Sweat lodge deaths raise troubling questions

The blog is back for now. I recently completed another class in the Gonzaga University online organizational leadership MA program. At the rate I’m going I’ll earn the degree in the next year or two. I have 24 credits with 36 needed to graduate. As an older student with only the learning itself as motivation—and considerable expense for each class—going slowly is fine.

One of the most troubling stories in the news today is the ongoing coverage of self-help purveyor James Arthur Ray and the investigation of his role in the sweat lodge deaths during an exercise in one of Ray’s so called “spiritual warrior retreats.” Three persons who attended the retreat, on October 8th, near Sedona, Arizona, have now died. Others suffered dehydration and various levels of organ failure after several hours in the structure that served as a sweat lodge. According to news media reports, each participant paid as much as nine thousand dollars, to attend the multi-day retreat that included fasting and the sweat lodge experience.

Ray has made millions of dollars selling his formula for material success linked to a version of spiritual enlightenment. His best selling book is called Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want. According to his own website Ray has appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s program, Larry King Live, and has been a “recurring guest” on NBC’s The Today Show. With all this publicity and notoriety it’s not surprising that Ray had customers who were willing to pay for the promise of “harmonic wealth” and enlightenment. Others have been more skeptical, including Maureen Dowd who mentioned Ray's appearance on Oprah in 2007.

Second-guessing is too easy so we will avoid blaming the high profile media who helped Ray gain the success he’s enjoyed. But it is fair to question the wisdom of worshiping success for its own sake. Ray’s greatest accomplishment seems to be that he has been successful at building a business that ostensibly helps people. No doubt, he’s controversial and was before the sweat lodge deaths. Testimonials on his website and several interviews in the media speak of life changing transformations experienced by satisfied seminar participants and clients. But there is another side. Complaints to the Better Business Bureau, and other claims by disgruntled customers have also been reported.

Ray will have to face the legal system to learn whether criminal charges or civil proceedings will force him to take responsibility for what happened in the high priced sweat lodge where so many willingly went to part with their dollars hoping for greater wealth, enlightenment, and a better life. Whatever happens with the legal system, it’s helpful to question the role of not only the media but all aspects of our culture that promote success over service, celebrity more than substance, and “reality” programming at the expense of real reporting.

President Obama's summer was no vacation

The unofficial end of summer is upon us. I've spent too long away from IrvsEyeView. So here are a few quick thoughts for Labor Day Weekend, 2009.

Bob Dylan's "Idiot Wind" might be the right theme song for this summer of discontent. President Obama's inability to convince the public that health care reform is in the public's own interest has been driven by a coordinated campaign of exaggeration, lies, personal attacks, and a lot of "wind," from some conservative critics. As predicted, the media focused--at least at first--less on substance and more on the rhetoric and intensity of misinformed town hall protesters who shouted down members of congress, hung them in effigy, and carried guns to meetings because they could. Legitimate questions about costs of reform and details of any overhaul need to be answered, but the outrageous claims of death panels, and impending socialist transformation of the nation, stuck a little too easily for the good of the country. President Obama has a chance to right the ship of health care reform, when he addresses Congress and the nation, on Wednesday, but he will have to be more persuasive.

Most disturbing in all the noise was a lack of enough reasonable voices on the right to bring the discussion back to reality. Sen. McCain courageously confronted critics, as he did during the campaign, when some, like parrots, repeated the most outrageous claims about our elected president. Few others have had the will or desire to offer a voice of reason, when the most ridiculous charges about President Obama began to catch fire.

In this atmosphere, the president's plan to speak to school children about--in the words of CBS's Bob Schieffer--"staying in school and off dope," became the summer of discontent's latest presidential PR casualty. Convincing parents that a presidential pep talk is not political indoctrination has now become the current distraction.

Most disturbing about all the noise and voices of protest--some legitimate, but all tainted by the outrageous fringe--is that the economy continues to be a problem. This volatile mixture of high unemployment, and the scapegoating of the president and by extension the whole government, sows the seeds of violence and unrest. President Obama inherited enormous problems that are beginning to show signs of improvement, but he is barely getting started. For him to succeed and the nation to once again prosper, he will have to have help. The reasonable right ought to mobilize its most articulate voices to serve the proper purpose of the loyal opposition; differing philosophies and approaches to problems make our system work. Hyperbole, rooted in personal attacks, makes any reasoned arguments that follow appear suspect.

To start, conservative critics of the president ought to look at how William F. Buckley, Jr., marginalized the John Birch Society, decades ago, when its rhetoric, and thinking, became unhinged. Then the president himself needs to sound a concise and clear message that resonates with more Americans. Mr. Obama's reasoned rhetoric must be simplified and more directly speak to the most pressing needs of the people, largely economic these days. And that rhetoric must be rooted in action. All the talk of getting banks to lend money and creating jobs, green and all other colors, has to bear fruit. Then, addressing health care concerns will be less vulnerable to the Idiot Winds that blow most strongly when times are tough.

Health care debate prescription

All the noise surrounding the health care debate could be an opportunity for TV news. Some thoughts on the subject on our Examiner.com page.

Health care protests

Planned disruptions of town hall meetings to discuss health care got wide coverage this weekend. Good reporting by many in the mainstream media revealed who was behind the protests. That's the subject of our latest article at Examiner.com.

Coverage of Gates, Crowley, sharing beer with the President, offers few surprises

(Originally published on Examiner.com)

The cable news networks did not surprise us. The beer chat in the Rose Garden was covered with all the serious intensity of a major summit. Little was said by the participants, in the immediate aftermath, but the White House and police officer involved expressed positive--though muted--messages about the value of the meeting. Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley seem to have developed a dialog even if neither is willing to apologize. Reports of the meeting paint a positive picture of a cordial encounter with the potential for continuing good will.

The president probably hopes that the episode is behind him and the country can focus on health care. Time, now, to start looking ahead and move past the encounter--and arrest--that led to a potentially productive discussion of race. The extremists on both sides had their say. Now it's time for more reasoned voices, led by those who shared a brew outside the White House, to move ahead and tackle our national troubles, a little wiser and, perhaps, less polarized than a couple of weeks ago.

