Talkin’ ’bout My Generation

You see it from time to time, spread all over social media with reckless abandon.

Defying history, logic and reasoning, there is a growing chorus of complaints about “kids today,” and/or about how “life was better in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s” and even the 1980s.

Social media platforms such as Facebook are plastered by memes that suggest the world is going to hell in a handbasket. These memes and the people who share them point to a simpler time; a better time for children and all of us.

Photo from Pinterest web site

Is it accurate? Are kids today so much worse than the kids of the past? Was life really better in the 1960s?

To borrow from Billy Joel: The good ol’ days weren’t always so good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.

Nostalgia is nice, but it often distorts reality.

Complaints about “kids today” are usually generated by people over 50 years of age. The misgivings about today’s youth are often used as weapons in the war of generations, where there is a growing divide between aging “baby Boomers” and the nearly insufferable Millennials.

Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, so-named because of the population explosion that took place in the United States following the end of WW II.

Boomers today range in age from 60 to 78. This group was preceded by the so-called “Silent Generation,” people born between 1928 and 1945. It is commonly thought that this moniker derives from the notion that children “were to be seen and not heard.” This group represents folks between the ages of 79 to 96.

And yet the so-called “Greatest Generation,” is almost completely gone. The Greatest Generation moniker was created by NBC News journalist Tom Brokaw and his best-selling 1998 book of the same name.

These were the people who came of age during the Great Depression and the 1940s, Brokaw said, and many of them fought in World War II.” In his book, Brokaw described them as “a generation of towering achievement and modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years when they were participants in and witness to sacrifices of the highest order.…This is the greatest generation any society has produced.

On the other end of the scale, we have “Generation Z,” kids born after 1997.

Admittedly, I am biased but it’s probably because I – like so many others – tend to dismiss today’s youth and instead rely on my knee-jerk reaction to “kids today.”

I often want to drive my head into a brick wall, when I read or hear members of Gen Z or their predecessors, Millennials, complain about their elders and about what a horrible world they have inherited.

They (Gen Z and Millennials) actually believe that they are so much more enlightened, tolerant and compassionate than previous generations of Americans who allegedly left behind a world of racism, gender conformity, homophobia and a ruined environment.

They tend to place a greater value on safety versus freedom. They have only known a world that is instantly connected by technology, and they tend to bristle at the word: sacrifice.

Sweet Child of Mine

Are these kids today right or wrong? Are the complaints about them, their music and their culture accurate? Or are these kids today not much different than the kids of the 1970s, the 1950s or even the 1920s?

In the 1950s, many parents were worried about boys in leather jackets with grease in their hair. There was a radical new genre of music exploding on radios. Rock ‘n’ Roll, which was generated by Black musicians, took rhythm and blues to an entirely new level.

Artists such as Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Billie Holiday and Ray Charles ignited the flames of rock music, inspiring so many others, from Elvis Presley to the Rolling Stones. On the Ed Sullivan show, Elvis Presley was shown only from the waist up while performing because his swinging hips were considered “too suggestive.”

But even before then, parents were worried about “lazy, insolent” children who were listening to the “devil’s music,” from artist such as Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman in the 1930s and ‘40s.

Swing music, the adults said, was encouraging sexual promiscuity as boys and girls danced suggestively and “Jitterbug” dancing reigned supreme.

In the 1960s, kids started growing their hair long; many became “anti-society” hippies and embraced a culture of “free love” and increased experimentation with illicit drugs. Today, those kids are getting ready to collect Social Security and buying time-shares in Boca Raton.

You get my point. There is one universal truth about children and their development: they absolutely love to piss-off their parents, crave attention and righteously believe that their generation is the “best.”

It is normal (and actually necessary) for kids to reject traditions; to protest and become aware of the world around them.

A simpler time?

Before you begin to wax nostalgic about how much better life was in the 1950s, the 1960s or the 1970s, consider this:

In the 1950s and 1960s, Black students couldn’t attend the same schools, colleges and universities as white kids. In the 1950s, kids were taught to hide under their desks as fears increased about a possible nuclear attack.

In the 1950s and 1960s, gay people were not allowed to be married or serve in the military. In the 1950s and 1960s, American kids were dying by the thousands in southeast Asia.

In the 1950s and 1960s, women generally earned much less than their male counterparts. When people proclaim that the ‘60s were a “more peaceful” time, I teeter on the edge of having a stroke.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy was assassinated; Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated; Black activist Malcom X was assassinated; Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and the ongoing war in Vietnam escalated.

In the 1950s, we freely dumped toxic waste into rivers and streams. There was no Department of Environmental Protection.

But when – exactly – – did kids become so lazy and misguided?

Well, history is a brutal teacher.

Complaints about “kids today” can be traced to the Fourth Century, BC when Aristotle wrote: “[Children] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. They think they know everything and are quite sure about it.”

