I am emceeing a big event in Las Vegas November 17 and 18 at the Las Vegas Hilton. Here’s a video to explain it all. If you’re looking to jump start your business in this new economy and go green, this is the place to start. You will also have a chance to network with companies from around the United States and around the world while also being a part of the International Congress of Business Professionals. I was enticed by their strong educational programs that will train and re-train workers and executives in this new world. I’ve written many times here that the economy went through a tectonic shift in the past two years. Those who understand it and are educated to navigate the wreckage and the opportunities will thrive in the next few years. I think this is one place to start.
This is a posting about a new show called Hung on HBO. I recommend it highly. See I’m not anti-entertainment, though my recent columns rail about entertainment bias. I want to be entertained with shows like Hung, Dexter, and The Tudors – not during newscasts. I want you to get the news you need quickly and efficiently so you can be entertained by good shows like these. I also defend my Irishness.
LAS VEGAS, NV (July 14, 2009) – Hung is worth watching.
As we do with new shows that we might like, we record the first two episodes and make no judgment until the second episode is watched. My wife Teri announced, “I’m hooked” at the same time a similar sentence was about to leave my mouth.
The show centers on a high school teacher and basketball coach, Ray Drecker (played by Thomas Jane) who is down on his luck financially and emotionally. Because he thinks his only marketable skill or trait is his large penis, he goes into the high-end world of male prostitution.
Yes, it sounds x-rated. It’s not. If you can tolerate The Tudors (my absolute top show on air) which has some incredibly revealing sex scenes, then Hung will not offend you.
The sex in Hung is like the killing in Dexter (my second favorite show). It’s not ubiquitous; it’s only there in small doses, although its effect permeates the show and its plot.
Like Dexter and The Tudors, Hung is appealing because it tells a great story that resonates with viewers today.
Ray Drecker is a man approaching middle age in an economic downturn. His career seemed to peak in high school when he was the star basketball player. He never left that stage and decades later he’s still there but now as a pathetic figure. Who among us, reaching into their 30s and beyond, hasn’t feared what Ray has become?
And, of course, who among us – mainly men – hasn’t thought about a side job that might be pleasurable, nefarious, and lucrative? But, as we see in the first two episodes, such a side job is not as fun as we had thought. The writers are already setting up some great conflicts. The most appealing will have Ray’s social jock ineptitude as its basis. In short, he’s clueless about what women think or feel — a feeling most of us guys suffer from.
What really makes the show shine are two of the women characters. It’s the same result of Sex and the City: the non-featured male characters – think Big ironically — made the main female characters more real and interesting.
With Hung, the same is true. Tanya (played by Jane Adams) becomes Ray’s pimp, agent, and business partner. She is not a sex-starved woman, but a struggling entrepreneur trying to succeed in this new economy. She sees Ray and his talent as the commodity and her ticket to financial freedom.
The other woman is Jessica Haxon (played by Anne Heche) who is Ray’s ex-wife. She left him for a nerdy plastic surgeon. Yet she’s conflicted about her failed marriage and how it affects her two teenage kids.
Anne Heche plays the role with her usual ease. She’s brilliant and her brilliance is so transparent and hard to articulate. It has to be her abilities to morph into any character and touch a chord that the audience feels. But it could also be her ability to pick shows – Deadwood and Men in Trees – that offer compelling, off-beat, quirky, yet believable stories that quietly reveal themes that makes you feel these folks are living at the same time we are.
My only problem with Hung is that it is anti-Irish. Think about it.
I’m about ready to embark on an internet TV show. I need some feedback to mold it the right way.
In generic terms, here’s what the show will be:
It will air live on the net — and then eventually other venues such as TV, radio, satellite radio, cell phones. The show will cover news, live breaking news, news analysis, sports, entertainment, business, consumer, and how it is all changing due to our new world. It will have the feel of talk-radio but on television with tons of interviews with journalists, experts, leaders, newsmakers, and the audience. The tone of the show will be fun but fair: think of the messages in my book; no Fox or MSNBC bias. The show will last 2 to 3 hours but viewers can come in and out throughout the time period. All the segments will then be archived for future viewing or if there’s a specific segment that needs to be watched or used.
Here are my questions:
1.) Is there a particular 3-hour time period you would prefer to tune in for the live show? Give it to me with your time zone.
2.) Is there something special you want on a show like this? Certain topics? Certain kinds of guests? In other words, what is not being done for you in the media that you would like to see.
3.) Is there something you don’t want?
You can respond to this blog, on my facebook page, or to info@johndaly.tv
Thanks.
This is a posting about the media attention on the U.S Airways pilot who safely landed the crippled jet into the Hudson River. We desperately need him and others. In fact, as you read on, I introduce you to another hero, another Sully. His name is Bill Bailey and he is trying to, literally, pave a future for our environment and some poor countries.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 18, 2009) – Don’t be surprised at the extensive media coverage and attention to the successful emergency landing of US Air Flight 1549. It’s not the story’s news value. And it’s not because we have the actual video of the water crash. No, it’s the story’s psychological value.
