Empathy in the Age of Facebook

Prior to the November 13^th terrorist attacks in Paris, I was thinking about how we interact on Facebook and other social media. Some “friends” share extremely personal details of their lives, everything from happy news of weddings and life cycle milestones to breakups, illnesses and deaths. Often, the response is a heartfelt “like” although liking bad news always seems a bit odd. Posts and responses about news--good and bad--are shared according to one’s privacy settings.

Because of today’s technology we are in touch with friends and contacts from decades ago; this makes the process even more intriguing. So when cataclysmic events shock and anger us, the responses and opinions shared can be both inspiring and terribly disturbing. We quickly learn—or have reinforced—who blames George W. Bush for getting us involved in Iraq or Barack Obama for getting us out. Sometimes, the vehemence of the comments is shocking and ridiculously personal. Questioning President Obama’s loyalty to the United States or his legal right to be president damages the questioner’s credibility even though it may endear him or her to like-minded followers. And those on the left who want to stifle all expression of views rooted in another time or born of  “white privilege” do a disservice because they prevent their more current and sometimes enlightened views from standing persuasively on their own merit. Banning speakers from universities is a disturbing trend. Those who spew hatred should not be invited. But differing political perspectives should not be grounds for bans. Remember, as Paulo Freire and others have pointed out, those subject to oppression can become oppressive themselves when they gain power.

Freedom of expression has always been a cherished value. So when I see comments at odds with my own views in response to my posts, I almost always let them stand. If there are factual errors I will point them out. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. (Gertz vs. Robert Welch,1974).” And that’s the law of the land. False facts, on the other hand, deserve to be exposed and corrected.

So the question emerges, in the age of Facebook, do our differences become magnified while our ability to see others’ points of view diminishes? Can we really care about our “friends”, “like” the pictures they post of the new puppy or grandchild, but still respect them when they post political views sharply at odds with our own? More importantly, do we care? I ask the last question rhetorically and seriously. And my answer is that we should care. It’s too easy to write off a comment, with which we disagree or even find offensive, when the person making it is only real in our lives because we knew him or her decades ago. Ultimately, the root question is whether real dialogue can happen on social media. Or is it, to use the words of Stephen Stills, just a digital version of "carrying signs (that) mostly say hooray for our side (For What It's Worth, 1966)." If we only get our information from sources that reinforce our own views, we wind up in echo chambers and bubbles. So seek out different media. That is actually one of the best things about Facebook; if you have a diverse group of “friends” they will post from a range of media.

My hope is that on the grass roots level we can elevate the discourse and be empathetic about more than the tragedies and joys, personal and global, where it is easy to agree. Maybe our politicians could learn a few things. But having worked as a newsman for decades, I doubt the tone of political and cultural disagreements will change anytime soon. The challenge is for us to resist the crass and try to treat even those with whom we disagree with respect. But let’s agree that lies and falsehood are real enemies.

Brian Williams: Who knew and when did they know it?

Another thought on Brian Williams' recent apology for misstatements.

When I was running TV newsrooms I would often say that TV news is a team sport. Very little happens in a vacuum. Reporters don't get on the air without news photographers, engineers, editors, and producers. Brian Williams was not alone on that army helicopter in 2003. Others had to know, at different levels of the organization, that the version of events now in question was questionable. Very little happened in my newsroom without somebody "whispering in my ear" about what really happened out in the field. That's just the way it works. Another one of my adages: there are no secrets in newsrooms.

Brian Williams: Apology, memory, the fog of war or something else?

 
We learned this week that Brian Williams made misstatements about events in Iraq involving a downed US Army helicopter forced to land by enemy fire in 2003. Williams told audiences, on more than one occasion, that he was on that helicopter. Last night, on The NBC Nightly News, Williams apologized to the public and the soldiers on board the downed chopper. He told viewers he had not been on that aircraft. Instead, he was on a different helicopter, in the same group, that arrived on the ground later. He was moved to make the admission after a soldier who had been on the downed aircraft questioned Williams' version. But now, the pilot of the helicopter Williams was in says they did take small arms fire.  This may explain some inconsistencies in Williams' earlier statements.

Williams “explained” his earlier misstatements by saying he “conflated” what happened to his own chopper with the one that actually took heavier enemy fire and was forced to land. Blaming the fog of memory, he apologized and then spoke of his support and admiration for members of the military who do what they do.

