Trump and the holidays in fewer than 300 words

-->

Donald J. Trump will become President of the United States in four weeks. Christmas and Hanukkah begin in two days, an unusual year—in so many ways—when the two holidays fall on the same day. Some friends on the right say give Trump a chance. Others, many others, say be vigilant and make sure to oppose moves by the new administration that are bound to be authoritarian and corrupt.

A woman we knew liked to remind us, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was a homeless Jewish baby when he was born in Bethlehem. Some dispute that characterization saying Jesus, Mary and Joseph were away from home but not truly homeless. Hanukkah includes stories within stories but ultimately celebrates religious freedom. Freedom has a price, however, also part of the Hanukkah story. Christmas promotes peace on earth and celebrates a pathway to redemption by a loving God. For Christians, the King of Kings is also a humble man.

As President-elect Trump gets closer to the Oval Office, my hope and prayer for this holiday season is that love and sacrifice, the willingness to give of self for the freedoms we enjoy, and a recognition that those without a bed to sleep on may be the true queens and kings, don’t get lost in the bluster that consumes much of what we see and hear during these troubled times.

I fear the lessons of the season may be lost on the president-elect. His words and actions have indicated a different philosophy of governing and life. Those who embrace the messages of the season, for religious or other reasons, need to also live those values. Love and sacrifice will keep America great. No one person alone can make that happen.

Thanksgiving day election reflection

 

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.
 
With the benefit of two weeks since the election, and in the interest of wrapping things up, here are some thoughts on what happened and where we go from here.

Let’s get real folks. Trump won. Whatever you think of the Electoral College, that’s the system we have. But let’s also remember that Clinton will probably have a margin of two million more votes than Trump. That would mean she will have received more votes for president than anyone in history not named Obama. Just sayin’.

As for how the respective sides are lining up in the aftermath of the election, let’s get real about that too. When Obama won eight years ago he inherited a s*** storm. Now, I don’t normally use language like that in writing or conversation but sometimes one has to make a point strongly. The economy was tanking. It was the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Trump is taking office during a much better economy, extremely low unemployment (and please don’t make the argument that we cannot trust the figures. They use the same methodology as when Obama took office, apples to apples!). The stock market—and that includes many retirement accounts—is in record high territory. The economic problem that Trump ran on was slow growth and the need for creating good jobs. We’ll see how that goes in the years ahead. Unlike Republicans, whose stated goal was to make Obama a one-term president, I am hearing Democrats, Senator Cory Booker yesterday on NPR, say they want to work with Mr. Trump and grow the economy.

As for the argument that Trump’s election was a repudiation of Obama’s eight years, here are a few facts. President Obama currently enjoys a reasonably high approval rating, much higher than Trump’s even with his post election bump. To his credit, the president-elect is now saying good things about Obama. He should. So why did the Democrats lose? Well, for one thing, and this is important, since Truman’s election in 1948, only once has either party held the White House longer than two terms. That was from 1980-1992 when George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan. As we know, that President Bush only held the office for one term. So change in the White house after two terms, though not inevitable, is the norm. People wanted a change and the choices were dramatic. Donald Trump is different. The people spoke.

This election was ugly. Between the false facts thrown around without shame, to the coarseness of the dialogue, we can, should, must, do better. As for the news media, that’s a discussion for another time.

Mr. Trump has an opportunity to lead. His words are mutable to put it politely. But, as the cliché goes, actions speak louder than words. So let us remain vigilant. We shall soon see what kind of a leader Donald J. Trump really is.

Trump, Queens, and the art of crap detection

 

Donald Trump and I have something in common. We both grew up in Queens. As a proud child of the borough, I offer a bit of background for those less familiar with that part of New York City.