We desperately need a hero.
Look at the parade of screw-ups and scoundrels we’ve had for the past eight years. The line-up includes many people in the Bush Administration – including the President, Vice President and other elected officials like the now incarcerated Duke Cunningham. Many of these are politically-connected people who didn’t get their jobs through merit but guile, cunning, and deceit.
The results show it: Katrina, the aftermath of the Iraq War, and the lack of policing in the well-connected and special interest spending financial industry.
In addition, we have some of the smartest people in America who used their brain power for self-gain and the destruction of others. As I mentioned in a previous column, Bernie Madoff is only the beginning.
So, we’ve been searching for a new American hero.
Enter Pilot Chesley B Sullenberger III – a.k.a Sully. Call it fate or a Black Swan event. It might be Divine Intervention where a benevolent God says, “OK, you’ve gone through enough. Here’s something I bestow on you. I call him Sully.”
Sully landed that crippled jet into the Hudson River. Reports say Sully was the last man off the floating craft. He wanted to make sure everyone was out safely. Wow, a leader who feels his life is no more important than others.
Sully also made what seemed to be a split-second decision after considering a multitude of options. Wow, a leader who is a certified expert.
Take a look at his bio and his education and you’ll understand how Sully performed flawlessly under pressure. He’s well-educated in his field and he has a deep pride and interest in what he does. It’s no wonder that Sully shrugged off his heroism as just something he does.
Memo to Barack Obama: Sully sits in the gallery and is introduced at your first State of the Union.
Sully fits Obama’s style. The comparison is too rich. Sully safely maneuvering a crippled aircraft is an allegory for Obama’s treacherous journey to a hopefully soft-landing in the economy. In these times, we need something that obvious.
In other words, Barack doesn’t have to go it alone. Sully is there. And the media gets it.
I write a lot about media bias. I try to be balanced by not offering too much opinion, but uncovering the different forms of bias. Some bias is inevitable. The Sponsor Bias goes without saying. Some media outlets will not tell the truth or avoid certain stories about sponsors who help keep them in business. I don’t like the trade-off, but I understand it. And I feel compelled to write about it so folks can make their own assessment.
Another media bias is Entertainment Bias. The extreme is the constant coverage of people like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears. It’s journalism that borders on an uncomfortable voyeurism. I felt it for John Travolta after the untimely death of his son. Please stop the stories and allow them to grieve in private.
But here’s where media bias – or in this case Entertainment Bias — is good. The media understands what we as a people need. And they have presented us with Sully.
He’s not rich; he lives in middle class America with what seems to be the every-American family. He’s not young; he’s 57 with decades of flying experience. And according to reports, he’s humble. All indications are he’s not going to change either. It makes you feel that W and Bernie are in the rear view mirror.
But Sully is not alone. Look around and you will find more Sully’s. I have.
His name is Bill Bailey. Bill may come across as a good old boy. But like Sully, he is well-educated in his field with decades of experience. He also has great pride in his work. He carries around a plastic cup of gray rubber pellets that might be an answer to pulling some countries out of poverty.
Let me explain. Bill works on roads. More precisely, he has created technologies that turn tires into asphalt.
The process is not new. It’s been around for almost 30 years. Simply put, you crush up old tires, treat them, add them to a hot mixture, and then spread it on the roads. Decades of testing show that tire asphalt creates roads that need less maintenance, are quieter, and are safer since cars can stop quicker in the rain.
And environmentally, for every one mile of paved highway with tire asphalt, 2000 tires are removed from landfills. That means less toxicity in nearby drinking water and less chance of those choking tire fires.
The problem is that this technology is expensive and cumbersome. To pave a road you need to bring what seems to be an entire factory to the site. So unless you have miles and miles of road to pave, tire asphalt might be too costly. In other words, if you wanted to pave your driveway or your backyard for your kid’s basketball court, you might need another mortgage.
That is until now.
Bill and his partner Ian Cousins formed the company and clever moniker Billian International. Together, they created a process – that is now patented – that will allow the tire asphalt process to be done on a smaller, less expensive scale. Take a look at this crude but revealing video of their testing.
Primarily, Bill and Ian have created a way to treat the crushed tire so the tire pellets — the ones he carries around as samples — can be used in the field efficiently while maintaining the long-term integrity of the finished road. Now Billian will license that process to paving companies. Billian will also build plants for entrepreneurs who can remove tires from their landfills and turn them into pellets to sell to paving companies. (We’re discussing franchising such plants.)
Yes, there is a business opportunity here for many of you.
And there is a great opportunity for Bill and Ian to make a lot of money. Look at all the infrastructure projects that will be funded through the Obama Economic Stimulus Package. Some of it could be heading indirectly in Bill Bailey’s direction.