So, at best, Williams has a flawed memory of memorable events confusing details that others who were there remember more clearly. At worst, he’s more interested in burnishing his own role and experience than reporting the truth. As more information emerges, viewers and the bosses at NBC will have to decide whether to give Williams the benefit of doubt or assume the worst.

Anchoring a television newscast is much more difficult than it looks. The ease with which good anchors do their jobs is an illusion. In large markets and at the network level, teams of writers, producers, engineers, technicians, and video craftsmen and women make it all work smoothly and seamlessly. The “talent” (that’s the person you see on the screen reading the news: The Anchor) has to be a good communicator and is usually physically attractive. Anchors earn huge sums of money for their work, millions of dollars a year for those at the top.

During times of crisis good anchors sometimes work for days at a time with little sleep. During the aftermath of 9/11, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings informed the nation with fine reporting and the ability to communicate clearly. They put events in context as the world watched in disbelief at what had happened in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Others anchored and reported responsibly and appropriately but Jennings and Brokaw stood out. They demonstrated to the nation and world why they were in such important positions by their professionalism during a frightening time. They helped us through those terrible days.

Given the importance of an anchorman or woman’s role, NBC will have to make some tough calls about Williams’ future. He is a talented man and by most accounts a good guy. And he’s very good at his job, at least he has been for most of his career. But can he recover and regain the trust of the public? It is critically important that viewers know the news is honestly reported and presented. More information will emerge as others who were with Williams come forward.

In the early days of network television news, Walter Cronkite was known as the “most trusted man in America.” Brian Williams will never rise to that level of esteem in the public’s eyes. Times have changed and audiences are much more fragmented. The question is can he win the trust of viewers who rely on him and his network for daily doses of news and for more in-depth reporting during times of crisis. He can do so only if there is an honest accounting of how and why his earlier misstatements were made and why they continued to be repeated until a soldier who was there when a chopper went down called out the anchorman by presenting the truth.

Good times with Robin

During the summer of 1972, I met Robin Williams. We had friends in common and spent time together in Marin County, California.

My New York college roommates and I had heard about this intriguing place north of San Francisco. Hot tubs and “California Girls” along with a reputation for “laid-back” attitude led us to Marin. After finding some like-minded locals near San Anselmo, we rented a house for July and August. Here’s the picture: a half a dozen or so men in their early twenties, half from New York and the rest from Northern California; it was a fun-filled summer. Robin did not live in the house, but he was friends with the Californians and was a regular around dinnertime and for Sunday softball games. What I remember most about being around Robin was that he was always on. He was funny, thoughtful in an endearing way, and impossible to shut up, not that anyone wanted him to stop. One night, I was at the sink doing dishes. Robin wandered into the kitchen and started telling jokes, doing voices and generally carrying on. Pretty soon everyone in the house was there, keeping the dish-washer company as Robin entertained us all. We knew, too, that Robin was a fine actor. He performed regularly in the College of Marin theater program. I remember seeing him in Fiddler on the Roof and also doing Shakespeare. To a person, we all got it. He was special and the rest of the world would soon find out.

Years later, we were both in NY, he at Juilliard and I at ABC News. We'd bump into each other in Central Park or the streets of the West Side every few months. Robin wasn't famous yet, so it was just two guys who had just a little in common. Sometimes I would see him on Sundays doing mime in the park. He would always draw a crowd; he was that good. After all, to paraphrase Charlie Chaplin, the street is the most legitimate theater of all. As was the case in California, he was always funny. And more than anybody I ever met, he had the ability to energetically entertain all who would listen, spontaneously and smartly.

I ran into Robin one time later, at the SF airport. He was a big star by then, in the middle of his run on Mork and Mindy. You'd never know it though; he was down to earth, the same friendly guy.

What a loss. He's the funniest guy I ever met. So glad, though, he got to do what he did so well and enrich all our lives.

Powerful new partnerships for productive TV news

            The hierarchy of television and digital news media is undergoing a paradigm shift not by design but by necessity. As newer technologies become more accessible and engaging they push other technologies aside. Though the new forms don’t replace the older technologies, the newer formats and delivery methods re-align the role of each medium. A research driven example of this is that we know many viewers begin their day by checking social media on a portable device before turning on the TV or radio. What they see on Facebook and Twitter influences what they tune into or choose to ignore. News organizations that understand the power of portable digital news delivery and how it differs from—and interacts with--television can improve penetration and ratings on both digital and legacy platforms by effectively nurturing powerful partnerships.