Or how about this, first published in 1904 in the Psychology of Adolescence:

“Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, pre-maturities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline…”

Or this from the Portsmouth Evening News in 1936:

“Probably there is no period in history in which young people have given such emphatic utterance to a tendency to reject that which is old and to wish for that which is new.”

In 1938, Leeds Mercury published this excerpt:

“Parents themselves were often the cause of many difficulties. They frequently failed in their obvious duty to teach self-control and discipline to their own children.”

There are many, many more historical examples of complaints regarding today’s young people from every generation since . . . well basically, forever.

In 1858, editors at the New York Times expressed concern about the invention of the telegraph.

“Superficial, sudden, un-sifted, too fast for the truth, must be all telegraphic intelligence. Does it not render the popular mind too fast for the truth? Ten days bring us the mails from Europe. What need is there for the scraps of news in ten minutes? How trivial and paltry is the telegraphic column?”

What would those guys have thought about the internet, Facebook or Tik-Tok?

Damn kids today. Technology is ruining everything!

Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

Jon Stewart – a comedian and talk show host who was once a darling of the far left and progressive Democrats – found himself in some hot water this week when he made his triumphant return to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central network.

Jon Stewart/Photo: Scott Kowalchy, CBS

Stewart previously hosted the late-night “Daily Show” from 1999 to 2015. The show is generally considered satire, but Stewart was well-known for leaning hard left when it came to discussing politics.

Beyond being a comedian, actor, director and producer, Stewart is also a very decent human being who has consistently used his celebrity status to advocate for veterans in need of health care; and for first-responders who are still suffering from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Reportedly, viewership of the Daily Show has been somewhat sluggish since Stewart left the network nearly 10 years ago to pursue other projects, namely a streaming show on Apple + TV, The Problem with Jon Stewart.

So how did this funny, sharp-witted philanthropist — who never hesitates to rail against Donald Trump and the Republican Party — piss off almost every member of the Democratic Party on his first night back on the Daily Show stage?

Well, basically, someone didn’t give him the memo before the cameras began rolling on Monday. Stewart, a predictable defender of Democrats, failed to toe the party line.

Stewart (gasp) had the temerity to publicly criticize President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the 2024 presidential election.

Wait! What?

Here, hold my beer, and I’ll explain.

Stewart decided to not use his very big stage to blindly support the man who he likely will be voting for in November. Instead, Stewart’s monologue focused on what a crappy choice we all have to make in November, Republicans and Democrats.

According to Newsweek, thousands of progressive Democrats spilled their iced-mocha cappuccinos on their laps when Stewart “equally” mocked Biden and Trump for issues related to their age, questioning whether either one of them was fit to serve as our commander-in-chief.

Progressives generally preach all day long about tolerance and diversity, right up until the point when the don’t like the subject matter. Then?

Well then, they are not so tolerant or diverse.

Reportedly, reaction to Stewart’s monologue raised a chorus of voices all over social media. Thousands of viewers pledged to never watch the Daily Show again. Social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram and Tik-Tok, reveal that viewers went ballistic with their comments about Stewart and their disdain for so-called balanced commentary.

Here’s one of the thousands of comments that can be found on social media, according to Newsweek:

“FASCIST!! We’re seriously going to 2016 both sides this s*** again?! WTF is wrong with you?! JFC!! #TheDailyShow is a fascist-enabling s*** show!!”

Fascist? Seriously? Where did this person go to school? Today, apparently, the only thing you need to do in order to be labeled as a “Fascist” is to tell jokes about presidential candidates.

Are history books not available online?

I guess now Stewart can join with Bill Maher – another successful white comedian in his 60s who relishes poking fun at people on both sides of our nation’s political divide.

Maher – who hosts his own show on HBO – is another card-carrying Democrat who drew the ire of his political friends by refusing to be politically correct on his television show, Real Time with Bill Maher.

Maher is hilarious when he goes after politicians, policy makers and pundits of all stripes on his show.

Apparently, it will still be safe for progressive Democrats to watch the Comedy Channel, Tuesday through Friday.

Stewart will be working just part-time, only hosting the Daily Show on Monday nights. Talk about ‘Must-See-TV”  I’ll be watching.

Does that make me a fascist?

[Thanks to loyal reader Jeffrey Tippett for pointing out that there is no such thing as the “Democrat” Party. Such references should properly be listed as the “Democratic” Party . . . you know, the party of Democrats. The error has been corrected, We, here at Lessons In Mediocrity, rely on our readers to keep us on our toes.]

‘Don’t Waste Your Time With Saco’

Biddeford City Manager vents his frustration regarding the issue of homelessness and the neighboring city of Saco

City Manager Jim Bennett did not hold back his opinions about the neighboring city of Saco during a March 7 Biddeford City Council meeting.