Photo caption and credit:

(President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sergeant James Crowley walk from the Oval Office
to the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley, and a beer with President Obama

(Originally published on Examiner.com)

So much has been reported about the confrontation between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley, that tonight's (6:00 PM EDT) meeting for a beer with the president will be as widely covered as any White House summit in recent times. From the moment President Obama said that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly," the story's rather long legs grew a few inches. Now the story is getting more air time than health care reform, and just about everything else.

The fascination with the arrest of Gates is not surprising. First the question of race became the focus. Was Gates arrested and singled out because he is black? Much evidence now seems to point to other factors, as well. The initial caller to 9-1-1 does not mention race until the dispatcher asks her for a description of the men she thought might be breaking into her neighbor's home. Her response, that one might be "Hispanic" would seem to indicate her focus was on the act, not the race of the individuals.

The fact that Sgt. Crowley arrested Prof. Gates after he knew who he was, and that he was in his own house, indicates something about the confrontation between the two men--a power struggle--led the police officer to act the way he did. Among interesting comments about why things devolved so fast are those suggesting that testosterone fueled male power struggles are more likely to end in such confrontations. On one side, the world renowned Harvard scholar, on the other, a working police officer who felt he was just doing his job; clearly, neither felt he was getting the respect he deserved.

Perhaps President Obama will find some common ground and all of us will learn valuable lessons from this latest story. A certain cliche comes to mind, "it takes two to tango." It seems that both Gates and Crowley began their destructive dance and neither knew when to back off. Ultimately, Crowley had the power during the moments of the confrontation--the power of arrest, the strength of other officers on the scene, and the authority to do what he did, or to walk away. Race inevitably became part of the story, by the very nature of who was involved.

The president wisely reached out in an effort to turn things around. The news coverage has actually helped set the stage for tonight's "Summit with Suds." The country will be watching to see how the participants characterize the meeting, in much the same way diplomatic summits use code words and language to convey meaning. The aftermath of tonight's meeting will generate its own coverage. Perhaps, too, a little good will may emerge.

Jon Stewart vs. Brian Williams: And the winner is--us

Originally published on Examiner.com.

When Brian Williams appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, earlier this week, the two TV titans tensely tangled but apparently left laughing. Their confrontation serves as a lesson in how we get our news these days and the evolving role of television for delivering news and information.

Williams apparently believed he was there to discuss the death and career of Walter Cronkite. Stewart had other ideas. Earlier in the program Stewart showed excerpts from emails sent by news programs, including NBC's Meet the Press, to South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford, in efforts to get an interview with him. When you watch the video (embedded below) you can see for yourself how it got so tense.

As the audience for TV news declines, programs that mix comedy and news reach an audience less inclined to watch traditional news programs. They also seriously, though humorously, critique more straight laced entries including network evening newscasts and cable news programs. In their own way, Stewart's The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher, serve an important purpose that keeps us laughing while conveying hard truths.

When Stewart took on CNBC's Jim Cramer, for failing to anticipate the financial crisis, viewers got it. Major figures in government and media continue to appear with Stewart which means they usually get a fair hearing and the opportunity to make their case. Stewart would come off as a bully if those he picked on were not up to the task; to his credit, Stewart's targets are usually pretty tough. And this week, Brian Williams held his own and displayed a sense of humor and timing worthy of his host. Not bad for two guys from New Jersey who now talk to each of us, almost every night, when we choose to listen and watch.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Brian Williams
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Remembering Walter Cronkite

Originally published on Examiner.com.

When I walked into ABC News headquarters in New York City, in August of 1973, my goal was to become the next Walter Cronkite. It was my first TV news job. Having just graduated from NYU a few months earlier, I quickly learned that my own interests and talents were better suited to producing newscasts, and managing news operations. But, despite my change in career plans, it was still Mr. Cronkite who represented the ideals and positive reasons for wanting to work in the news business.

TV was the dominant news medium in those days, and Walter Cronkite was its undisputed champion, the most trusted man in America, according to public opinion polls. Whether it was the triumph of space flight or the tragedy of losing President Kennedy to an assassin's gunfire, we heard about it from Walter Cronkite. Watching the network evening newscast was appointment viewing for many Americans, and the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite was the top choice for most viewers. NBC's Nightly News was a respectable second place entry. Where I worked, at ABC, our third place operation was just beginning to assert itself. It would take time before ABC began to challenge and then overtake CBS and NBC for several years; it finally happened, long after Cronkite retired.

Cronkite was described as "avuncular," defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "of or relating to an uncle.• kind and friendly toward a younger or less experienced person." This description served as the source for one of his nicknames, "Uncle Walter." Not only did people trust him, they liked him, too. This combination of authority and likability gave Cronkite a special stature during the two decades he anchored the evening news. The people who research why certain personalities are successful on TV sometimes refer to "Para-social relationships" that viewers form with on-air personalities. We feel like we know them. In the case of Cronkite, having a trusted "uncle" on the air every night, worked for viewers.

Many of the people I worked with at ABC came from CBS and had worked with Walter Cronkite for many years. From his peers, I got the impression he was highly respected for his serious approach and professionalism. His background as a wire service correspondent during World War Two, served him well as he made the transition to television. He was a fine reporter first, and an excellent writer and editor.

One of my jobs at ABC was to watch "the Cronkite broadcast" every evening, and type up a report that described what was covered and how it was presented. This report was distributed to all the executives at ABC News, the next morning. Watching Cronkite, with focused attention, helped me understand what makes a good newscast and what makes a good anchor. The term "anchor" was developed for Cronkite. Somebody came up with it when they realized political coverage required a central person to pull all the elements together, to anchor the broadcast; that was Walter. In Sweden anchors are sometimes referred to as Kronkiters; in Holland, the variation is Cronkiters.

Walter Cronkite was a man of his time. Tom Brokaw coined the term the "greatest generation" to describe those who came of age during World War Two. Cronkite was one of the giants of that generation.

How we get the news today has changed dramatically. TV is still important and watched by millions, but it is no longer the daily and dominant ingredient in the American diet that it was when there were just three network newscasts, no cable news, no Internet. Today's news sources represent points of view and often lean this way or that. Fox goes right, MSNBC to the left; Drudge gives you the conservatives' take and Huffington Post takes you to the land of liberals. Couric, Williams, and Gibson still try to play it down the middle but are viewed with suspicion and tainted--rightly or wrongly--by assertions that they represent particular positions on everything from environmental reporting to election coverage. Trust has been replaced by suspicion.