The traditional hierarchy has the network news organization covering big national and international stories. The local stations cover their communities. They work together providing content. Network affiliate news services give the stations stories from around the globe and the stations provide immediate access to local audio, video, and live coverage when the networks cannot send their own crews. What has changed dramatically in the last decade is that the most immediate “up close and personal” coverage now comes from ordinary people who have the tools to convey content right in their pockets. In the local news area, often the most immediate and accurate information about breaking news is available on Facebook and Twitter. This is also true in big story coverage of international events, from Tehran and Tahrir Square to the shores near Fukishima. Sometimes the information is generated by ordinary citizens; sometimes it comes from official government sources; and in a less dominant role in the new hierarchy, it also comes from legacy national and local media such as TV, radio, and newspapers.

The new paradigm requires legacy media to not only create and generate content but to also “curate” the abundant amount of information that is at our fingertips. This is especially important for the legacy TV networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, because of their connection to local stations in every market. We learned during two recent big breaking stories—the school shooting in Connecticut and the Boston Marathon bombing—that information flows fast and furiously and is often incorrect or incomplete. For trusted legacy news organizations, getting it right has never been more critical. To this end, creating the most effective partnerships with local stations and the stations’ sources—both grass roots and traditional--will bear tremendous benefits during big stories and for enterprise coverage that is unique.

Trusted legacy media can capitalize on the new news hierarchy in a number of ways. First, in the case of NBC--as just one example--the personalities of the Peacock convey at least two distinct benefits. The NBC brand continues to be valuable and serves as an imprimatur for content that can be trusted by users and viewers. Then there are the actual personalities. Brian Williams, Matt Lauer, Al Roker, Nancy Snyderman, and all their local counterparts enter the homes of viewers on a regular basis. We know that viewers form para-social relationships with TV personalities that can be quite powerful. For example, when Katie Couric went on the air to extol the benefits of colonoscopy, there was a statistically significant increase in the procedure throughout the country. So NBC, along with the other network brands, and the power of their on-air personalities serve as magnets for solidifying old relationships and building new partnerships.

The Medium Is Still The Message

Marshall McLuhan’s observations about media and message may be more on target in the digital era than we might have imagined 50 years ago. For national news network partnerships to flourish, understanding the new paradigm involves using content that is quickly generated, short in duration, yet compelling and reliable. For the Twitter and Facebook generation, news teams have to have reliable community collaborators, partners in news. These are the trusted sources that can be relied upon for information, but can also generate content that can be used effectively on the various platforms of old line network news organizations and their affiliate partners. A different aesthetic works on a smart phone than on a 50-inch HD monitor. This is key to making the paradigm real. The simpler and more lean production values of digital device content allow non-journalists to create real journalism. And that is where the curator role becomes key. The journalists have to decipher and filter the flow of information to distinguish what is news and what is something else. It’s the old gatekeeper role but with a new twist.

The West Seattle Blog is one good example of a trustworthy local news source that generates reliable content. This is in sharp contrast to the AOL Patch sites in a key way. AOL recently announced it was cutting back its investment in Patch. Many local Patch sites do a fine job. But the difference between the West Seattle Blog and Patch is that the West Seattle Blog was locally created and entrepreneurial. Another trustworthy grassroots news source is the Voiceof San Diego. Also locally created, VOSD uses a membership model, similar to public TV and radio to generate revenue. Patch, on the other hand, is a corporate creation that may work in some locations but loses its power when it becomes a top down creation to be replicated from one community to the next.

Trusted partnerships that generate content must be nurtured and supported. The old relationship of national network to local affiliate is the foundation of the new paradigm but is more of a starting point than end point. Ideally, each network or legacy news stations will devote key staffers to nurture relationships with grass roots news groups in the neighborhoods and communities that make up the nation. Building these relationships and supporting the stations’ engagement with the best grass roots sources in their communities will generate unique content. This content will flow during breaking news emergencies and on slower days when enterprise stories help the stations and network stand out. Most important, the new paradigm means the successful news organization will no longer only follow the “It’s news because I say it’s news” sensibility of years past. Instead, the task will be to connect with the public in ways that allow journalists to recognize real news whether it comes from a 17 year old Brian Williams wannabe with a smart phone or the White House press office.