But when I sit with Bill and talk about his technology, it’s not about the money. He wants to improve the world. “We can go over to some of those countries and pave roads in between villages and help them create commerce,” he tells me. He has a big smile and says, “We can do some good.”
And that “good” comes in the form of helping to grow an economy while cleaning up the environment rather than the decades of corporate indifference to the health and well-being of foreign people.
Some disclosure here. I’m trying to help Bill Bailey raise money to launch and market Billian. So yes, I have a financial interest in talking about him here.
But if you could sit with Bill and hear him talk about this, you too would be inspired beyond just making money.
Even if you don’t believe me about Bill’s intentions, what’s so cool about his work is that he’s creating something. He’s manufacturing. It’s not a financial instrument with illusionary money that most of us don’t understand.
Getting back to making stuff is what we need.
And Bill Bailey, along with Sully and Barack, have a chance of making a difference for all of us – and with all of us.
This is a posting after watching the first few days of the new television network dedicated entirely to baseball. I’m scared for myself now and for viewers later. Expect a nasty legal fight in a few years.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 2, 2009) – I’ve just spent part of the morning watching Don Larsen throw his perfect game in the 1956 World Series. It’s on the new MLB TV.
My fear: My business will start to fail and I’m going to get fat. (OK, fatter!)
I then caught myself during commercials – the ones for Gillette razors with Birdie Tebbets in the 1950s and the ones today – searching to see when other shows are airing. I have to know when the discussion of off-season trades and free agent signings – otherwise known as the Hot Stove League – will be airing. I’m so screwed.
I live baseball and diligently follow the Red Sox. I have been a baseball nut since I was five. I remember parts of the 1961 Series. I also remember the dramatic end to the 1962 Series: a line-out by the Giants Willie McCovey to the Yankees Bobby Richardson. The pitcher was Ralph Terry with whom I’ve played golf in the past few years and have been able to talk to him about it. Think about it. I talked to him about something that he participated in and I remember from 46 years ago. And now I can relive it all over again.
MLB will be like a sedative for many of us dealing with the economic downturn. Watching the fuzzy black and white of the Yankees and Dodgers in 1956 was very settling. It brought us back to a time that was simpler. As Jackie Robinson strides to the plate, we tell ourselves that even the seeds of removing our racist past were evident back then. For many too, it will help remind us of what our parents and grandparents loved.
Fortunately, MLB TV only comes in on one TV in my house. And apparently you can’t watch it online – only on cable or satellite.
That means there may be Information Age problems in a few years.
Major League Baseball owns the majority (67%) of the network while cable and satellite owners have a minority (33%) stake. This agreement allows the network to get on the air in many homes.
However, what happens in a few years when people start getting their television programming from the Internet? Will the minority ownership allow MLB TV reach more people at a lower cost at their expense? You could see a major fissure in this agreement or you might see cable and satellite companies restricting who can get MLB TV.
Already the seeds of this conflict are appearing. Ion Network (formerly Pax) is battling the cable companies. Ion wants to create an Urban TV Network, but they want to launch it with local TV stations that now have four or five channels to program once the digital age of TV begins next month.
The cable companies won’t air the Urban TV Network on the local television tier without getting paid for it directly even though cable companies are required to carry local TV stations’ programs. Expect a good battle here and to spill over to other media outlets who want more audience with less cost.
The fallout for cable could be this. The cost of cable has risen – despite the fact I can’t get whatever NFL game I want. So, if people can go to their local TV stations or the Internet for programming similar to cable and it’s free, then cable is in trouble.
This shouldn’t bother us baseball addicts too much over the next few years, though. So enjoy it. Just warn your spouse.
This is a posting explaining why you have to be engaged when watching TV and reading a newspaper – even when reading this column. News is not a spectator sport.
LAS VEGAS, NV (December 26, 2008) – Stratfor this past week offered a revisionist – and well-thought out – history of Watergate and the effects on journalism.
Keep this in mind, when you are watching and reading news.
The examination was done in conjunction with the death of Mark Felt – aka Deep Throat. Stratfor didn’t revise any wrongdoings by President Nixon and his White House. But they questioned how the story was presented to the public and how that might have affected journalism decades later and today.
In short, the unveiling of Watergate was directed by an intelligence and law enforcement agency – the FBI. And the sole source, known by the journalists and the Washington Post, had an axe to grind; Felt was not chosen as the head of the FBI by Nixon. Felt then engaged in J. Edgar Hoover-like moves by spilling insider information on the executive branch of government.
By keeping Felt’s secret for so long, the public was denied full access to the motivations and biases of what could have been considered a rogue shadow government behind the leaking of the story.
Stratfor concludes there has been no real examination by news organizations of undisclosed sources over the years. As a result, Stratfor concludes:
What appears to be enterprising journalism is in fact a symbiotic relationship between journalists and government factions. It may be the best path journalists have for acquiring secrets, but it creates a very partial record of events — especially since the origin of a leak frequently is much more important to the public than the leak itself. Stratfor December 24, 2008.