In this environment we may never have another TV journalist who rises to the level of Walter Cronkite, as a trusted figure capable of anchoring our view of the world with a sense of honesty and fairness. Trust, itself, is in short supply as we navigate the problems of the day. For future generations of journalists, Cronkite's legacy should serve as inspiration to report the news, without fear or favor and by so doing rekindle a sense of trust and honesty that we so desperately need during these difficult times. This may not happen on the scale of corporate success and leadership that Cronkite enjoyed during CBS's dominance. But the new generation of journalists, empowered by technologies Cronkite's producers could only dream of, needs to aspire to greatness and win the trust of those they serve.

Musician Carroll's viral video as tool--and lesson--for journalists

The following article is also posted on my Examiner.com page.

In case you have not yet heard of Dave Carroll, he's the Canadian musician who posted a music video on YouTube, last week. It describes, in lighthearted and humorous fashion, how United Airlines broke his $3,500.00 Taylor guitar. Among the funniest shots in the video are the way Carroll depicts indifferent airline employees as he tried to alert them about his broken guitar. In just over a week, the video is approaching three million page views. Carroll also posted a statement acknowledging the support he's received; in it he suggests that United Airlines take the money it is now willing to pay, and donate it to charity.

Clearly, getting his guitar broken is the best thing that could have happened to Carroll in terms of advancing his career. His injured instrument and the song it spawned are the kind of PR a musician can't buy. For United Airlines, it's an object lesson in how not to handle customer service and consumer complaints. This is the sort of incident and outcome that will be studied in business schools for years to come.

With all the attention the video is generating, the mainstream media are reporting the story, but not necessarily to the extent you might imagine or expect. Local TV news in particular is a medium that historically has thrived on taking a populist approach to consumer reporting. But everything has changed. With video on the web coming of age, along with relatively inexpensive production tools available to everybody from home video enthusiasts to companies that make wedding videos, TV newsrooms have competition in terms of visual storytelling. But is it journalism?

Ultimately the answer is yes, but it is a qualified and conditional yes. As a stand-alone piece of work, Carroll's video is not journalism in any traditional sense. It is, however, an important part of a journalistic process that is both dynamic and evolving. How news organizations learn about stories and develop news tips and leads determines what gets covered. Carroll's video became the story and it opened the door for traditional news organizations to cover his situation and expand it. In the marketplace of story ideas finding new sources serves journalism well. Empowering technologies allow talented people to tell stories directly and passionately.

The fundamentals of good journalism, fair, accurate, unbiased reporting, can then flow. When journalists have a heightened awareness of facts and situations, they have a responsibility to apply sound principles to the information before them. Advocacy journalism is still journalism, as long as it is fact based and its positioning is not tainted by partisan or commercial benefit as a reason for the reporting. Journalism should draw conclusions and take advantage of a wide range of sources.

The idea that non-journalists can create journalism is the key to understanding the future of the news media. We still need professional journalists who follow an ethical path and provide unbiased reporting that makes sense out of complicated situations and facts. As Brian Williams says in an NBC promo, their job is "making sense of it." Many may disagree and say that news organizations should just report the facts. But the very decisions of which stories to cover, what facts to report, and how much prominence one set of facts gets over another, is part of the "making sense" process. And, as entertaining and good humored as Dave Carroll's video is, that's a different process from what Williams describes in the promo. In our evolving universe of news, both approaches have a place. Understanding the difference is a form of media literacy we all should be learning.

Michael Jackson Memorial: Memories Captured on Live TV

(Originally published on my Examiner.com page)

Funerals in general, and celebrity funerals in particular, in part because they are so public, encourage the sort of emotional ambivalence that helps define life and being human. On the one hand, we feel a terrible loss because we will miss the person who died. On the other hand, we want to celebrate the person's life and all the good she or he has accomplished. When the person leaves behind a body of work or a clearly defined legacy we have something to hold onto, even though the person is gone. The funeral or memorial service, itself, becomes part of that legacy.

When Michael Jackson's flower covered casket was wheeled into the Staples Center in Los Angeles, millions watched on screens of all sizes, around the world. When Mariah Carey and Trey Lorenz began with a heartfelt rendition of I'll Be There, the sounds of their voices were transmitted around the globe through fiber optics and satellite dishes so millions could mourn in synchronous high definition splendor. For two hours this day, Jackson was the world, or at least large segments of it.

As expected, the quality of the performances, oration, and stagecraft was first rate, fitting for a man with a legitimate claim as the top entertainer of his time. To their credit, the TV broadcasters provided commercial free, uninterrupted coverage once the service began.

During Brooke Shields' remarks, she mentioned that Michael's favorite song was not one of his own; it was Smile with music written by Charlie Chaplin. When Michael's brother, Jermaine, sang it a few moments later, it captured the ambivalence of the day, dramatically.

In the end, Michael's own words, from We Are the World, co-written with Lionel Richie, and Heal the World, served as a fitting close to an unwanted and premature capstone event in the life and legacy of Michael Jackson. But only after the planned, produced, part of the program ended did we get the most raw sense of the intense pain that the loss of a loved one surely inflicts. Michael's daughter, Paris, spoke last, through tears, a sad but brutally honest moment that will soften with time but speaks volumes about love, all captured for the world to see--and experience--on live TV.

Jackson Memorial as Tribute to a King

The spectacle that will be Tuesday's memorial service for Michael Jackson, to be carried live on major networks (10 AM Pacific/1 PM Eastern) and the world wide web, will surely draw a huge audience and provide the sort of event extremely well-suited to the television medium in the 21st Century. As Jackson was known as the King of Pop, this memorial for a monarch will include music, passionate recollections, and stagecraft, fitting for a figure of his stature. The last time TV covered a royal remembrance of this scale, the realm belonged to the regal Princess Diana. At that gathering, Sir Elton John sang goodbye to England's Rose, a version of Candle in the Wind that went on to be, probably, the best selling single, ever. Anticipating memorable moments, the networks have all sent their top tier talent to anchor this tribute to the ultimate entertainer who died so suddenly.