City Manager James Bennett

The Biddeford council was in the midst of debating the merits of hiring a professional consultant to help the city take direct action in addressing the issue of unhoused residents in the community.

Bennett, who seemed clearly frustrated about the issue earlier in the meeting, decided to take a swipe against Saco officials and their response to the issue of unhoused residents.

“My two cents, for what it’s worth, if you want action — don’t waste your time having a conversation with Saco as it relates to this issue,” Bennett said.

Bennett’s unsolicited remarks came immediately after both Biddeford Councilors Doris Ortiz and Liam LaFountain raised the idea of working with Saco as part of a regional approach that could possibly save money and streamline resources.

Ortiz was clearly surprised by Bennett’s comments immediately raising her hands, leaning back in her chair and expressing shock.

LaFountain said he was disappointed by Bennett’s remarks and that both cities have many opportunities to work in unison on several issues.

“Working together as neighboring communities allows us to pursue more comprehensive solutions that benefit residents in both communities,” LaFountain said.

Saco Mayor Bill Doyle said he was also “disappointed” when he heard about Bennett’s public comments.

“Really, I’m sort of taken aback and at a loss for words,” Doyle said. “We’re sister communities. There’s no need in our local communities for this type of vitriol, which we see at the national level.”

Doyle said he was feeling optimistic about relationships between the two cities, especially following a joint council meeting in February. Both cities have appointed members to serve on a committee that will explore various ways the two communities can work together.

Saco’s deputy mayor, Jodi MacPhail, said she was “saddened” by Bennett’s “divisive” comment. “Growing up here, I remember the two cities having great relations, working on MERC, as well as many other projects over the years,” she said. “I will continue to take the high road and engage with Biddeford councilors and residents who appreciate both communities open dialogue without judgment.”

During a follow-up interview, Bennett said he is indeed “somewhat frustrated” both personally and professionally about the issue, but did not back down from his statements, including comments he made earlier during the March 7 meeting.

“I think most people know that I am a very straight-forward and direct person,” Bennett said. “My comments were honest and true.”

Bennett said collaboration with other communities may sound appealing, but often adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to an issue, ultimately slowing down the process of taking action. Bennett said the issue of unhoused people is not just a Biddeford issue, but that the city does need to “quickly make a decision” about how to proceed.

Earlier in the March 7 meeting, Bennett was clearly agitated, and he castigated those who raised concerns about spending $20,000 to hire a professional consultant who would help the city move forward in tackling the issue of unhoused residents.

Departing from his usual role in providing the council information about various issues and staff resources, Bennett offered more of a personal opinion to the council, questioning councilors and others who voiced concerns about hiring a consultant.

“I’m really tired of the misclassifications and all the other issues that happen around this damn issue,” Bennett said. “Personally and professionally, I’m tired. It’s time that the community make some decisions at this table,” he added, pointing to the council dais.

“I don’t think anybody should be really nervous that we want to bring a professional person in to help the council make a decision in full lights – and full FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and where everybody understands what’s going on,” Bennett said.

“And if that makes you nervous,” he added, shrugging his shoulders. “Then I guess you ought to be concerned about what you’re doing and what your motives are.”

Bennett described the issue of unhoused residents as “probably the most difficult issue that a local, elected body can tackle,” citing a lack in resources from both the state and federal governments.

Ultimately, the council voted 7-2, with Scott Whiting and Bobby Mills in opposition, to hire a professional consultant.

Achtung, Baby

Not too long ago, a very well-known and respected Boston Globe columnist opined that there are some good reasons why a growing number of Americans no longer “trust the media.”

In his Nov. 29, 2022 opinion column, Jeff Jacoby pointed to a recent Gallup report, which revealed that just one out of three Americans claimed to have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the media.

“It has been a long time since most Americans trusted the press to tell them the truth,” Jacoby wrote, adding that “in 1972, when Gallup first began assessing the public’s opinion of the news industry, 68 percent of adults voiced a high degree of confidence in the media’s credibility. In 1976, the year Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, and Jason Robards starred in All the President’s Men, public faith in the media’s integrity set a record: 72 percent.”

“Over the last three decades, that faith [in the media] has largely crumbled,” Jacoby wrote, saying “journalists and news organizations have increasingly abandoned the old ideal of unbiased news coverage, as media outlets have come to care more about getting the narrative right than getting the facts right.”

To support his opinion, Jacoby points to some recent news stories and how those stories have been covered by large and well-known media outlets.

I tend to believe that Jacoby is right, at least on a macro level.

(Photo: IMDb)

What is journalism?

The field of journalism has undergone a seismic shift over the last four decades. It’s not uncommon today to hear an older person say something like “I miss Walter Cronkite. He didn’t have an agenda.”

In all fairness, Cronkite was roundly criticized by many voices for being a bit less than completely objective.

I think our expectations of the media have also changed dramatically over the last four decades.  For better or worse, evolving technology – along with a relatively new emphasis on the importance of ratings – has produced a profound impact upon the media landscape.