Queens is where working people live, civil servants, office workers, cops and firefighters, construction workers, small business owners, and to this day, upwardly mobile ethnics. The late New York Governor Mario Cuomo—like Donald and me, a Queens “boy”-- once remarked, and I’m paraphrasing, in Queens, arguing is a way of life. There is a certain in your face honesty that is particular to the region. There is also another communication characteristic that will be useful to understand in the days ahead. To put it directly, I can imagine Donald hanging around the schoolyard in 1961 regaling the other kids with stories and keeping their attention. After he left, one of the kids  might say to the others, “Donald has a great line of bullshit.” Understand, that would have been meant as a compliment as much as a criticism.

Neil Postman (1931-2003) was a brilliant scholar of communication. He was also from Queens. In his career as an NYU professor, Dr. Postman offered insight into mass media, culture, and yes, bullshit. In his classic discourse, Bullshit and the Art of Crap Detection, Postman explains, “sensitivity to the phony uses of language requires, to some extent, knowledge of how to ask questions, how to validate answers, and certainly, how to assess meanings.” By the way, the essay (abbreviated version), linked above, is a worthwhile read and not too long.

A few months ago, Bill Maher and his guest Rob Reiner were discussing how having grown up in the New York area, they were able to recognize much of what Trump was saying as BS. They speculated that people from other regions of the country might not be as familiar with the particular style and  brand of BS Mr. Trump spews.

So, let’s see how this all plays out. Will the president-elect build a wall along the length of the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay for it? Will tariffs on foreign goods bring good jobs back to the USA? Will he even be able to impose the tariffs he’s promised? Will he deport all those he said he would send back? Will he really push for congressional term limits? The list could go on but you get the point. Real or BS? Guess we’ll soon find out. 

That's my opinion. What's yours?

(Addendum--11/16/16)

With the benefit of observing the president-elect for a full week in his new role, here are additional observations.

Because Mr. Trump is prone to BS we should be ever more vigilant. As Postman points out, bigotry is a particularly malignant form of BS. And although when he's president much of the BS may never become reality, but too much will with a same party Congress. Words themselves have power. We are seeing each day that coarse language and hateful rhetoric have dire consequences, empowering bigots and motivating intimidation. We must not acccept this as the new normal. Stand up; speak out; remain true to the best in us, not the worst.

Which American makes you proud? Opinion poem

-->

Fallen hero’s father, eloquent, brown,

Speaking slowly to the nation,

While opposing a clown,

But this clown’s not funny,

He’s a danger to all,

His calling card’s money,

Though he’s rather small,

His height’s not in question,

He towers above,

It’s about learning a lesson,

Stop hating try love,

Captain Khan gave his life,

So his soldiers could live,

Bravery amidst strife,

What more can one give,

Then the candidate tells,

Of his own sacrifices,

Creating buildings he sells,

And getting good prices,

A reporter then asks,

Is that sacrificial?

No shame, he just basks,

Harsh tweets his epistle.

Political poem for after the conventions

-->

 To thinking republicans of good will:

A contrast so sharp it’s hard to tell,

Is the Republican party now an empty shell?

Reagan said, “tear down the wall,”

Trump’s vision: make it tall,

Yes, indeed, a different fence,

But one’s for freedom, the other tense,

Many friends of the G-O-P,

Seem lost and searching, though most can see,

The man named Trump is not really theirs,

He’s for himself, selling broken wares,

A political fight based on ideas,

Now replaced with empty dares,

So please consider and do it fast,

That voting choices of the past,

Have become today a stark decision,

Hopeful light or dark derision,

Hillary, too, has her flaws,

But she’s steady smart, and broke no laws,

The FBI and Congress investigated,

No indictment anticipated,

So let’s move on and make a pledge,

Vote your conscience, stay off the ledge,

The man who tweets, markets well,

But what he’s selling can go to hell.

Election blog in six verses

A pivot point in history,

Confronts us all today,

To most it’s not a mystery,

But for others, hard to say,

Making news, the Donald man,

With words meant to arouse,

Fear filled folks, a dangerous plan,

Playing to the crowds,

Hillary, oh Hillary,

Now see what has been wrought,

They pillory and pillory,

They say that you’ve been bought,

Though neither one a perfect choice,

Still not hard to choose,

Hard work and smarts, giving love a voice,

Although she still might lose,

That is why we must unite,

Send a message loud and clear,

With Trump it’s not a future bright,

It’s false promise built on fear,

The time to vote is months away,

Though not soon enough,

For choosing wrong, we all will pay,

The choice is not that tough.