With today's technology, and the scale of what will be produced in Los Angeles, attending the memorial in person, will be a different experience from that of the millions who see it on TV. Of course, anybody who is in Staples Center will be able to watch replays and recordings to experience the full effect of the media moments that are created in memory of Michael. And anyone who attends in person will hold special memories for years to come.

As the celebrants convene for this end of life tribute, the tragic nature of Jackson's life and death remain poignant and disturbing. The July 9-23, 2009 issue of Rolling Stone includes an article written before Jackson died that reads like an eerie foreshadowing of the desperation that likely contributed to his demise. The pressure surrounding the preparation and expectations for this summer's London concert series was intense and unremitting. This was to be a make or break chapter in the future reign of the King.

As the world prepares for this final send-off many questions remain for the living. The simpler ones are not so simple and involve the future of Jackson's children, the circumstances and causes--in the broadest sense--of his death, and the management of his estate and the wealth associated with it. The more difficult questions focus on the timeless notions of tragedy. Fame and wealth, so sought after and pursued, become insatiable appetites, as success in life, as a parent, a friend, and positive force in the world become more elusive for the tragic figure.

Michael Jackson's abiding legacy will be his music and performances captured forever on audio and video recordings of the highest quality. But the interest in him and empathy for him is more complex. As he is remembered on Tuesday these nuances will be woven into the day's activities and outpouring of affection. And it will be on a scale fitting for a king. So in a sense, the world will stop as the media focuses on one story, for a moment in history, one more time.

Examiner

Hello, again, everybody.

I recently started writing for Examiner.com, a national website. My beat is TV news. Some of my work will appear on both IrvsEyeView and Examiner.com, posting the same article on both sites. But each will, from time to time, include articles, blogs, and commentary specific to one website, but not the other.

So, if you have not yet visited my page at Examiner.com, please take a look. Here is the link.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15271-TV-News-Examiner

Thank you.

News Judgments: Jackson or Healthcare, or a Little of Both

The future of journalism is a popular topic today, mostly among the biggest stakeholders, those who work for news organizations and their leadership. But the most important stakeholders are the public, on whom everything else depends. If consumers are not served well, they usually go elsewhere to get their news.

With that in mind, a look at three separate pieces of information offers some guidance.

First, a survey published on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center shows that coverage of Michael Jackson's death was too much for a majority of those surveyed.

Second, some media leaders, including the president of ABC News, say one answer to improving journalism is to provide unique coverage that viewers cannot get from other media outlets.

Third, ABC's own John Stossel offers a reaction--articulating his disappointment--to his own, apparently, unique coverage, about Canadian healthcare, being pulled in favor of more Michael Jackson followups, on 20/20, last week.

If we take the time to synthesize these three pieces of information, we may actually emerge with a bit of wisdom. As mentioned on my Examiner.com page a few days ago, wisdom is something too often in short supply.

As for ABC's decision to pull Stossel's piece, it happened last Friday. Jackson's death was still fresh news and, for many viewers, of overwhelming interest. So it's easy to understand why executives chose to pull Stossel's piece on the Canadian healthcare system; that doesn't mean it was a good decision. Most important, it is the kind of decision that is emblematic of the defensive, play it safe, approach to programming news. 20/20 still could have provided substantial and meaningful coverage of Jackson's death.

For producers, it's a question of balance. Was there room for other news that night? And would breaking away from Michael Jackson better serve viewers and hold their interest? Staying with Jackson was the conventional, safe, decision; that doesn't mean it was wrong. But when media enterprises are losing audience, losing money, and struggling to survive, offering an alternative approach might just serve all stakeholders better than more of the same.

Drug Dangers and Madoff Move Jackson from Newscasts' Top Spots

The three network evening newscasts moved away from leading with Michael Jackson, this week. On Monday it was the sentencing of Bernard Madoff, except on NBC. On Tuesday the leads were new warnings about the dangers of not following directions when using acetaminophen (including Tylenol, and other products), the popular over the counter pain reliever that is also in some prescription drugs. The drug danger story got the top spots with Brian, Charlie, and Katie, across the board. Many local newscasts, around the country, followed a similar pattern, at least with the acetaminophen news on Tuesday.

Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the timing of Jackson's death is Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina. His marital problems and free flowing accounts of liaisons with his "soul mate Maria" were relegated to the lower depths of newscasts, at least for a few days. Sanford's ability to hang onto his job may suffer once Jackson's death consumes less time and space in media coverage. The other beneficiaries of the Jackson coverage are the media. TV, newspapers, and web based news organizations all got a boost from this story with high interest and a long life or "legs."

Stories with "legs" can make viewers weary when the real reason they last is the media's laziness or fascination with human weakness and bad behavior. The Jon and Kate saga falls into this category. Certainly the manufactured interest and initial fascination with their high profile breakup made sense from the perspective of producers who wanted to give viewers as much as they would take. The problem is that stories of this type are pursued and presented for far too long. After a few days there is only so much you can say about an intrinsically sad, not otherwise newsworthy, domestic dispute.

But that's not the case with either Jackson or Sanford. Both these stories have legitimate legs. In Jackson's case, the ongoing investigation into his death and the future of his family continue to have news value. Gov. Sanford's situation, whether or not he survives as governor, requires continuing coverage until resolved.

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism tracks news coverage. Last week, protests in Iran led Pew's list of most covered stories, but that shifted dramatically as Jackson's death became the overwhelmingly dominant news. After several days as the lead, it took the sentencing of a high profile scoundrel and a public health story about dangers from a popular painkiller to knock down our fascination with a legitimate celebrity's death, in the news lineups across the country.

The story of Madoff's swindles and the dangers of acetaminophen should have been pursued more actively by journalists before government prosecutors, in the case of Madoff, and the FDA, with regard to acetaminophen, got involved. The failures of the financial media have been well documented as the economy tumbled. Jon Stewart, ostensibly a comedian but really much more, did some of the best work in showing how poorly reporters reported on what was going on in financial markets. As for the dangers of not following directions when it comes to the use of acetaminophen, that story has been available, too. But for the media, it usually takes "official" action for the story to break as major news. Some of those reasons are legal--fear of libel lawsuits--but with good, honest, reporting that should not be a problem. Mostly, though, the media's failure to be out front on important stories is a consequence of shrinking budgets and lack of will.