The appetite for journalism from the bottom up will continue to grow. The possibilities for growth and engagement across media great and small are exciting opportunities. News organizations must nurture networks of contributors forming partnerships with local stations and grass roots producers that can tell stories that rise to the level of interesting journalism. The symbolic frame through which network news organizations must evolve means the circled ABC, The CBS Eye, and the NBC Peacock will have new meaning and relevance. Instead of signifying the networks that pioneered instant replay, You are There, and color TV in the middle of the last century, the symbols will now stand for partnerships with the public that use all the tools of today to inform, entertain, and even enlighten.

Notes: 1. “Up close and personal” is an old ABC Sports description of its coverage.

2. The final line is a paraphrase of Edward R. Murrow’s comment about TV. The actual quote is: This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

From Sea to Shining Sea

 (Because it has been too long since the last blog entry, here's a post from Facebook I entered two days ago after returning home.)

Took off this morning from LaGuardia Airport, Rockaway and the Atlantic Ocean shining off to my right. The New York November light led the way as we rose and turned on our way to Texas. Lunch in Houston then an on time take-off for the flight home to San Diego. Three hours later, the southern end of the California Coast came into view right before we descended over the city to land on the edge of the shining Pacific, backlit by the setting sun.

Even though long distance air travel is routine, I continue to be thrilled by the mobility I hope we never take for granted.

Why interim leadership makes sense

Yesterday, I left a 19-week assignment as interim news director at XETV San Diego 6. Today, the new news director is meeting the staff and starting work, a smooth, well planned, transition.

When I arrived at the station in April, I replaced a news director who was at the station for less than two years. I was presented to the staff as the interim leader who would help the station keep moving in the right direction and also assist in finding the next news director. That person would commit to three to five years, the amount of time necessary to take the striving news operation to new levels of success. About one month into the assignment the general manager asked if I would be interested in the permanent job. The difficult but correct reply was “no.”

This was my fourth interim leadership assignment and second as a TV news director. While it is good for my ego to report that each of the four times I’ve filled this role I have been offered the position on a permanent basis, that was never my goal. As an interim leader you do things a bit differently than someone in for the long haul. I hope to continue serving in interim leadership roles as part of my consulting business. So, at the risk of engaging in shameless self-promotion, I want to urge anybody who hires leaders to consider using individuals on an interim basis to serve as a bridge for organizations in transition.

Interim leadership is especially valuable for organizations overcoming serious challenges. A skilled interim leader often has to serve as an organizational healer or fixer. Sometimes it is simply a case of bringing new energy to an enterprise that may be stuck or languishing. Another advantage of hiring an interim leader is that he or she can quickly learn the organization’s personality and dynamics. This can help in recruiting the permanent leader who will follow. Most important, successful interim leadership requires substance. Knowing a business or organizational culture is critical. Interim leadership means getting to work quickly and setting the right tone from day one. That’s nearly impossible to do if you do not understand how things work.  

For me, the most gratifying part of going to work everyday is interacting with people. Although I am an early adopter of technology and recognize and appreciate the value of digital media, interacting with other human beings in face-to-face communication fulfills a specific human need. That daily social interaction is what I will miss most. When a new person comes in and engages with a positive approach and smile it serves as powerful medicine for those in the workplace who may have felt disconnected. Of course, this only works if the interim leader knows what he or she is doing. Empty suits with smiles can actually make things worse.

So thank you to my friends at XETV. I already miss being in the newsroom. And if this first blog after 19 weeks in the trenches of TV news sounds like a bit of an advertisement, I plead guilty. I would enjoy working with other stations and organizations where I can be of service.

I look forward to getting back to blogging about media, culture, communication, and inevitably a little politics around this time of year. Right now, on to projects put on hold and clients old and new. No doubt, I’ll also find a little time for tennis.  

Two very different paths

 I just saw the CNN homepage with a picture of James Holmes, who grew up in San Diego, sitting in a Denver area courtroom with his comic book red hair, looking deranged and barely there. On the other side of the page, a picture of Sally Ride in her days as a space shuttle astronaut heads the column that is her obituary. She was a physics professor at the University of California, San Diego. They are two local news makers--visually juxtaposed--representing the best and worst of what gifted people can become.