Watergate and the success of Woodward and Bernstein launched many journalism careers: yours truly included. For three years in newspapers and four years in TV as an investigative reporter, I used my share of confidential sources to get stories. Corroborating those sources with other sources that went on the record was my main objective. Trust me, if I was going to be attacked physically, verbally, and legally, then I wanted to know I had the story stone cold.
No doubt it was exciting and rewarding work. I truly think I helped correct some wrongs. But it was also a heavy responsibility. You could be destroying people’s careers or futures. Knowing the motivation of the people in the shadows is paramount. But anyone who watched my reports would have to trust me. In today’s checkbook journalism world credibility is hard to sell.
The easy journalistic frauds to figure out are folks like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Neil Bortz all of whom continued to dredge up half-truth stories about Obama only days before the election while failing to offer other, most times more qualified, sources. We all know that the entertainers at night on Fox News Channel, talk radio, and MSNBC deliver stories with an angle – their angle. If you quote them as a source, then don’t be surprised if someone questions your fairness or accuracy.
That being said, it’s the major news organizations – like the Wall Street Journal (now owned by Fox), The New York Times, and the Washington Post – that you need to really question. Do these companies exist to deceive us? No. They’re reputable organizations. But they’re working in a non-scientific field; things change and they get stories wrong either innocently or through lazy reporting and editing.
These organizations should be scrutinized as much as they allegedly scrutinize our elected officials and business leaders. We should examine the news organizations and their sources motivations – and not just because they’re “liberal” or “conservative” which is the fall-back attack of extremists against news they don’t like.
Take the Blagojevich story. Has anyone really shown what crime he’s committed? Not yet. Does that mean he’s guilty? We don’t know. Should we question the motives of Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald? You bet. But we need time to see this through – for the sake of justice.
Remember: news reporting is just a one day snap shot in time. There’s the story about Einstein’s student telling him that Einstein had mistakenly given the same questions on a final exam from the year before. Einstein said he knew it. Even though the questions were the same, he explained to the student, the answers this year are different.
In addition, let me add that all news organizations are facing tough financial times. News staffs are being cut back here and around the world. Meanwhile, more journalists are being killed or arrested around the world. Though not as ominous, our new Administration is depending more on social networking sites to reach you. They could also be controlling the message, too.
What does this mean? It means you are the most important journalist in your life. You need to work when you watch and read the news. Let me help you.
If you want a copy of my book – for free – write to me at info@johndaly.tv and put “free book” in the subject line and I will email you a copy of the book.
This is a posting about the self-congratulating media coverage of the Obama presidency and race. It’s time to remember who President Obama really is: he’s black, but he’s also white. It’s also time to realize that the majority of voters – especially the younger generation – are not as hung-up as those over 40.
LAS VEGAS, NV (November 5, 2008) – JT is a former heavyweight boxer turned personal trainer. I arrived at his gym in shorts and a tank top. JT, who is black, smiles and says, “You got some black blood in you.”
It was a compliment. To deflect embarrassment, I used sexual humor. “Not from the waist down.”
The Irish scourge is always handy for a good laugh. JT laughed and was cool.
JT comes to mind as I watched the pre and post election coverage as the media – as well as the pundits on the left and the right – continue to drive home the theme of our first black president.
Don’t get me wrong, this is historic. Being raised in the 1960s from the liberal northeast and who eventually covered racial stories in The South, I was nearly moved to tears during Obama’s acceptance speech. This is why folks fought during that tumultuous decade 40 years ago.
And I think the celebrations are appropriate. But let’s not continue to dwell on this. The media will, however, continue to ride this story. Why? It’s easy.
The problem: it’s unconscious racism. We call Barack Obama the first black president – but he’s also white. Why don’t we call him the first mixed-race president? Technically, he’s mulatto.
As the media continues to roll out story after story about Obama’s race, the underlying theme to me is this: see how good we white folk are; we accepted someone who is not pure white.
This underlying bias plays to older white Americans. I don’t just mean the guy – who I know — who’s in his 50s and proudly proclaimed he voted for the first time yesterday just to “vote against the nigger.” No, I also mean the folks over 40 who strictly see Obama as a black guy. I also want to wake up folks like Spike Lee who need to realize Barack isn’t just your blood; he belongs to white folk too, which makes him all of ours.
I’m proud to say I don’t see Obama as a black man. I see him as an American just as I see Jessica, the young girl who accompanied me at the First Tee of Southern Nevada golf event on Monday. Jessica is 12 and she could be Hispanic or Asian. I never asked her or her mom. I didn’t really care. She was a great kid who loved golf and had a loving family with her. They were the American Dream realized.