For journalism to thrive in the future, mainstream and grassroots citizen journalism, reporters will have to identify stories and trends before they become prosecutions and crashes, or unnecessary deaths requiring FDA action. Those stories will always have "legs" and they'll serve the public, an important part of journalism's mission.

Jackson's Death: Media Messages Changed by a Moment

Michael Jackson's sudden, suspicious, and untimely, death spawned a level of news coverage seldom equaled and even more rarely surpassed. Depending on your age, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, bring back vivid memories of non-stop news reports on radio and TV. In their own times, those three stories were as big as it gets. Close behind and similar, in news value, to Jackson's death were Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, John Lennon, and Princess Diana, who all died of unnatural causes. Jackson's official cause of death is pending, as toxicology findings will take more time. But the big difference, this time, is the role of the internet.

First news of Jackson's death surfaced on the TMZ website. The story was unconfirmed but, we now know, clearly correct. Once the LA Times began reporting Jackson's death other MSM (mainstream media), picked it up. Because TMZ, ET, Extra, Access Hollywood, and other syndicated entertainment "news" programs are taped in Los Angeles fairly early in the day, some struggled to update the programs, with varying degrees of success for east coast viewers. On local news channels, and the network evening newscasts, the story played prominently and consumed most of the day's airtime. Later in the evening, network specials and extended coverage continued.

Michael's talent, fame, and colorful history--along with widely available and abundant video--combined to create the ultimate television era story. TV was integral to Jackson's success. His music videos are among the most breathtaking and innovative ever produced. He also came of age during a period when television was unchallenged as the leading medium for the dissemination of popular culture. But as the world wide web grew in influence Michael's popularity benefited as well.

Now the internet and web enabled portable media are more dramatically shifting the balance of power in terms of how we get our news. But one new medium does not entirely replace older media. Typically, the hierarchy of influence may shift along with the demand for one over the other. But radio and TV did not put the movies or newspapers out of business; television did, however, change everything as it came of age, including the pecking order and roles older media play in our lives. Big stories, like the death of Michael Jackson can accelerate these changes and also help us understand and focus on what is happening as it happens. As the story was unfolding, websites--Google, TMZ, Jackson's own official website--all experienced service issues due to the heavy interest in the story. Social networking giants Facebook and Twitter also reported big spikes in activity. The web's influence on this story represents one of those moments where everything changes in terms of media impact.

With video now a routine feature of the internet, the death of the King of Pop serves as an even more important turning point for the web. Viewing Jackson's highly produced videos on a computer, Blackberry, or iPhone is a far different experience than watching the same video on a large LCD hi-def screen with hi-fidelity surround sound. So watching the same video on different media is really not watching the same video at all.

Smart media executives, who understand these differences, can create different "events" to give readers, website users, and TV viewers complementary experiences. Creating news organizations that understand this, and recognize how to use each different medium in the manner most appropriate will be able to move multi device consumers between programs in ways that will be financially rewarding because they serve the customer so well.

For example, when the big story breaks, you get notified on your Blackberry, and directed to a website. Once you are there you get the basic facts along with whatever quick video presentations are available. When you get home, or back to the office, you can get updated content on your computer, including clips of whatever video has been compiled. More highly produced content, music videos, for example, in the case of Jackson, could be downloaded for playback on large screens and high quality sound systems. While all of this is happening, news specials are being produced that include the higher quality content. For pure tributes to the artistry of the likes of Michael Jackson, the highest quality audio and video content become part of follow-up specials, presented in high definition with 5.1 audio.

Some may recognize this as the current reality. On a limited level that’s true. But the coordination of media platforms happening routinely or regularly has not effectively become part of news and media organizations' every day way of doing business. More often it's the result of a big story such as the death of a cultural icon whose work is well documented and highly produced serving as the wake up call for what can--and should--happen on more mundane stories, almost every day.

Looking Ahead, Again

Last week's blog on the economics of experience and the benefits of age (scroll down to read it) mentions an Op Ed piece I wrote for the San Diego Union Tribune, nine years ago. In case you were unable to access it I will paste the text to the end of this blog. It is interesting to read it, nine years later. Most of the comments hold up. The only thing I might change is my too harsh appraisal of the CBS morning program. On most days, The Early Show, on CBS, is as good--or bad--as Today and Good Morning America. In the ratings order nothing has changed; CBS is still in third place. But all three old line morning shows are still too similar to distinguish themselves. On many days we find them unwatchable, unless you're interested in an exploration of despicable behavior or freakish heroics masquerading as news. The problem is not that the morning programs cover so many unseemly acts and pathetic stories of human suffering, it is that they do so incessantly. The life of these stories is prolonged beyond their importance or, quite frankly, their interest to viewers. It's not all bad and we still watch until we can't watch anymore. On some days, when there is real news, the morning programs do a fine job. It's just that they could be so much better.

Perhaps the best examples of what could and should be are Sunday Morning on CBS, which continues to be an outstanding program, and 60 Minutes, revitalized and doing some of its best work in years. That nine year old piece, below, addresses the reason why 60 Minutes is better now than it was a few years ago.

So here's my piece from May 23, 2000, as it appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune.

Before we begin, two disclosure items:

1. I love television.

2. Television stations and networks paid my salary for 26 years, first as a news producer and later as an executive.

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed. Despite what some critics have said over the years, television has been a positive force in our country. It has, to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, informed, entertained and at times, enlightened us. We now have more choices than ever. From infomercials about "ab-rollers" to university produced forums on science, the breadth of offerings is wider than ever. With the advent of digital technology, the possibilities for the future are even more exciting. So why am I disappointed?

The engineers and scientists who develop today's incredible technologies are way ahead of the folks who provide "content" for television. The best and brightest producers follow the money. The folks with the money want more money. Nothing wrong with that. The idea is sound. Invest in good programming. People will watch and the folks with money will make more money. Where it falls apart is that the money folks want to play it so safe they invest in copies of what worked, yesterday.

It's appalling -- that's not too strong a word -- that the three network morning programs are carbon copies of one another. It's also not surprising that the CBS entry is a dismal failure. Do we really need three New York-based broadcasts that feature shots of Manhattan streets outside their studios?

And it's not just the morning shows. When network executives discovered news magazines could be run profitably several times a week, the three old-line networks went nuts. Do we really need three "Datelines," multiple "20/20s," and another "60 Minutes?"