James Holmes booking photo

For now, I will not attempt to make sense out of last Friday's gunfire in a Colorado movie theater; Ross Douthat in Sunday's New York Times did about the best job of that I have seen. But I will simply say we should celebrate the life of Sally Ride and her contributions to improving the world. As for James Holmes, the pain he inflicted is beyond words. The side by side view of these two pictures struck me as not only odd but haunting--two San Diegans who will be remembered for years to come for very different reasons.

I mean no disrespect to Dr. Ride by discussing her on the same page as James Holmes. To the contrary, the point is to show that in the  dark and disturbing aftermath of Holmes' brutal acts, creative and life affirming memories--in this case, the life and work of Sally Ride--need to be celebrated and honored. Though today's news marks her death, it is her life that has, at least for a moment, pushed Holmes off the lead spot in the news.

Remembering a great teacher

I learned the other day one of my mentors died. Professor George C. Stoney was 96 years old when he left the living last week in New York City. George was my teacher at NYU. As much as anybody I’ve ever known, he dedicated himself to using film and television for positive purposes. As a teacher, filmmaker, and visionary who saw the power of visual media as a tool for community improvement, George lived a life that mattered. The lead obituary in Sunday’s New York Times explains George’s accomplishments and impact.

On a personal level, I cannot adequately express how much George meant to me. He helped me get my first job at ABC News; he believed in my abilities and me as a producer when I had personal doubts; he taught thousands of students that telling stories about real life-–not today’s so called reality TV—could make a difference and improve the world.

In the mid 1990s I contacted George and sent him a copy of a documentary KNSD-TV produced while I was news director. Not That San Diego, followed community activist Stan Hay as he explored the poorer parts of the place that calls itself “America’s Finest City.” George sent me a thank you note for sending him the documentary. His comments were mostly positive. He pointed out that perhaps the most noteworthy achievement was getting such a documentary on a commercial television station. As usual, he was right. That was the last time I had any communication with him but not the last time I saw him.

When my daughter, Amy, graduated from NYU in 2006, Professor Stoney was part of the procession. As the oldest active teacher at the university—he was 89 at the time—it was his privilege to carry the torch, NYU’s symbol. When I saw George on the big screen in Washington Square Park, I smiled. Last week, when I learned of his death, I shed a few tears.

Tom Brokaw famously called the men and women who lived through and fought in World War II, “The Greatest Generation.” George was part of that group. He served during the war and continued to serve the world in other ways the rest of his life. He will be missed. And even though he preferred to be called George, I want to publicly say thank you, Professor Stoney, for what you did for me personally and for everything you did for the rest of those whose lives you touched.

Interim News Director

I noticed that it has been a longer time than usual since anything new appeared on IrvsEyeView. So here's what's happening. For the last four months I have been serving as the interim news director at San Diego 6, XETV. After nearly 14 years doing other work, serving again as a TV news executive has been exciting, eye opening, and gratifying. We are currently searching for somebody who will take the job on a permanent basis, willing to make a three to five year commitment. I will have much more on this latest adventure once the new person is on board and I go back to organizational leadership consulting. This is now my fourth interim leadership position, an interesting vantage point to see how organizations work.

A late November reflection

If you're old enough to remember where you were 48 years ago today, you'll understand why this time of year has special meaning, much more important than the current controversies surrounding store hours for "Black Friday." In a blog three years ago, I wrote about my memories of the day President Kennedy was shot. Those thoughts reflected a feeling of challenge, but also the promise of 2008, having just elected a new president. The challenges we faced as a nation both in 1963 and 2008 were substantial and real. The challenges we face today continue to plague us.

A few months ago, I wrote about "fools on the Hill," a reference to our Congress. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch seems to agree. His commentary, today, eloquently outlines not only the problems but a few meaningful solutions. During the course of my career in journalism I met many big time political leaders. Koch is one of the few who continues to earn my respect. I don't always agree with him--though more often I do-- but he is an honest man, a self described "sensible liberal."

Those who know me understand that I have many friends who are lifelong conservatives. I'm hoping a few "sensible conservatives" will step up and help lead with a spirit of reconciliation we so desperately need. The tone of discourse today has become so contentious and mean spirited that getting anything done becomes increasingly difficult. One of my conservative friends suggested that those on the right are waiting for the 2012 election when they believe the voters will move the country in their direction. A year is a long time in politics, but my guess is that the voters will actually take back what they did to Congress in 2010. It seems increasingly clearer each day that divided government, in today's political climate, is a prescription for the empowerment of fools. Whoever prevails a year from now, sensible liberals and conservatives have to place the good of the country ahead of narrow political expediency. We, the voters, must demand nothing less.