As I look around at various public places in Las Vegas, I see more and more mixed race kids. And they’re all playing or gathering with their friends who are mixed race also. But it’s not a big deal to them. And I don’t think it’s a big deal to the many young voters who came out in droves yesterday.
So, will the news media please join the majority of us – spend no more time on the first black president — and move onto the issues?
For those of you who can’t move on, who are too racist and myopic in your views — let me open your white eyes.
Ronald Reagan was probably our first black president. How so? Well, Ronny was black Irish. Black Irish are folks of Irish descent who have Mediterranean blood lines. History tells us that the Celtic line mixed with this southern European strain either in 1066 through William the Conqueror or, mostly likely, in 1588 when the British Navy sunk the Spanish Armada off the coast of Ireland.
Those Spanish sailors swam to shore and mated with those fine milky skinned, strawberry hair lasses thus changing the Gaelic gene pool. Just look at a photo of Ronny Reagan or my headshot and you will see a classic dark hair and blue eye Black Irish.
Here’s where I go further in my genealogical theory. I explain to folks that the Spanish blood was also mixed with Moor blood, which is African blood. Yes, there was plenty of mating between Spain and the northern tip of Africa. So, that makes Ronald Reagan – and me — African.
With all the new DNA testing available today, many of us white folk can find out we have African blood. (Now I could make a smart aleck remark like, “Then why can’t I dance? But I won’t since Whitney Houston has no rhythm either.)
And just as we share the same blood, we also share the same shame. White America should – and does — feel the historic pain of slavery. But black America also realizes their culpability in our racist past. Read the classic book Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison from the 1950s where Ellison reminds us that black on black violence and racism was prevalent, too. Pick up Thomas Sowell’s recent book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Sowell explains how the low-income, low esteem black males took their cue from the Southern Scots Irish of the 1800s who enjoyed drinking, loafing and sex more than work, family, and sobriety.
To understand how far we’ve come, watch Chocolate News on Comedy Central. David Allen Grier hosts it. I nearly split a gut while watching his piece on a De-Negrofication Clinic for wiggers.
After watching that show and seeing how the majority of America voted Tuesday, I began to think we can all laugh at our past ignorance – and move on. Hopefully, the media will allow us.
This is a posting about the week which saw a controversial debate, a not-so surprising investigation into the media being duped by the Pentagon, a defiant doggy act – and what you can do about two out of three.
LAS VEGAS (April 20, 2008) — Our puppy Nike was obviously angry. My wife and I were gone for five hours at a charity event. He was left in the portable kennel for five hours. When we returned, he went outside to pee. But then he ran upstairs and pooped in the bedroom; not in one area, but three different spots.
He’s a smart dog. He got his point across. But he also understood our anger. He hung his head and stayed stationary in a “time out” position. Hours later, he remained a model of good behavior.
We need to do the same – show our anger — with our elected officials and the media. But we also need to realize they are like pets: they have their own specific agenda and they’re not really aware of what’s going on with us. Too often we’re apathetic owners of this country we claim to so dearly love.
Let’s look at the Democratic debate last week. First, understand it was a TV debate. That means it needs to be entertaining and lack substance. So, I don’t have any problems with the questions to Barack Obama about what he said about angry people clinging to guns. I have no problem with people criticizing him for his less than stellar responses. I have no problems with him being asked about the stupid questions about whether his psycho pastor loves America or why he doesn’t wear a lapel pin.
My problem is that the debate was lopsided against Obama just as I thought some of the earlier debates were lopsided against Hillary Clinton. Why wasn’t Hillary grilled on her now former operative Mark Penn and his connections to a Colombian trade deal?
I’m a big fan of Charlie Gibson. So, I was disappointed in his performance as an entertainer more than a journalist that night. I doubt we would have seen that performance from the late Peter Jennings. George Stephanopoulos’ performance doesn’t surprise me. He’s not a journalist; he’s a political operative. We know this and he once worked for Bill Clinton’s White House.
(For the record, I have met and spent time with both Gibson and Jennings. I have never met Stephanopoulos.)
Here’s the point. Watch these debates for entertainment only. Don’t let these silly versions of reality game shows help you decide who to vote for.
As I write in my book, television is good for two things: immediacy and emotion. Depth of issues is something you get from books and websites using experts.
Like lax pet owners, we seem to forget the mounds of crap shoveled to us by George Bush that made us vote for him in 2000. We elected an intellectual lightweight who we thought he’d be a good guy to have at a backyard barbeque. We’re not deciding who our neighbors are. We’re electing a commander in chief who will have the fate of our jobs and our lives in his or her hands.
You need to reprimand both the candidates and the networks for their behavior. Did we really get any answers to Social Security, Medicare, the War in Iraq, immigration, energy independence from this debate? No. Frankly, any debate between Barack and Hillary is a waste. They agree on most issues, so it comes down to an ugly popularity contest.
Now let’s look at the New York Times investigation of the TV networks use of military experts who are controlled by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.