These are all good television programs. That's not the point. When they become assembly line enterprises, they lose their specialness. Eventually, the viewers start finding other programs to watch.

By far the biggest success story of the current TV season is ABC's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Viewers love it. Families watch together. Regis does a great job. It's a fun show, for a number of reasons. Again, FOX's "Greed" and NBC's "Twenty One" aren't as entertaining or successful.

Local news, where I labored most of my career, follows the same disappointing pattern. Innovation is rare. The two new entries, in San Diego, look younger than their more established competitors. But, despite overt and obvious stylistic excesses at the FOX affiliate -- which are not always bad -- the content agenda remains predictable and overly dependent on police scanners.

For commercial television to realize the potential of the new technologies, owners will have to break away from the copy-cat mentality of recent years. Owners, these days, are the biggest companies in the world. GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, News Corp./FOX, Viacom/ CBS, all have tremendous resources. For financial enterprises of such great magnitude to take creative chances requires a likelihood of success and profit. Maybe it's time they figured out that we don't need three versions of the same programs.

I still love television. When the good shows work, it's magic. When the news media cover important events in compelling fashion, it brings us together as a community and a nation. In times of crisis, it's even life-saving. And programming that celebrates the best in us serves our common good. In the face of cynical politics and our everyday struggles, these scientific, dramatic, cultural and journalistic diversions remind us to aspire to excellence.

What we need now are leaders in the media world who will encourage creative risk taking. Obviously, good programming is profitable. And in the language of the new world of media ownership, that's not beside the point. It is the point.

(End of May 23, 2000 Op Ed)

My point, then and now, is that whatever the economic pressures, saving money alone will not provide long-term success for the industry. Only by creating a culture of creativity and excellence will television thrive and grow.

The Economics of Experience

As my 58th birthday came and went a few weeks ago, the thought of a new career became more exciting than ever. My former career, as a television news executive and producer, formally ended 11 years ago. I chose to leave because the problems afflicting television stations and networks were clear to me back then. I even wrote about it and got the piece published in the San Diego Union Tribune (If you’re a UT subscriber you can find the Op Ed piece in the archive; it’s from May 23, 2000. You can also access the UT archive for a fee, if you don’t subscribe). Since then I’ve worked in related fields as a consultant helping clients achieve success by using new media effectively, along with older technologies including TV, newspapers, and radio. Since the economy slowed, toward the end of 2007, finding new clients has become increasingly difficult. And my recent efforts to get back into TV news have been met with a consistently polite lack of acceptance, from potential employers.

During the last year, I’ve noticed more of my contemporaries out of work. Most would rather be working. In a few cases their chosen fields have passed them by; things are done differently now. But in the overwhelming majority of situations it is something else that has all these 50 and 60 somethings looking for jobs. There is a lack of appreciation for experience and a fundamental failure to recognize why older workers add value.

The most dramatic example of experience over youthful inexperience would be the outcomes of two recent midair emergencies on commercial flights. A 57 year old, Capt. Chesley Sullenberger landed a crippled US Air jet in the Hudson River with no loss of life. Less than a month later, a Continental Express Commuter flight crashed in Buffalo, New York, killing everybody onboard. As we now know, the Buffalo crash was partially the result of pilot inexperience, while the so called “Miracle on the Hudson” happened, in large measure, because the man flying the plane had more than 30 years experience.

Even if our jobs don’t involve the safety of others, the benefits of experience add value to most enterprises. Obviously, certain careers require youth. But most of my friends, who would rather be working, lost their jobs, after years of experience, because they earned good salaries. What the leaders doing the cutting failed to realize is that, in most cases, losing experienced workers weakens their organizations.

Television news is the field I know best. It is not a coincidence that the falling ratings over the last decade are the result of a less watchable product, caused in part by the lack of experience younger workers bring to the task of producing and presenting newscasts. Yes, there are many other reasons TV news is not the powerful force it used to be. The most obvious is competition from the internet and other newer technologies that provide news. But that is precisely the point. Instead of embracing the new technologies, the entrenched leadership of old media clung stubbornly to what they knew best.

Now here’s the tricky part, this has little to do with the age of workers. Two experienced media vets whom I know and respect—both in their 60s—were among the earliest adopters of new technology. Another person I know, an out-of-work woman in her 50s, also understands the new technologies as well as the Gen X, Gen Y, and Millenial crowd. What these three individuals add to their tech know-how is the experience of living in the world and understanding the history of their professions and crafts.

Clearly we need a mix; generational diversity is as important as having an ethnic and gender balance that reflects those an organization serves. Those of us who have been around for a while also understand that learning new skills is part of professional and personal growth. Most of my out of work friends would happily learn new things to stay in the forefront of their professions. In many cases, experience offers a constructive humility that makes the older worker easier to train.

As an older student, studying for a master’s degree with younger classmates, I’ve learned that the way my Boomer colleagues and I are viewed is often at odds with our own self image. This is a good reminder that service and humility go a long way toward achieving success even when it comes to those far less experienced than us. The demeanor and attitude of Capt. Sullenberger amply displayed these characteristics as news of his accomplishments spread. There is a lesson here for all of us, whatever our age.

So my quest for exploring new careers is motivated as much by desire as necessity. The good news is that for this so-called “older worker” new is exciting. I’m not ready to retire. As I continue to operate my media consulting business fresh opportunities and chances to learn add excitement and challenge. Experience is a great teacher, too. In these difficult times, having a few gray hairs might not be such a bad thing for all kinds of organizations.

Aquarius Revisited and Worth the Trip

If you are in New York, anytime soon, go see “Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical”. The current revival of the 1967 show, feels, at first, like a cultural artifact, almost campy for those of us who remember, and like an enjoyable musical history lesson for those born later. But that’s the first act. It’s full of songs many of us will recognize, performed by an attractive cast and a band that is placed prominently on stage and knows how to rock. While most of the cast was born after “Hair” was conceived and performed originally, several members of the band are old enough to remember the 60s. The new cast recording is now available on iTunes.