So, on this 48th anniversary of one of America's darkest days, I hope you will click the links above and read what Mayor Koch has to say about turning things around. And, if you haven't read my earlier reflections on November 22, 1963, take a look at that too.

All good wishes for a happy Thanksgiving and a holiday season with real joy.

 

Time for a late inning rally

Americans value freedom. It is one of the attractions of the United States, still a magnet for the oppressed of the world. Bob Dylan’s anthem, Chimes of Freedom, has a dreamlike quality that articulates an almost religious yearning for justice. President Obama would be well served to listen. His presidency is in the late innings in need of a lift if he has any chance at another four years.

One of the joys of iPod shuffle is being surprised by what pops up when you listen. I write this as I fly home to San Diego from New York. When I heard Dylan’s live version of “Chimes” on the iPod—a song I’ve always thought of as one of his greats—it struck me that the song just might help Obama articulate a 2012 version of “Hope” that the country desperately needs. But talk alone won’t do it. Which brings me to a memory of a comeback.

I attended two sessions at the US Open Tennis Championships last week. It reminded me of one of the great days in my personal sports spectator history 24 years ago. After spending a September afternoon at the 1987 US Open, I made my way across Roosevelt Avenue to Shea Stadium to catch a night game between the reigning world champion New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies. I met my father, Harry, at the ballpark. We watched as the Mets quickly fell behind with no signs of life for the first five innings; then they came back big, with seven runs in the sixth, and one for the win column. Back then—and still today—the divide between the tennis crowd and the baseball fans offers a sharp contrast, visually striking as you leave the more upscale National Tennis Center for the blue collar ball park across the street. But even the vast majority of the tennis crowd are middle class.

So many “ordinary Americans” (as the politicians like to say), including baseball and tennis fans, are hurting and wondering how we got where we are today. Robert Reich offers a particularly cogent summary answering that question in Sunday’s New York Times. Professor Reich positions his analysis of hope for the middle class not with a baseball metaphor but rather as a “dream within our grasp.” And in his most recent Times column, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman also offers a better blueprint for economic recovery than the one force fed on the president and American people by our current Congress.

The intersection of art and scholarship has been discussed and identified by many. Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman both recognized the artist’s gift for articulating cultural realities with great power and clarity often before scholars study these trends. That’s why the power of a song may just help. Many of us thought Barrack Obama was the man to make the Chimes of Freedom—including economic freedom--flash more brightly when he was elected in 2008. If he is to become a two termer he needs to do more than articulate a vision; he must make the dream a reality. That will take a late inning comeback. Unfortunately, the reality is that members of the opposition are not going to blink. Their goal is to see this president strike out. All one has to do is watch body language and pay attention to the tone of voice of Tea Party faithful when they talk about President Obama--it is personal for them with this president. The idea of a bipartisan era where the good of the country is placed above the need for one party to win has not yet arrived; this current Tea Party tinged Congress does not have an approach that will work.

 

The sooner Mr. Obama fully embraces the fact that the top priority of the opposing team is to retire his presidency, the sooner he will start saving his chance at a second term. Those who voted for him last time expect him to fight for the middle class and a brighter future. For too many, the feeling of being—in Dyaln’s words—“the luckless, the abandoned and forsaked” is real. That’s the constituency Obama must engage and not cede to the Tea Party. The only way that will happen is by winning the hearts and minds of the American people through action and results, in essence bypassing the “fools on the Hill” who are hurting so many while pretending to be part of the solution. At this point, it is all about jobs. Late inning comebacks happen all the time, especially when the fundamentals are solid and the approach is consistent with the skill of the players on the field. It's time for the president to take his swings and quit hoping for a walk.

Fools on the Hill

Too many words have been written and spoken about the consternation and constipation Congress is suffering over the debt limit deadline debacle. It is time to act and to do so in the interest of the rest of us, the people the president and others refer to as "ordinary Americans."

I am one of the lucky ones with my wife employed and a 40 year history of saving, and investing, reasonably wisely. Too many "ordinary Americans" are much worse off and suffering unnecessarily because of a stubborn minority that is focused primarily on seeing President Obama fail.