But what is “the media,” and how do we define the practice of journalism? I think those are some loaded questions, and the answers are both complex and widely varying.

Today, thanks to technology and some societal changes, just about anyone can be a “journalist” or a media outlet. There is no requirement for any kind of training or experience. All you need is a notebook, a camera and an internet connection and presto – –  you are a journalist, or as we say these days, a “social influencer.”

Don’t get me wrong. There are many positive aspects of grass-roots journalism, but it’s also becoming increasingly difficult for news consumers to separate the wheat from the chaff when trying to discern what exactly is legitimate news coverage.

Another problem is that more and more consumers are trying to custom-tailor their news feed, aligning themselves with their own politically-flavored news perspective. If a news outlet produces a story that somehow disrupts the reader’s individual world view then it is automatically dismissed as “fake news” and further proof of media bias.

Almost three years ago, I wrote a similar blog post and interviewed two veteran Maine journalists from both sides of the political spectrum, asking them if the media is biased.

Dennis Bailey spent several years as a reporter working for the Maine Times and Portland Press Herald. He readily acknowledges that his personal politics are more in line with Democrats.

“I’ve never been a believer in objective journalism,” Bailey told me. “A good story is a good story, but it does come with some bias.”

Bailey pointed to certain realities about how a news story is produced. “A reporter often decides what story to follow,” he said. “From there, an editor decides the placement of a story and the headline of that story. These are all subjective decisions.”

On the other side of the political aisle, John Day, who spent several decades as a reporter and then as an editor of the Bangor Daily News, agrees with Bailey about media bias.

“I’m a big fan of diversity,” Day said. “But I was always a contrarian. Fake news has always been around. If all news outlets reported every story the same way, then it would be nothing more than a giant circle jerk.”

New media outlets seem to be popping up almost every-day. Cable-television introduced us to the 24-hour news cycle, and the creation of the internet ushered in the age of instant news coverage. The popularity of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook only further obfuscate the definition of “the media.”

And we cannot ignore the financial pressures faced by those who produce the news that we read, watch or listen to.

Several months ago, I watched an interview with Christopher Wallace, a former anchor on Fox News Sunday and is now a CNN anchor. Wallace, who has a reputation as a hard-nosed journalist, was talking about how the media has changed over the last several years.

What struck me about that interview is that Wallace laid plenty of blame at the feet of his father, Mike Wallace, who is generally revered as some kind of demi-god by most professional journalists. During the latter part of his career, the elder Wallace was one of the lead anchors of 60 Minutes, a news magazine show that debuted on CBS.

“Before 60 Minutes, the networks generally considered news programming as some sort of public service,” the younger Wallace explained. “Then 60 Minutes happened, and suddenly the networks began to see news programming as a very valuable commodity.”

While the big media corporations continue to intensify their ratings war, many local and small media outlets are struggling to keep their heads above water as they desperately try to keep pace with the continually changing news landscape.

But how does that negatively impact you? Who really cares if another local newspaper closes shop? I’ll get to that in a moment.

The responsibility of the fourth estate

Nearly 300 years ago, Edmund Burke, a member of British Parliament, reportedly coined the term “Fourth Estate” to describe the press, its obligations as a check in government oversight and its responsibility to frame political issues as well as advocacy for the general public.

From Burke’s perspective, the news media played a very important role, at least as important as the other three estates: the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. Today, especially in the United States, the other three estates of government are considered as the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch.

That’s pretty heady stuff if you stop and think about it. A free and unencumbered press literally has the capacity to bring down even the most powerful of political leaders or organizations. We need the press to be our advocates at the table. We depend on the media to keep government in check.

It’s not just important during something like the Vietnam War (the Pentagon Papers, New York Times) or the Watergate scandal (Washington Post). It also matters in your own community and your day-to-day life.

For example, how exactly is the government spending your tax dollars? Who is paying attention to that new zoning ordinance and how it could impact your home value? What is the city planning to do to your kid’s school? Who is advocating for the less fortunate among us? Who is keeping us aware of the day-to-day threats to our peace and comfort?

Sure, I think it’s great that the city of Biddeford has its own, municipal news organization: The Biddeford Beat. But is that really a good replacement for an independent media source? I mean, really, how do we expect a government agency to provide a comprehensive critique of itself or an overview of its day-to-day activities? In fact, one has to wonder how much tax money is being used to produce local government-controlled news.

There are two main reasons why it is becoming more common to see local government create its own “news” coverage. First, the technology makes it relatively easy to do, especially if it’s just an on-line news source.

But much more troubling is the fact that many local government agencies are simply trying to fill a void left by a rapidly shrinking pool of professional reporters at the local level.