With Lyrics by James Rado & Gerome Ragni and music by Galt MacDermot, what makes “Hair” so good more than 40 years after it opened on Broadway, the first time? Mainly, it’s how the music, staging, and story capture the political and social climate of the time, while entertaining us with outstanding staging, performances, and music. In the second act we find the dramatic center and emotional heart of this enduring work. The transition from “Three-Five-Zero-Zero” to “What a Piece of Work is Man,” is powerful, affecting, stagecraft. The reference to the number 3,500 comes from an Allen Ginsberg poem and refers to deaths in Vietnam. “What a Piece of Work is Man” is a song that takes lyrics from Shakespeare, and extols, in this case with sarcastic disappointment, the potential of humanity.

When I saw “Hair,” on Broadway in 1969, the subject matter was current and controversial. The performance I saw featured Barry Maguire who had a recent hit single at the time, “Eve of Destruction.” This was one year after Nixon was elected president, and also a year after Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy had been assassinated. The cultural counterpoints between Nixon in the White House and Hippies, along with many other Americans, protesting an increasingly unpopular war, gave “Hair” a prominent place in re-enforcing the need for change. The fact that several of its songs, including Aquarius, Let the Sunshine In, and the title track, all became hits on their own, added to the power and prominence of this counter-culture phenomenon. The first act ends with the actors taking off their clothes; this also added to the buzz around “Hair” when it opened in the sixties. And yes, the clothes still come off in the current production.

What is most striking to somebody like me, a fan of the show and music for 40 years, is that the audiences coming to watch today are as young and enthusiastic as I was in 1969. Rather than a bunch of people in their 50s and 60s, it’s younger audiences who seem to be making “Hair” a hit once again. And, if you’ve ever dreamed of dancing on Broadway, this is your chance. The final curtain calls include opportunities for the audience to join the cast and dance to the music.

“Hair” is one more reason to watch the Tony Awards, next Sunday (June 7th) on CBS. It’s usually the best of the awards shows, featuring performances from nominated shows. This year should be especially good, with “Hair”, “West Side Story”, and “Billy Elliot,” along with other nominated productions, supplying performances and music for the broadcast.

Ramblings about Weather, Sonia from The Bronx, and News

Cloudy Days

The morning skies are a bit darker these days as “May Gray” turns to “June Gloom” here in the lower left corner of the country. The Southern California sunshine that most of the world associates with San Diego stays hidden this time of year, along the coast, mostly in the morning. This weather offers little chance of rain or the arid winds that lead to the fires of fall. The ocean is still too cold for swimming, at least for most mortals, without a wet suit. Late spring’s darker skies mean summer’s warmer waters will be here soon, and the afternoons, even now, offer the possibility of sunny beaches and beautiful sunsets.

The seasonal changes, which are often overlooked in Southern California as too subtle to matter, remind us that we live in many worlds simultaneously. The world of nature is influenced by our actions but not controlled by what we do. Instead, we are much more likely to be controlled by hours of sunlight, water temperature, and what we need to wear in order to be comfortable. At the same time, social, political, and economic realities influence, also, in ways profound and simple. As California struggles, along with much of the country, to navigate its way through a terrible economic crisis, the macro view of a bankrupt economy the size of California’s, means personal suffering will increase as unemployment remains high, and services have to be cut. On a more personal level, the bad economy means finding new business or a job will be more difficult for some time.

A Most Worthy Justice

During the election campaign last year, I attended Camp Obama, a weekend training session for “community organizers” who would go on to lead grass-roots efforts to elect the president. One of the first things you are asked to do at Camp Obama is tell your personal story, or your “story of self.” The Obama leadership team, wisely, places great value in who you are, where you came from, and how you got to where you are today. As we’ve seen this week, with the selection of Judge Sonia Sontomayor as the president’s first choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, a compelling personal narrative carries much weight.

We hope Republican Senators have gotten the message that opposing somebody of Sotomayor’s judicial, and intellectual quality is a fruitless effort that will hurt the GOP more than it will hurt her nomination. Still, we can expect some challenging revelations and allegations between now and the time Judge Sotomayor is confirmed as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Wouldn’t it be refreshing, though, if the Senate Republicans simply put the nomination on a fast track expressing their reservations but acknowledging the waste of time and taxpayer money that will be the result of serious attempts to derail her ride to the high court. This does not mean the Senate should abdicate its role in conducting a diligent and thorough process. It means the tone and approach should be businesslike and expeditious rather than contentious and petty. We shall see.

News and Communication

The continuing decline of the news media, as we knew them, should start to cause conscientious citizens--who value information and analyses they can trust--to wonder where the thinking person can turn for reliable news. We have a way to go before we lose our way completely, and there is still time to correct some of the wrong turns. But the momentum is headed in the wrong direction. With all the cutbacks at local newspapers and television stations, the news consumer is left with fewer choices, or at least different choices. In this space, we have mentioned several nascent efforts to supply so called hyper local coverage to communities whose newspapers have been downsized or eliminated. This is a good trend if the journalism they produce is worthy. Good reporting and writing require experience and talent.

As a life long advocate for freedom of expression I’m pleased to see web based technologies allowing individuals and organizations to communicate directly to people they want to reach. The theory is that the more voices expressing themselves in the marketplace of ideas, the better informed we become as citizens. As long as we understand where the information comes from and whose interests are being presented we gain from this sort of information. But when it pretends to be journalism, intrinsically fair and evenhanded, we have a problem. As media literate news consumers, it’s our responsibility to know the difference and let others know when free speech is commercial or partisan in nature. Journalism must maintain its independence in order to be valuable, whether it comes in the morning paper, the TV set, the radio, or the screen you’re reading now.

Connecting Through Failures and Glitches

During our recent trip to Europe my four year old Apple laptop started to experience "kernel panics." When this happens a gray screen pops up telling you--in four languages--to restart the computer. After a while I was able to get it to work long enough to read email and get through a few other essential tasks.

So, as soon as we got home, I made an appointment to visit the "Genius Bar," at the local Apple Store in San Diego's Fashion Valley Mall, to find out if it could be fixed. The young woman "genius" told me that for 280 dollars they would send my aged iBook out for repair and either fix it or not charge me. If they repaired it the warranty would only be for 90 days. She speculated that I had a bad Airport card or, much worse, a flawed logic board. She said that for another 50 dollars they would back up all my data. I decided the first thing I would do is back up the data myself and talk to a few folks who know more about these things than I do. After considering my options I decided to buy a new laptop and try to work with the old computer for as long as possible. It works reasonably well if the Airport function is turned off. (For those not familiar with Apple lingo, "Airport" is the WiFi component on Macs).