During the dark days of  President George W. Bush's second term, I told my conservative friends that I truly had no interest in seeing the president fail. The good of the country outweighed any short term political gains. I worked hard to see President Obama get elected. I doubt I will devote much time to his next campaign; he's missed too many opportunities. But, most likely, I will vote for him. He has worked to compromise and govern from the center, many say to a fault. So it is especially disheartening to watch as the Tea Party contingent in Congress holds us hostage. Those who supported their insurgency ought reconsider their votes in the face of the tyranny this minority has wrought on the rest of us. The knee jerk rejection of any new taxes--euphemistically referred to as "revenue"--is making thoughtful conservatives, and Republican stalwarts, worry whether the GOP has any grandeur left. Even President Reagan recognized the need for "revenue."

If the current polls are accurate, the majority of Americans, ordinary and otherwise, are starting to see that the hard core obstructionists in Congress, the Tea Party crowd and their enablers, are the heart of the problem. "Ordinary Americans" are starting to speak out and realize that the fools on the Hill have too many blind spots.

Musings on rock stars and a bit of wisdom

In our celebrity-obsessed culture, the most celebrated and select idols of the galaxy would have to be the rock stars. If you have any doubts, consider this anecdotal evidence. Julia Roberts—at one time the highest paid female movie star on the planet—was seated next to Paul McCartney at the 2010 Golden Globe Awards. Roberts said afterward that everybody she knew was sending her messages about the super star beside her. The "Pretty Woman," next to the former Beatle, was clearly impressed. She told reporters, “If you want attention, sit next to Paul McCartney.”

The other bit of evidence comes from Martin Scorsese’s rock doc, Shine a Light, about a Rolling Stones concert to benefit former president Bill Clinton’s foundation. Filmmaker Scorsese and politician Clinton are both superstars in their own very visible worlds. But as you watch the documentary, it becomes indisputable that these two giants are definitely “standing in shadow” of the really big stars, The Rolling Stones. To further emphasize the potent celebrity of rock stardom, referring to Bill Clinton as the “rock star president” is often used to indicate his special status as a politician and former president.

Rock stars enjoy extraordinary financial success through being creative outlaws who bring pleasure to the masses. To paraphrase another pop star, who first became famous before the age of rock and roll, “they do it their way.” So what can we learn from these highly successful, much admired, super rich celebrities we call rock stars? We know all too well about rock stars who succumb to drug problems, legal problems, money problems, relationship problems and every other human flaw or failing you can imagine. The bright lights can illuminate but also burn.

During one of the interview segments in Shine a Light, Stones guitarists Ronnie Wood and Keith Richards are both asked the same question. Who is the better guitarist? Wood responds flippantly by saying, that he is better than Richards. When asking the same question, the interviewer tells Richards what Wood said. Richards, in a moment of real wisdom, responds by saying he’s not surprised by his fellow guitarist’s boast. But it is Richards’ next statement that cuts to the heart of creative success for a range of endeavors. Richards says, something like this. “The truth is there are ten guys better than Ronnie or me. But together, we’re better than those ten guys.”

Organizational success involves more than the talent of individual team members. Talented people are a necessary ingredient. But in the words or Hall of Fame baseball manager Casey Stengel, “Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play together is another story.” It is not surprising that the most successful “rock stars,” whatever their field, know how to be part of a team. Think about it. Every truly successful star works with a team. This goes even for novelists, golfers and tennis players. There are coaches, managers, trainers, psychologists, editors, fact checkers, agents, and many others who contribute to success.

Richards figured out that Ronnie Wood made him a better guitar player and he said so with a bit of humility. Keith Richards as a source of wisdom? Maybe people will listen. After all, he’s a rock star.

Some thoughts on 9/11 nearly ten years later

Shortly after 9/11/01, I sat with a working journalist friend and a man he introduced me to who is a leader in San Diego’s Muslim community. Our Muslim acquaintance was disappointed and upset that his community did not suspect the three 9/11 hijackers who had spent many months in San Diego. He explained to us that the hijackers had been seen at mosques in San Diego. He also told us that members of San Diego’s Muslim community would have, and had on other occasions, contacted the FBI if they suspected something was not right. Perplexed, he told us something to the effect, “I can’t believe we missed these guys.”