I fondly remember covering Biddeford City Council meetings more than 20 years ago. Back then, the council chambers were – politely speaking – often packed with opinions, rage and contempt. It was mostly civil, but it seemed as if there was always some sort of tension. Certain residents regularly attended every meeting, never hesitating to use their five-minute limit at the podium during the “public comment” period. It was awesome.

Back then, there were at least three reporters at every council meeting: Kelley Bouchard covered Biddeford for the Portland Press Herald. Josh Williamson represented the Journal Tribune, and I was there on behalf of the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier.

Each of us would have likely stabbed the others in the neck in order to get the story first. We scrapped it out on the streets, digging for the facts, looking at all the angles and always fiercely competitive. Frankly, it was humbling to work with professionals like Kelley and Josh.

According to the US Census Bureau, the city of Biddeford has a population of roughly 22,000 residents. I think a city of that size, although small, deserves and warrants a full-time reporter or two. Even more so, when considering that Biddeford is the largest city in York County and is a service center for residents from all over southern Maine.

Today, unfortunately, city council meetings in Biddeford are generally quiet, somewhat uneventful and not very well attended. There are no longer three reporters covering every meeting.

The Journal Tribune ceased operations a few years ago, and the Portland Press Herald closed its local bureau on Main Street. The Courier, a locally-owned publication, was sold to the owner of the Portland Press Herald, which basically uses the weekly newspaper to account for its coverage of the Biddeford-Saco area.

Today, Tammy Bostwick Wells, one of the finest and hardest working reporters I’ve ever met, is expected to cover not only Biddeford but also several other communities throughout York County. Tammy, who previously worked for the Journal Tribune and the St. Croix Courier, does an awesome job, but she is realistically limited in what she can cover. After all, she is only one person and there are only so many hours in a day.

That, unfortunately, is the new reality for local media across the United States. Reporters are basically forced to “attend” government meetings via streaming platforms such as Zoom because of time and staffing constraints. We’re lucky that we have people like Tammy who are willing to take on more and more work without an equal increase in monetary compensation for their efforts.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t extoll the virtues of my publisher and her commitment to the communities of Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach via the operation of Saco Bay News, an online local media source. Liz Gotthelf-Othot is another former Journal Tribune reporter who runs herself ragged every day in her efforts to provide coverage of news that may otherwise go un-noticed.

(Disclaimer: Liz pays me to cover Biddeford news for her online publication)

Yesterday, I posted something on Facebook that lacked appropriate context: “I’d take a dime-bag of outrage over a pound of apathy every day of the week and twice on Sundays.”

We need the media to provide that “outrage” in a meaningful and constructive way. If a news story pisses you off, good! Get involved and help make the change you want to see.

Yup, I do think that big media outlets are somewhat responsible for the erosion of public trust in the media, but I also think we need to challenge ourselves to view news differently than through the lens of our own opinions and our own biases.

I sleep better at night knowing that people like Tammy Bostwick Wells and Liz Gotthelf-Othot are watching my local government. And you may also want to avoid taking the media – especially the local media – for granted.

That’s enough rambling and pontificating for now. Peace.

Never miss another installment of Lessons in Mediocrity! Subscribe now for free!

Lie to me

Earlier this week, Chris Wallace – son of legendary journalist Mike Wallace – appeared on the Stephen Colbert Show and said, among other things, that his father and the legendary television news show 60 Minutes were partly to blame for today’s public distrust of the media.

Wallace, a former FOX Network news anchor who this week began his own show on CNN Plus, said he understands why many Americans have a dim view of the media and how it presents news.

When asked what, if anything, could be done to restore public trust in the media, Wallace told Colbert that before the advent of 60 Minutes, the major networks – CBS, NBC and ABC – considered the broadcast of news to be a “public service.”

Wallace said he believes that “[today’s] desire to chase ratings and make money is what needs to change if the news and the public’s faith in it are to be restored,” according to an MSN story about the interview.

“It used to be in the old days, and I can remember growing up with my father in the ’70s, that news didn’t make money. It was a public service, and the networks viewed it as a public service,” Wallace said. “And then 60 Minutes came along and showed you could make phenomenal amounts of money with the news business.”

60 Minutes first aired in 1968 and was originally hosted by Mike Wallace and Harry Reasoner. The show has often been praised by journalists and other media programs for its integrity and “fearless” pursuit of the news. It has enjoyed steadfast popularity in television ratings for more than five decades.

Today, however, a growing number of Americans say that the media can’t be trusted. Many people claim that today’s media is politically biased. Another often heard complaint is that today’s news is more “editorial than objective news.”

It’s easy to understand why many people feel that the news is no longer objective and fact-based. Today, more than ever before, Americans – and people all over the world – have an increasingly wide range of news options, many of which that have popped up during the past 20 to 30 years on cable television, satellite radio and, of course, the internet.