Back at the Apple Store the sales folks told me my best option for getting the new computer configured just the way I wanted was to buy it online and have it shipped to my home. I wanted a few upgrades to the higher end MacBook, which is not as expensive as the MacBook Pro. I ordered the new laptop a few days ago and have been following its progress to San Diego with the online tracking tool. This morning I found out the newly configured computer was shipped last night from Shanghai, China. This was a bit of a surprise for me but really should not have been. For some reason I was expecting the new machine to be coming from Cupertino, California, where Apple is headquartered; alas, I should have known better. In the global economy, adding a chip in China makes more sense than modifying memory in Silicon Valley.

For thsoe of us who depend on our laptops and other gadgets to keep us connected, having a failure far from home at first makes the panic in kernel panic seem highly appropriate. What quickly becomes clear is that if we don't have access to email or the ability to connect electronically for a few days, even a few weeks, we adjust, maybe even relax about it. After all, in Copenhagen and Paris finding a computer is no more difficult than finding a Carlsberg Beer or a finely made croissant. As long as we are in first world cities, connections are everywhere. But we do gain something, however small it is. By not having our own reliable laptop or Blackberry right at our side, we can look at things a little differently if we choose to do so. Those of us old enough to remember life before cell phones and personal computers recall that we got along just fine without them. Failures in technology force us to focus on where we actually are, physically and psychically, to be aware of the current moment. We ought to do this anyway, create pauses to be mindful of the present.

As I look forward to the arrival of my new computer, I do so with great anticipation. If you like technology and gadgets, getting a new computer is an exciting time, not quite as big a deal as a new car, but similar. As I reflect on kernel panics and other glitches I will try to remember that voluntarily disconnecting can lead to connections far more important and powerful than the additional RAM they just added to my new MacBook, in Shanghai.

We Have Not Disappeared

Hello, again, everybody. Travel and a temperamental laptop have slowed down our postings, but we are heading home to San Diego this evening and will share a few photos, now, until we get our blog's pace back to its usual tempo.

Enjoy.

These are not paparazzi stalking Angelina and Brad... it's Mona they are after, the Louvre's biggest star.






May Day found us in the middle of a very large "manifestation" designed to let President Sarkozy know that a wide range of groups were upset with current policies... for us it was a beautiful spring day in the French capital, manifest with a political protest of no specific concern, but high interest.


Typical tourists gazing at the sites of Paris.And now it's home to California!

Springtime in Denmark

The long trip from California to Copenhagen put us on the ground in Denmark at the beginning of the workday, last Friday. As we found our way from the airport to the hotel, only to learn—as expected—our rooms were not ready, we set out to enjoy a beautiful day in the Danish capital.

Old Europe, at least the “first world” part, thrives in the contrasts between high tech success and long-ago history, evident by buildings and art that span centuries alongside modern design and the latest gadgets.

Copenhagen is a cosmopolitan city with a unique style and pace. This time of year it’s light until about 9 in the evening. Danes enjoy good food and great beer. So, it’s easy to get into the atmosphere as long as you pay attention to your budget, as this is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

After two days in Copenhagen, we rented a van and drove our group of seven to Jutland, the green Danish countryside, the part of this old nation that is actually attached to the European Continent. Here, the pace is slower. Old friends welcome us and we get a sense of the national character away from the big city. Danish hospitality, good beer, and delicious food leave our hearts and taste buds happy.

A Time of Hope

I began writing the following blog on board CO 122 to Copenhagen,
on April 24, 2009. Between jet lag and computer problems, I am finally able to post it.

Children of Abraham,
Lay down your fears,
Swallow your tears,
And look to your heart.
by Sheryl Crow

Sheryl Crow is a popular artist—an A-list international rock star—currently doing some of the best work of her career. The words from “Out of Our Heads”, on the Detours album, express the hope of centuries. Strife in the Middle East represents an abiding threat to life as we know it. Religion often takes the rap for creating and perpetuating problems involving the region; most serious among those threats is the potential for a cataclysmic nuclear confrontation.

Last week at Congregation Beth Israel (CBI), in San Diego, California, I had the privilege of moderating a discussion about Abraham with four religious leaders. They explained how the father of monotheism is integral to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and still relevant as a model for the 21st Century. The panel included Monsignor Dennis Mikulanis--Catholic priest, pastor, and inter-religious affairs representative, the Rev. Dr. Jim Standiford--a Methodist minister, who serves as pastor of San Diego's First United Methodist Church, Rabbi Michael Berk—senior rabbi of CBI, part of the Reform movement, and Imam Taha Hassane—spiritual leader of the San Diego Islamic Center. These dialogs are part of CBI's adult education program and have been ongoing for ten years.

This program is open to the public and draws an audience from all the faiths represented on the panel. Each year I am impressed by how the differences among religions are discussed with respect. That is to say, we don’t ignore differences, but there is always an atmosphere of collegiality and good will. One challenge for these clergymen, who are all teachers and congregational leaders, is to explain their own faiths to those in the audience who know little about religions other than their own. The panelists explore differences and distinctions that define their faiths as they freely explain their own beliefs. Ultimately, similarities and common ground also emerge.

Perhaps it is California, iconic emblem of the “new” world, on the edge of the Pacific that allows these related but diverse traditions to join together in harmony. In this environment, different approaches to eternity mingle, in hopeful fashion, living possibilities of salaam, shalom, peace to men and women of good will.

As the warrior turned peacemaker, Yitzchak Rabin, remarked, before a zealot from his own “tribe” murdered him, loving our enemies can be a difficult, sometimes unrealistic goal; but living in peace, Rabin emphasized, must become our top priority.

I began this blog less than 24 hours after the dialog, on my way to Denmark and France for a family gathering. As we begin our descent into old Europe, we gain new perspectives on the state of our world. The era of Obama would seem to offer fresh opportunities for reconciliation and to build momentum toward a more peaceful planet.

We have had too much strife and emphasis on differences, “either-or” thinking, during the last eight years. The point is not about trying to make everything and everybody the same. It is respect and tolerance that will sustain us, not a Utopian fantasy world. But this will not necessarily flow from presidents and potentates, moguls or monarchs, it must grow from where we live, whether on the edge of the new world or in the heart of old.