Reunion reflections

-->

Now the years are rolling by me
They are rocking easily
I am older than I once was
And younger than I’ll be
But that’s not unusual
No, it isn’t strange
After changes upon changes
We are more or less the same
After changes we are
More or less the same

Former students who attended Forest Hills High School, in Queens, New York, held a reunion this past weekend. It was a multi-year gathering, covering most of the 1960s and the early 70s. I graduated in 1969 and joined a few hundred of us who shared the experience of attending one of New York City’s best public high schools during exciting but turbulent times. The words above were written by FHHS alum Paul Simon. He graduated in the late 1950s. Simon wrote those words as an additional verse to “The Boxer” after the original recording was released. It’s an anthem about struggling to survive. Those words are a nice summary of my take-away from an evening of reminiscences, mostly sweet.

The "cool" kids still seemed to be cool enough adults; the smart ones still smart; some of the jocks were still in shape; the quieter class members were still laconic; and many of the pretty girls and handsome guys still looked good. After almost 50 years in my case, just being there and sharing several meaningful moments was worth the journey back in time.

I don’t have pictures to share because I was so busy talking to people I missed the photo booth. So here are a few memorable moments from my first and only reunion.

1.     A fellow track team member, a year ahead of me, remembered that I ran the quarter mile and was on a good mile relay team. He and I are still both in shape after all these years and shared clear, positive stories about our track coach.

2.     One of my classmates going back to junior high days is now a teacher at FHHS. She and I shared some memories and talked about how things have changed. I enjoyed hearing about the school from her unique perspective.

3.     A minor mishap—that seemed quite serious at the time—from chemistry class was discussed with my classmate who was splashed in the face with a hot liquid as I heated a test tube. He is fine. But we both remembered it well.

4.     Shared hugs and smiles with many Facebook friends I didn’t know well in high school but have become closer with online.

There is another line from a Paul Simon song that I often think of and take personally, the opening words of Kodachrome. “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” As much as I admire the music and words of Simon, I am afraid that’s one line with which I disagree. Like many others, I was eager to move on from high school and leave the area where I grew up. But after all these years, looking back on all I learned in high school—not just in the classrooms—it was a pretty good time where we were encouraged to think critically with intellectual curiosity that survives. Thank you to all who were part of those days. Many are gone, but their memories survive. For those of us still at it, rock on.

A Girl from Brooklyn -- A Boy from Queens

-->

One of the endearing story lines after the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been his close friendship with his colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a philosophically divided court, Scalia and Ginsburg represented the most conservative and the most liberal wings of that split. That they were close friends in spite of their political differences should give hope to us all.

Each of their soaring intellects was nurtured in the outer boroughs of New York City. Scalia grew up in Elmhurst, Queens, and Ginsburg is from Flatbush, Brooklyn. They were close in age. Ginsburg is almost exactly three years older than Scalia. And both went on to graduate with high honors from top law schools, Harvard for Scalia, Columbia for Ginsburg who started at Harvard but transferred when her husband took a job in New York.

Apparently, they laughed at many of the same jokes, enjoyed good eating, and their families celebrated New Years’ Eves together. So if two of the brightest legal minds in our country, that disagree on almost every substantive matter, can nurture a great friendship over decades, shouldn’t our political leaders do better?

Perhaps their similar upbringing, the Italian Catholic kid from Queens and the Jewish girl from Brooklyn, gave them a head start at friendship. But in terms of political philosophy, they went in opposite directions. Still, when they joined the high court, they found common ground and mutual respect in spite of their vast political differences. We could use much more of that.

In my mind, that’s how we make America great again.

The Trump Express is a dangerous ride

First, he went after the Mexicans. Then he went after the Muslims. Who's next?