It’s hard to know who or what to trust, and it’s easier than ever before to blame the media for everything from today’s political climate to the rising cost of gasoline. Millions of people, it seems, are convinced that big media is orchestrating a vicious web of lies intended to keep “regular people in the dark.”

So how can we put the genie back in the bottle? How do we — or can we — restore the concept that news is a public service? Can we really stop the networks from “chasing ratings?”

I seriously doubt it.

If the news delivery business is to truly be a public service than we have to remove the profit factor. Please don’t blather on about NPR (National Public Radio). Even their “listener-supporter” broadcasts include corporate messaging and receive government funding.

Do we really want the government funding the news? Yeah, right. Surely, we can trust the government to fairly and accurately report news and information about the government. I don’t think so.

Getting money out of the news business is problematic on many levels. How do we pay journalists or recruit top journalistic talent? How do we pay for the delivery of the news (the producers, clerks, editors, technicians, camera operators, etc. etc.)?

So, what’s the solution? How do we keep the news business honest?

From my perspective, the more news outlets we have, the better. But more news outlets also requires more viewer/reader/listener discretion. It’s easy to gravitate toward news that aligns with our own pre-disposed political beliefs and philosophies. It’s much harder to seek out information that might make us uncomfortable.

In the end, there are no easy answers. As long as we need a scapegoat to explain things we don’t like or trust, the media will always be a convenient target.

In the words of legendary journalist Walter Cronkite: And, that’s the way it is.

Pandemic sheds light on media bias

As we continue coping with the Covid-19 pandemic, it is now more important than ever for the media to take extra steps to ensure that their news stories are fact-based, without hype, without speculation and a minimum of bias.

Wait. Did I just say “a minimum of bias?”

Conservative news consumers on the right of America’s political spectrum often talk about bias, screeching that media outlets such as the New York Times and MSNBC television are in the pockets of left-wing billionaires and prominent Democrats.  President Trump gleefully eggs them on, attacking the ‘liberal’ media of delivering so-called “fake news.”

Meanwhile, those on the left side of the political spectrum dismiss news outlets such as FOX news and the Washington Times, saying those media outlets are dripping in conservative rhetoric.

Are the pundits right? Do “news” outlets practice media bias?

According to two veteran journalists, the answer is yes, with varying moderation.

Dennis Bailey, who now lives in Washington, DC, is a veteran journalist who spent several years as a reporter working for the Maine Times and Portland Press Herald. He readily acknowledges that his personal politics are more in line with Democrats.

“I’ve never been a believer in objective journalism,” Bailey said. “A good story is a good story but it does come with some bias.”

Bailey points to certain realities about how the news story is produced. “A reporter often decides what story to follow,” he said. “From there, an editor decides the placement of a story and the headline of that story. These are all subjective decisions.”

On the other side of the political aisle, John Day, who spent several decades as a reporter and then as an editor of the Bangor Daily News, agrees with Bailey about media bias.

“I’m a big fan of diversity,” Day said. “But I was always a contrarian. Fake news has always been around. If all news outlets reported every story the same way, then it would be nothing more than a giant circle jerk.”

Although they seem to disagree on just about everything, the two men agree that journalism has gone through some profound changes over the last 30 years, including the 24-hour news cycle and social media.

“People today have a much wider range of choices when it comes to the news,” Bailey said. “There is a notable absence of media literacy today. You can find anything you want to support your own views on the internet.”

Bailey and Day both point to the Watergate scandal and the role that the media played during that crisis. The Washington Post led the way on the story while the New York Times and other media outlets took a more measured approach.

“Walter Cronkite was the godfather of news,” Bailey said. “He was such a trusted guy. We don’t have that anymore.”

According to Day, more than 95 percent of news stories about President Trump are negative while stories about Maine Senator Angus King are nearly always positive. “Angus is not much more than a boot licker for Chuck Schumer,” he said.

The lines between news and opinion are becoming more and more blurred as cable news shows fill air time with pundits such as Rachel Maddow on the left and Sean Hannity on the right.

Today, too many people pick their news source to align with their personal viewpoint, according to both Bailey and Day.  “I have more respect for CNN than MSNBC,” Day said. “At least they try to be objective with guests such as Chris Christie.”

So long as media outlets chase ratings and circulation, their ability to maintain objectivity becomes more difficult.

We need to be increasingly vigilant about how we get and choose our news sources.

President Trump is not the first president to have a deep disdain for the White House press corps. More than 50 years ago, former president Richard Nixon lashed out at the media following his loss to Democrat Pat Brown in the California gubernatorial election.

Appearing before more than 100 reporters, Nixon didn’t mince his words about his frustration with the media. “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference,” the candidate said.

More recently, an editorial published in the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2015, James Risen, then a reporter at The New York Times, called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

As Walter Cronkite consistently said at the end of each of his evening broadcasts: “And that’s the way it is.”

We miss you, Walter.

