching this new generation of voters, I’m all for it. If print newspapers want to stay in business, now is the time to get creative and stop doing “business as usual.”
Friday, February 27, 2009
Altered Video Creates Journalism Missteps
To think that I was recently singing the praises of how the Internet allows everyone the opportunity to alert the world to wrongs brought upon it by corporations or individuals. Here is an example of how the powers of the Internet and sloppy journalism can be abused.
Apparently, Baltimore television reporter John Sanders got creative last week, and created a YouTube video in which he doctored the speech of conservative Fox News Radio host John Gibson. And not just a little. In the spirit of using monkey symbols to connote racism, Sanders decided to cast Gibson in the role of over-the-top racist, with comments that seemed to compare Attorney General Eric Holder to a monkey with a “bright blue scrotum.” Sanders engineered this colorful bit of dialogue by splicing a clip about such a monkey, which had escaped from a Seattle zoo, with Gibson’s comments regarding Holder, who is African American.
After posting the video online with a disclaimer that it wasn’t true, the upshot was that Sanders was fired from his television station, and Gibson claimed to be personally affected by the video. “These days it’s really dangerous on the Internet,” he said. “These things go viral, and people don’t see the correction and the mea culpa. You can’t unring the bell.”
The problem was not just that a television reporter had made an inflammatory video, presumably for the amusement of his friends, but that the news website, The Huffington Post, picked up the doctored video and posted it without any disclaimer and without calling Gibson or Fox for comment.
I’m sure I would disagree with most of what John Gibson and his guests have to say on his conservative talk show. Many of them may indeed be racists, for all I know. Still, I can’t condone a deliberate and false attack on someone’s character just because of different philosophies—this is especially wrong for a journalist.
How did a reporter not know that making public a fake video on a nationally known personality, even with a disclaimer, would reflect badly on his television station? If he is not aware of libel laws, I’m sure his former employer is familiar with the expensive damage that can be caused by a defamation of character lawsuit. And c’mon, The Huffington Post was so eager to jump on the racism bandwagon that no one called to confirm legitimacy and sources? And no one noticed the disclaimer?
The combination of careless reporting and the ease of access offered by the Internet can make for some ugly consequences. People are all too eager to believe outrageous news, even if it is false. Reporters have a responsibility to their profession and themselves to use their heads before diving into murky waters.
Apparently, Baltimore television reporter John Sanders got creative last week, and created a YouTube video in which he doctored the speech of conservative Fox News Radio host John Gibson. And not just a little. In the spirit of using monkey symbols to connote racism, Sanders decided to cast Gibson in the role of over-the-top racist, with comments that seemed to compare Attorney General Eric Holder to a monkey with a “bright blue scrotum.” Sanders engineered this colorful bit of dialogue by splicing a clip about such a monkey, which had escaped from a Seattle zoo, with Gibson’s comments regarding Holder, who is African American.
After posting the video online with a disclaimer that it wasn’t true, the upshot was that Sanders was fired from his television station, and Gibson claimed to be personally affected by the video. “These days it’s really dangerous on the Internet,” he said. “These things go viral, and people don’t see the correction and the mea culpa. You can’t unring the bell.”
The problem was not just that a television reporter had made an inflammatory video, presumably for the amusement of his friends, but that the news website, The Huffington Post, picked up the doctored video and posted it without any disclaimer and without calling Gibson or Fox for comment.
I’m sure I would disagree with most of what John Gibson and his guests have to say on his conservative talk show. Many of them may indeed be racists, for all I know. Still, I can’t condone a deliberate and false attack on someone’s character just because of different philosophies—this is especially wrong for a journalist.
How did a reporter not know that making public a fake video on a nationally known personality, even with a disclaimer, would reflect badly on his television station? If he is not aware of libel laws, I’m sure his former employer is familiar with the expensive damage that can be caused by a defamation of character lawsuit. And c’mon, The Huffington Post was so eager to jump on the racism bandwagon that no one called to confirm legitimacy and sources? And no one noticed the disclaimer?
The combination of careless reporting and the ease of access offered by the Internet can make for some ugly consequences. People are all too eager to believe outrageous news, even if it is false. Reporters have a responsibility to their profession and themselves to use their heads before diving into murky waters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)