Growing up in Queens, NY, I knew at least a half-dozen guys like Donald Trump. The blowhards I remember were all above average or outstanding in at least one facet of adolescent life. Good looking, smart, a legitimate “tough guy” or maybe an exceptional athlete or student, these loudmouths all had one thing in common. They were narcissists who believed their abilities or gifts entitled them to show others what to do or how to live their lives. The implied payoff was that if you follow their lead you will be like them and share in whatever notoriety or popularity they enjoyed. Those who followed the blowhards quickly learned that it was never about them, the followers, but always about burnishing the reputation or popularity of the narcissist. This type of person can come from anywhere; I just happen to find Trump's version familiar because we grew up in the same area.

So go ahead if you think the Donald is the answer. Jump on his train and see where it takes you. Despite his promises, you’ll find out in the end none of what he is selling is really about the greater good. Ultimately, it’s all about him. That’s the way it always is with these guys.

That's my view. 

Speaking of Sports (Not Only for Sports Fans)

"Speaking of Sports" is the name used by the late Howard Cosell for his radio reports on the ABC Networks. Cosell was more than a sports reporter and analyst. He connected the world of sports with the world itself. He became a champion for boxing champion Muhammad Ali. Howard Cosell could be bombastic but also eloquent. He made sports about more than a game, a match, a bout, a contest. Cosell would remind us that sports and society are intertwined and that sport often leads the larger culture in social change. Jackie Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball preceded the civil rights act by almost two decades. Muhammad Ali brought the Vietnam War into sharp focus by his conscientious objection to serving. And the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics exposed the vulnerability of peaceful events to the tactics of terrorists.

Avid sports fans know well what Cosell was talking about when he extrapolated the world of sports and placed it in its larger role in international relations and domestic policy. The perpetrators of this month’s attacks in Paris chose a “friendly” football (soccer) match as one of the prime targets for their brutality. Sports at the highest level attract attention. Big events draw big audiences on television and in stadiums around the world. Watching great athletes is observing a form of artistry like no other. A LionelMessi goal from a seemingly impossible pass, LeBron James sinking a 25 foot bank shot while barely looking at the hoop, or Serena Williams hitting a down the line winner while running at full speed and off-balance, show us the fullest potential of physical achievement in a way that is satisfying and fun. To steal a phrase from ABC Sports of the late last century, “the human drama of athletic competition, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat,” remind us that we are human, capable of greatness but always vulnerable.

Reports of cheating and corruption have tainted big time sports at the highest level. The NFL’s “Deflate Gate,” and FIFA’s top tier payoffs and charges of international bribery rightfully embarrass businesses that support the artistry of great athletes. And the cover-ups regarding concussions and more serious head injuries in gridiron football are a disgrace to that sport and the exploitation of athletes at its worst. Yet kids in America will put on helmets and strive to lead a team and throw a funny shaped “ball” with the accuracy and composure of Russell Wilson. Children around the world will lace up their cleats and play what we in the USA call “soccer” with hopes of running fast and striking the ball like Ronaldo or blocking shots with the reflexes of Hope Solo. These young dreams are real and joyful in ways impossible to explain to those who have not played at even the lowest level or who don’t appreciate the beauty of elite athletes at work.

As an ordinary sports fan who long ago gave up dreams of being the next Koufax or Clemente, I am hoping sports can once again lead the way. Our corrupt sporting institutions must purge themselves of exploitative liars whose main concern is their own enrichment. The illusion of fair play and concern for athletes has to be replaced by actual caring organizations that put the welfare of players before profits. With the world on edge and some politicians attempting to appeal to our worst instead of our best, sports can once again take a leading role in improving lives. The sports world can set an example of excellence with unselfish concern for those who provide uplifting moments on the field for those in the stands and beyond.

Real reform in big-time sports is unlikely anytime soon unless there are financial consequences for maintaining the status quo. But, the sports world has led the way before. So, there is hope. And as John Lennon put it, “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”

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.