 

(Originally published in the Saco Bay News on May 2, 2020)

 

Here Comes the Sun

(previously published in Saco Bay News)

It seems ironic that this is “Sunshine Week.”

No, it has nothing to do with Daylight Saving Time, but as the world grapples with the Covid-19 pandemic it becomes even more important for the media to “keep a check” on our government whether federal, state or local.

Sunshine Week was founded in 2005, and its purpose is to provide the media (and the general public) with the tools and resources necessary to ensure that government operations are open and transparent. Sunshine as opposed to darkened backroom deals among government officials.

More than 200 years ago, during a debate in the British Parliament, Edmund Burke coined a phrase to describe the media: “The Fourth Estate.” It was a recognition of the media’s power and responsibilities. We have a system of checks and balances between the branches of our government in this country. The First Estate is the executive branch; the Second Estate is the legislature; and the Third Estate is the judiciary.

Spiderman comics coined the phrase “With great power comes great responsibility.”  But the media cannot exercise its power if the government operates in secret or manipulates the flow of information.

Fortunately, the media (and the general public) have an awesome and powerful tool in their arsenal.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966 just as the Viet Nam War was heating up. FOIA provides the media with legal muscle in order to keep the public informed about government affairs.

One of the earliest and most notable uses of the FOIA was its role in the Watergate scandal. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had to use extraordinary tactics, which included FOIA, in order to get to the truth that eventually crumbled Richard Nixon’s presidency.

The media plays an important role in disseminating the news. In fact, it is the media that frames the story, whether it’s a global issue like the Corona virus, a national story such the Democratic primary or a local issue such as the city of Biddeford’s plan to construct a parking garage.

All over the globe, the media has changed drastically over the last 30 years or so. Today, news consumers have more options than ever before. Today, we have a 24-hour news cycle that is voracious, supported by advertising and highly competitive. The days of Walter Cronkite and the neighborhood paperboy are behind us.

Today, consumers have a plethora of choices about where to get their news. You can watch CNN on your smart phone while riding the subway. But how do we know whether your choice of media is trustworthy? We don’t. The cure for this problem is for you to gather your news from a variety of news sources.

If we want the media to be fair, balanced and accurate, we must ensure that reporters (and even back yard pundits) have access to the information that allows them to keep the government in check because our representative government is obligated to be open and transparent.

This year, Sunshine Week runs from March 15 to March 21 (the first day of spring).

Open your windows and pull up your blinds. Let the sun shine into your life so that you can make informed decisions and choices.

Remember, it’s your government.

 

Wag the dog

If I had any doubts about the increasingly dominating role of new media over traditional media, they were vanquished yesterday while watching ABC’s World News Tonight.

In the A-block of the evening news program (ranked second between NBC and CBS) Anchor David Muir told us a story about a tweet that Donald Trump sent earlier in the day to commemorate Cinco de Mayo.

Perhaps because Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee for the presidency and because his  tasteless Taco Bowl tweet had gone viral, ABC treated it as one of their top new stories.

ABC’s Taco Bowl Tweet story included reporting that Hillary Clinton’s team fired off a response tweet using Trump’s own words to discredit him. The story also mentioned that 81 percent of Hispanic Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump.

ABC was certainly not alone in covering the Taco Bowl incident. The social media gaffe was covered by every other network, including cable news giants CNN and FOX, not to mention the print media, including the Associated Press, USA Today and Reuters.

In each of these stories, something that transpired in the world of new media was being reported by the old media giants in a classic game of react and catch-up.

Trump tweeted his photo some five hours before ABC’s evening news broadcast. How many people had already seen the tweet?

I will not argue the newsworthy merits of Trump’s tweet, but it struck me that the once dominating news giants were again scrambling to keep up with their more nimble counterparts in the world of social media.

Whether it is a political campaign or your business reputation on the line, what you do and say on social media has significant consequences. That’s why I always tell my clients to be very careful and not post anything on social media that you don’t want to see on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper.

The tables have turned. The rules have changed. You are the media. Take your role seriously.


Randy Seaver is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He also has more than a decade of experience as a strategic communications consultant, helping a wide range of clients overcome challenges in the court of public opinion.  Learn More

Dealing with the media

Photo credit: flydenver.com
Photo credit: flydenver.com

Do you know the definitions of “lede,” “nut graf” or “B-roll?”

These are common terms used by members of the media.

Reporters and editors have their own jargon and their own way of doing things, but it’s important to remember that they are also human beings. They value honesty, courtesy and respect.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: the media is not supposed to be your friend. Reporters have a unique mission: to remain as objective as possible, to ferret out facts and to report that information to the public while working under crushing deadlines and  operating in an extraordinarily competitive industry.

Keeping these things in mind will help you navigate the media landscape, whether you’re sending out a press release or dealing with a crisis that is affecting your company, your brand, your campaign or your reputation.