My take: any general or military expert who helped push the WMD argument to get us into war should be banned from appearing on network TV. We’re fining networks for showing some skin on TV. So why wouldn’t you push a worse punishment for smart people who knowingly deceived the American public about going to war that has led to the deaths of four thousand troops? Frankly, I would prosecute them.
Many of these retired generals had jobs with defense contractors. They clearly put their own economic principles ahead of their duty to the United States people.
Again, I have no problems with their opinions. My anger is two-fold. One, they never disclosed that they were getting their talking points from the Pentagon. Two, they never disclosed they were working for defense contractors bidding on government contracts.
And the networks are as much to blame. They never vetted these so-called experts. Why? It’s to easy not to do that. That takes time and money. And if they found someone who’s an independent thinker, then that person won’t have access to the White House.
Again, TV is not an information medium. It’s an entertainment medium. Its main goal is to get ratings and if being a propaganda tool brings in ratings and dollars, the media will do it.
Watch CNBC. They no longer disclose what conflicts the guest analysts have with certain stocks they’re discussing. They were quite vigilant a few years ago after the Enron and Martha Stewart scandals. But not now.
And if CNBC was that worried about the truth why wouldn’t they have fired Jim Kramer of Mad Money. Two days before the collapse of Bear Stearns he yelled that Bear Stearns is fine. Kramer’s not on for his stock picking; he’s on for ratings. He’s an entertainer. Would you pick stocks or set up your portfolio based on that show? I hope not. (Some disclosure: I work for BNY Mellon Wealth Management. See how simple disclosure is.)
The same is true about the political debates. Why would you decide who to vote for based on this artificial, lack of substance debates on TV?
This is why you need to be the most important journalist in your life. You need to question everything you hear on TV news. Everyone has an agenda. That’s not to say there isn’t good information, but you need to be less accepting of its total veracity. And you need to realize that networks are cutting corners, so you’re not necessarily getting the best trained and most experienced journalists.
Again, please read my book. (Blatant disclosure: Yes, I’m trying to sell my book.) If not, then the media and the politicians will continue pooping on your bedroom floor.
This is a posting about the changing news media. It’s changing because all of us are now a part of the news media whether we know it or whether we like it. I’ll tell you how to do it successfully for your business, your hobby, or your political campaign.
LAS VEGAS, NV (March 30, 2008) – Thanks to my book, politicians and political operatives ask me overwhelmingly about overcoming media bias.
The main complaint: reporters fail to give equal time or weight to both sides. And many times, the offended politician or operative has a valid point or at least a semblance of one. However, I’m not quick to bash the media – especially the television side.
First, TV news is a visual and auditory medium. So if a politician is looking to explain a complex issue, TV usually can’t do it in a 15-second sound bite or a 90- second story.
Second, TV is an entertainment medium. Reporters have a tendency to handle stories with conflict only between two sides – where one side wins and the other loses. Try getting “deep” on the immigration issue which has more gray than black or white.
Third, TV is being squeezed financially. This deals more with local stations.
TV stations must switch from the analog to the digital spectrum in 2009. That takes a lot of money. Furthermore, stations are losing their piece of the advertising pie to cable, satellite, and the Internet. Margins are tight in TV.
That means TV stations have less money to hire experienced reporters. Stations seem to be hiring more reporters – to handle the bulk of the reporting – who are just out of broadcasting or J-school. As a result, context and depth can be missing from many stories. I refer to this as TV’s youth bias.
A friend’s recent experience with a TV station best explains the three factors I just mentioned.
This friend is an author. He’s an expert on a number of issues. So, the station called him to comment on a story that pertained to one of his books. The TV reporter was a young man who asked my friend, as the photographer was setting up the camera, “What do I ask you?”
My friend was dumbfounded. “The reporter is asking me what to ask? I couldn’t believe it.” I told him not to shoot the reporter. This young reporter probably had five other stops that night for interviews on topics he barely knew about. Then I explained the three points I outlined above.
What’s happening to TV reporters today is this. They’ve become 5/7 reporter. They’re more porter, picking up stories, rather than reporter, assessing and analyzing stories.
(I can’t take credit for that. Credit Tom Armitage. Tom was a great photographer I worked with in Providence at WPRI from 1985 to 1987. To make sure I didn’t get too big of an on-camera ego, he told me that letter formula. Then he told me to carry the rest of his gear.)
The majority of what we consider media bias is errors of omission. So, I tell these politicians and operatives to stop getting angry. Instead, help these TV stations and help yourself. This pertains to businesses as well.
You need to Be The News. Create your content. And today it’s easy.
First, use your webpage. It’s exactly what I’ll be doing. When someone hits your webpage or is directed there, they should see a video presentation from you. Check with your webmaster if your site can accommodate streaming video.