I have often thought back to that conversation realizing how one person can change history. What if the FBI had been following the three San Diego based 9/11 hijackers? It is a difficult call to act on suspicions that may or may not be well founded. In the current climate I am guessing someone would speak up. Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, nearly ten years after 9/11, we are wisely more vigilant.

Members of a US Navy SEAL team took out bin Laden further enhancing the reputation of one of America’s elite military units. This particular unit, sometimes called SEAL Team Six (ST6), is the elite of the elite. ST6 is based in Virginia, but all Navy SEALs pass through Coronado, California. I live in Coronado, just across the bay from downtown San Diego. Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (NAB) is home to the Naval Special Warfare Command and the training facility where every sailor and naval officer comes to earn his “Trident;” that’s the badge worn by SEALs that distinguishes their uniforms from those of aviators, submariners, and surface warfare personnel.

I drove past NAB this morning to see if anything special was going on. I saw a group of sailors running in fatigues, a sight quite normal here. There was a TV crew outside the local Starbucks, probably hoping to talk to those in uniform who stop there on their way to work. Traffic coming over the bridge from San Diego was backed up this morning. Higher security at Coronado's two naval installations was possibly the reason. Later, part of Interstate 5 leading into the bridge was shut down because of a suspected pipe bomb found nearby; the object turned out to be an innocent piece of debris. In the days and weeks ahead we will experience, once again, heightened security and vigilance in the aftermath of bin Laden’s demise.

Living where I live, I’ve had the privilege to know a few SEALs over the years (mostly retired, now). Some of my daughters’ classmates from Coronado High School have gone on to earn their Tridents and are currently serving with SEAL teams. The SEALs I have known are nothing at all like the caricatures you might expect of elite warriors. They are artists and gardening enthusiasts, usually soft spoken and humble. At least that is how they act around this civilian. My abiding respect for them is nearly limitless. To require them to do what they do, and do it so well, is the price of a civilized society. We have not yet advanced to a time when swords are ploughshares and we no longer have to study war. In the meantime, having SEALs and Rangers, Green Berets, Marines, and every other military specialist and service member available to help keep us safe, is something we should not take for granted. To those who serve: Thank you.

Tune up your crap detectors

 

When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school,

It’s a wonder I can think at all.

Opening lyrics to Kodachrome, by Paul Simon (Released in 1973)

A little background: Paul Simon attended, and graduated from, Forest Hills High School in New York City’s Borough of Queens. So did I. Simon was graduated in 1958; I graduated in 1969. When the song was released, I was finishing college. For several reasons, I have always felt a special connection to Kodachrome. Kodak stopped producing Kodachrome film about two years ago. Obviously, Kodachrome is a metaphor in Simon’s nearly 40-year-old hit. Here’s a link to the lyrics in case you are not familiar with the song.

With traditional film cameras now replaced, for most of us, by digital photography, at least one thing crosses the boundaries of the two technologies—frames. We frame pictures; we view them in frames; we edit within frames of film or frames on our iPhoto or Photoshop apps. So metaphor and frames help us see and understand the world.

Paul Simon obviously recognized the “crap (he) learned in high school” for what it was. Contrary to his next line, it is probably one reason he can think well, certainly well enough to write great songs over the last half century. Neil Postman wrote about the need for “crap detectors,” playing off a line from Ernest Hemingway. You can read Postman’s essay (I agee with about 90% of what he says) and see what you think. I’d pay particular attention to Postman’s third and fourth laws. Or, to paraphrase Stephen Stills, be cautious of mostly saying “hooray for our side.”

The world has usually benefited from well-tuned crap detection. One of the traditional roles of the news media is sorting out what is real and what is not. Now doing this we have Jon Stewart and other entertainers working to expose purveyors of pap and crap on a nightly basis. That he makes us laugh is an added benefit.

There are many working journalists—likely most—who continue to point out what is legitimate information and what is not. Unfortunately, many popular media personalities—including so-called journalists--are spewing crap at an alarming rate. My goal is not to “call out” individuals who contaminate the airwaves, news pages, and digital platforms with crap. Rather, it is to suggest all of us tune up our detectors and know the difference between the crap we learned in high school and everywhere else, and what is real knowledge, reliable information, and true wisdom.

You could take beautiful pictures with Kodachrome and you can take beautiful pictures with a digital camera. It’s not whether it is digital or film that is important; it is about how we see.