Imagine this: the phone rings and it’s a reporter on the other end of the phone. He or she needs a quick comment for a story that will be published in tomorrow’s newspaper. What do you do?

Or imagine this: you step out the front door and you find a TV news van parked in front of your home or office and suddenly you are face-to-face with a reporter and cameraman, What do you do?

I offer my clients an insider’s knowledge of the complex media landscape. For more than a decade, I worked as a reporter and editor. I still have many friends in the business.

Drawing on my experience as a communications consultant; and with some input by my friends in the media, I’ve developed a brief list of things you should do — and things you should not do — when dealing with the media.

1,) Be honest: Consider this the golden rule of dealing with the media. Don’t play games. People will judge you by your words and actions, especially if you find yourself in a crisis situation. Don’t hype your press release. Be concise and straightforward. If you lie, you will only make things worse.

2.) Have a plan: Don’t wait until a crisis arises before developing your media strategy. A comprehensive media plan will include your basic talking points, and everyone in your organization should know who the contact person is for dealing with the media. Anticipate and develop a list of tough questions, among other things.

3,) Stay on message: When the cameras start rolling or the reporter starts writing, many people have a tendency to panic. They either freeze like a deer in the headlights or they ramble endlessly. If you do these things, your message will be lost. As part of your media plan, you should have a “message box” Before your interview, memorize your message box and learn how to pivot back to your core message. Tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them what you want to tell them; and then tell them what you told them. This way, your message does not get lost.

4.) Be respectful: Basic manners go a long way in helping you tell your story. Recognize that the media is working under deadlines. If a reporter calls you, ask about his or her deadline. Don’t spam their in-boxes with press releases that are actually advertisements. Step back and consider whether your story is newsworthy. Reporters are not part of your sales and marketing team. They only want news that is accurate, relevant and timely.

5.) Comment or No Comment? This is one of the toughest questions you will face when dealing with the media, and it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Remember that the reporter has taken time out of his or her schedule to seek your input. By saying “no comment” you lose the opportunity to share your side of the story. That said, sometimes it is advisable to not comment, especially if the story is about a legal matter or involves proprietary information. Once you comment, you can’t take it back, and your comments can be used against you. (Refer to rules 2 and 3).

Dealing with the media does not have to be a headache or a frightening experience. Just remain calm, polite and on message. It also helps to have a PR pro on your side to help you navigate these situations. I invite you to contact me to learn more about media relations and how you can share your story with the public.


Randy Seaver is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He also has more than two decades of experience as a strategic communications consultant, helping a wide range of clients overcome challenges in the court of public opinion.  Learn More

Public Relations: the good, the bad and the ugly

handsAsk one hundred different people to define “public relations” and you’ll probably receive nearly 100 different responses, many of them with negative connotations.

A lot of people view PR as some sort of shell game, something that is auctioned off to the highest bidder. Pay us enough and we’ll convince the world that your product, brand or reputation is infallible.

There is an old joke in the consulting industry: “If you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.”

Even some PR pros think that a few “white lies” are often necessary to achieve success for their clients, as outlined in this story from USA Today.

I see things differently. I don’t think of PR as “public relations.” I think of PR as “public relationships,” and there is a distinct difference.

Take a moment and consider the relationships that are most important to you: your partner, your spouse, your friends, your boss or even your neighbors.

Good relationships are built on a solid foundation of trust. If you don’t trust your spouse, your marriage is likely doomed. It’s not different when it comes to public relationships.

The truth vs. The Narrative?

The public is more savvy than most PR pros give them credit for. The public yearns for truth and integrity, and will generally forgive a misstep, so as long as the offender is transparent and contrite about their mistake.

Sure you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can even fool all of the people some of the time. But you simply cannot fool all the people all of the time.

Developing a strong and compelling narrative for your client is essential, but that narrative must be rooted in truth and genuine honesty. This is how you build strong relationships. And there is nothing more important in the world of PR than having a strong relationship with your audience.

As an example, I point you to the popularity of two very different candidates vying to be the next president of the United States: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, two very different men on completely different sides of the political spectrum.

Sanders, a self-described socialist; and Trump, a billionaire reality TV star, have defied the odds and speculation of the pundits. As the two men continue their campaigns, the pundits now say that the candidates have both tapped into the anger of a very cynical electorate.

I beg to differ.

I think those who passionately support Sanders or Trump view their respective candidates as “honest” This trait causes those supporters to overlook flaws in either candidate.

Sure, voters always like a candidate who tells them what they want to hear, but they become passionate when they believe the candidate is being honest.

A relationship without honesty is like a bicycle without tires. Neither one is of much use.

Building relationships takes time and hard work. But every good relationship must be built on the foundation of honesty.


 

Randy Seaver is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He also has more than a decade of experience as a strategic communications consultant, helping a wide range of clients overcome challenges in the court of public opinion.  Learn More