Second, prepare a five minute talk. For instance, a local official believed a talk show host based an interview with him on incorrect information. I told the official to do one of two things. First, do a five minute on-camera talk to your constituency laying out the interviewer’s inconsistencies. Second, if you feel uncomfortable with that format, have someone act as a reporter asking you questions about the reporters inconsistencies.
I told him to email his constituents with a link to the five minute talk or interview. The voters who are interested will view it. The ones that don’t most likely aren’t following the issue. However, if the issue catches fire, the news media will ask to take parts of the talk or interview to use on their broadcast, which would be great. Sure, they can edit it, but at least the public can see it in its entirety.
Think of the implications for a business. Let’s say you run a motorcycle shop. Your manufacturer tells you there’s a part recall. You can be “up front” with your customers and let them know what’s happening and how you will handle it. And if nothing is happening, you can at least speak to your customer once a month about an issue concerning them.
That five minute talk or interview will, in most cases, be much cheaper than producing a 30-second TV spot. You won’t have to pay for air time. Plus, you’re reaching a niche audience – your customers – and not ten times more people who don’t care about you or your product or service.
The Internet is working. Just look at Barack Obama. You may not vote for him, but you have to admire what his campaign has done. The amount of money raised from small donors is amazing.
But Obama’s campaign is using the Internet and social websites to get the word out while circumventing the mainstream media. A recent New York Times article, “Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass It On,” writes this:
Senator Barack Obama’s videotaped response to President Bush’s final State of the Union address — almost five minutes of Mr. Obama’s talking directly to the camera — elicited little attention from newspaper and television reporters in January.
But on the medium it was made for, the Internet, the video caught fire. Quickly after it was posted on YouTube, it appeared on the video-sharing site’s most popular list and Google’s most blogged list. It has been viewed more than 1.3 million times, been linked by more than 500 blogs and distributed widely on social networking sites like Facebook.
So how do you do this?
Go to any production company that offers an Internet TV studio. Make sure they’re not giving you a Hollywood production – and the associated costs. All you want is a camera that focuses correctly so the image looks like you, and a good microphone so it sounds like you.
Here are some suggestions. In fact, you can see interviews I’ve done with these experts: Dave Bernstein, Mike Stewart, and Mike Koenigs.
If you’re in Las Vegas and you need a studio, here’s the one I use: Vixzen Productions.
Questions or comments, leave me here.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 13, 2008) –John Alexander is an author and a PhD. Yet he was apologizing about talking too much during our recent lunch. The reason was my endless questions. After all, he has more letters after his name and his book has more footnotes than mine.
Needless to say, what a great lunch. It’s been nearly two weeks and our conversation still has me thinking.
One of my primary questions to someone like John is this: name two sources of information you’d recommend that balance each other. John’s choices: Aljazeera , the free website the Middle East television network; and Debka, a subscription website that has sources within the Israeli Mossad. I would concur. If there’s a tricky issue in the Middle East, hit both sites. Middle East Media Research Institute is another good one, too.
John kindly read my book. In an email, he told me to look at the chapter in his book on the American media. I already had read that chapter and I suggest you read his entire book, Winning The War, whether you’re in the military or not.
His book, despite the title, is not a treatise on using excessive military power. It’s just the opposite. It’s how to use our smarts – with non-lethal weapons — and make the world a better place. As I noted in a previous post, he also explores what the future world will look like while consulting for U.S. Special Forces. Among the changes, John sees the decline of the nation-state with people having more allegiance to religion or ideas and not geography.
For the most part, John and I see eye-to-eye on the media. However, his view of the media, from his military and academic background, forced me, at times, to defend the media, of which I am, in a cursory way, still a part.
Still, I followed my own advice: always understand the bias and experience of the person who is offering you opinions and findings. John’s experience and bias are far different – and deeper — than mine. He’s not only studied war, but he’s led troops in war in Vietnam. He writes, “The emotional rush, and later mental anguish that follows, when you look your adversary in the eye and kill him, cannot be conveyed by any medium of reporting.”
For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq, John contends that the media could be accused of treason by pre-empting the executive branch by leaking plans, or by getting the adversary to overreact, or just taking advantage of lack security.
For me, looking at this as a news purist, the government needs media scrutiny. After all, the media represents the people, too. However, it’s hard to defend the media when reporters and photographers are waiting on the shoreline as troops come ashore on a sneak attack and the reporting is more about creating TV and entertainment than educating or informing us. So much for news purity.
John also mentions that the media has an agenda. As an absolute, I disagree with him. I think he gives the media, overall, too much credit. To me, the media’s main goal is to get ratings by delivering big stories that people will talk about. Many reports are, in my opinion, misinterpreted as some form of conspiracy or media bias, but usually the offending words or phrases are unconscious or unthinking mistakes. In my years in the media, I don’t recall any reporter with an overt mission to deliberately undermine a government or government agency: to get a big story, yes, but not ruin government.
Still, some members of the media have an ax to grind. Was David Shuster of MSNBC showing disdain for the Clintons with his “pimp-out” remark about Chelsea? I don’t know. Frankly, a lot of candidates and their protective campaigns can piss off reporters in the field who just might want a quote or sound-bite to fill time or space. Related to that, most of us working in the media, particularly those of us in front of the camera, have an ego and a yearning to be lauded publicly.
This need for ratings and publicity has led to the media being manipulated by the government and the military, too. The media was gung-ho to go to war. Some would say too gung-ho. In fact, you could draw a conclusion that the war led to higher TV ratings and even sales for companies like GE which owns NBC News. Later, The New York Times held stories about alleged misuse of the surveillance laws until after the 2004 elections, allowing some to claim the Times helped in Mr. Bush’s re-election.
I’m not pointing a finger either way. You can look at suspicions in both directions. Frankly, there is so much chaos in the media to have a concerted effort to undermine the military or a war. The media, as my friend, Irish journalist Mark Little wrote, are like a bunch of school children begging for attention.
And let’s give kudos to both sides here. The imbedding of the media with troops during the invasion of Iraq was brilliant. John, based on his book, agrees. We saw war up-front in all of its glory and gore. Plus, let’s not forget the scores of media personnel killed in combat zones.
I look at the debates between the media and military in the same light we see most American conflicts: the battle of the common good versus the individual. Certainly freedom of the press has been a foundation for our country and we can see today how the lack of press freedom has deterred developing countries. Conversely our enemies, namely Islamic extremists, have used our freedoms against us.
So, with freedom comes responsibility. And the media has opted, instead, for profits. Don’t get me wrong: I understand. We live in a capitalistic society. Media capitalists have brought us many new technologies. (I also think the big media companies are trying to keep out the smaller and blogger media, but that’s another story.) Plus, these media companies have market research which says the majority of Americans want to be entertained. It makes no financial sense to educate the public when entertainment brings profits.
So in essence if you believe in the free-market, the problem lies with us. And this is where I agree with John without question. In his chapter on the media, he ties the problems in the media to education, or better yet, our diminishing education. Here’s my take: the media fails to hire experts as reporters. It’s too expensive.
John’s take: ”Gone are the days when reporters truly specialized in the issues that they covered.” He says it seems that the editors for our reporters when choosing credible sources of information are Lexus and Nexus and Google. “It is a matter of how an Internet search engine prioritizes information that determines what the investigator will see and in what order.”
He goes on to say that most Americans vote on “near-term solutions based on symptoms” and “do not comprehend the importance of history.”
How does this trend in the media tie to education? For too many years the education system refused to allow experts to teach unless they had a teaching degree. That, fortunately, is changing. I’m not blaming all teachers; there’s plenty of blame to go around with parents who don’t emphasize the importance of education and politicians who refuse to recognize education’s value years and decades after they leave office.
We see the results of this thinking too often. A recent story mentioned an American Idol finalist thought Europe was a country. Even worse, most Americans cannot find Iraq on a map. And think about the media coverage this week: it revolved around the Congressional hearings on baseball doping.
Susan Jacoby, the author of The American Age of Unreason, was spurred to write her book when she overheard two men speaking. One of them didn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor, while the other one explained it was where the Vietnamese attacked the United States.
Furthermore, numerous studies show how American kids are failing at math and science. As our society ages, there will be fewer workers with the skills to create new technologies. We will be beholden to the innovations of other countries – something we haven’t endured for more than a century.
There is no one in the presidential race that’s talking – loudly — about worker re-education. All we hear is how we need to protect American workers. That’s protectionism and a sure-fire way to have a much deeper recession. Mitt Romney, forgetting lessons from his MBA, won the GOP primary in Michigan by promising he would bring back the jobs. Give John McCain credit; he lost Michigan because he discussed education for workers who lose their jobs.
Here’s something to think about. Many Christian Right extremists will shudder at this since it comes from Darwin, who said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” (Special thanks to John Ray’s Heritage Tidbits for pointing out this quote.) Because of our education woes, we Americans are not as responsive to change in the world.
Remember this when you’re listening to the candidates who are trying to find minor distinguishing points between themselves. Make them talk about your future and your kids’ futures. Repeat this mantra. It’s all about the education.
And what you can do on a person level? Become intellectually curious. First, read non-fiction books. I listen to books on tape in the car. Force yourself to read a book for at least a half-hour a day. A word of warning: avoid the cable-yakkers’ books. Find experts to read.
Second, seek and listen to smart people. I’m a smarter and a more interesting person because of my lunch with John Alexander.
Third, when you have a conversation with someone who is passionate about their topic, listen, ask questions, and learn as if they’re talking to you about the Clemens-McNamee hearings.
Fourth, travel and meet new people who are not like you.
Fifth, watch TV discriminately. TV News offers immediacy and emotion, but not the in-depth knowledge on important topics.
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed