HELP! I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up!

I have a bit of conundrum right now and I thought I should get your advice. I'm in a sort of "Chinese Finger Trap" in my world, and struggling to get out.

A few posts back, I mentioned I was given a "second chance," and felt deeply touched by the generosity of it.

Here's where it landed me: I've become involved in a professional project where I am expected to produce something (which I very much want to produce), but so far, am unable to offer the expected results.

I should state upfront that the people who gave me this chance have been continually patient and helpful and supportive. Every question has been answered with a generosity of spirit that I've rarely seen. These people are kindness itself to me.

Part of the conundrum is that the more patient they are with my efforts, the more determined I become to succeed and the harder I try. But so far, success eludes me. Seriously, I've not been so frustrated with something in a very long time.

It's a bit like this:

I feel caught in a vise from which I desperately want to escape into the ease of reporting I've previously enjoyed. But instead, I struggle, study and practice for hours, and am trying harder than I have tried, or ever had to try, in the course of my career. And yet... I sort of stink at it.

In a "Chinese Finger Trap," the answer is to relax and let go. But so far, I've found myself unable to do that and the harder I try, whether to study or work harder or even to "let go," the more strained and painful my product seems to become. Which is not helpful.

I've often been told that one of the best parts of my work in journalism was that I made it look effortless. I've always inwardly laughed because my "effortless delivery" came from studying the material to internalize it. And then would I relax. I could relax and effortlessly talk about what I knew because I had done the due diligence and I did know it.

This latest isn't coming easily. It isn't coming with study. It hasn't arrived after hours of struggling. And not only am I frustrated, but so are those who have been so generous with their own time and efforts to help me. So...

Suggestions?

A New Day at The New York Times

24 hours and counting.

On Monday afternoon at 2pm EST, The New York Times website will institute a paywall. They explained it all in a recent "Letter to Readers." They will start requiring readers to pay for their product. And journalists everywhere will breathe quietly, listening to hear the response.

For about ten years now, The New York Times and a lot of other news outlets that used to make a living by selling subscription service have been giving their work away for free. They tried to attract site traffic and utilize it. They tried to get by putting up advertisements. They've done small ads on the side. They've done huge pop-ups that scroll down to fill the page. They've put up video commercials before multi-media presentations. Somewhere in here, the bottom fell out of the classified section. It was killed by craigslist.org.

The paper also had huge cut-backs. They let a lot of incredibly talented people go. They hired writers and reporters who professionally were at what should have still been the learning part of their careers instead of being hard-headed scrappers at the peak of their careers. I give those newbies a lot of credit. The quality didn't drop off as consistently as say, The Washington Post, which is an embarrassing shadow of what it used to be. But the losses are noted. And they were emblematic of a situation in newsrooms everywhere. Some newspapers didn't survive.

So March 28 begins a new era. When you think about whether to begin paying for your news, keep in mind that you paid for it until a few years ago. Your parents paid for it. And in this case, you get what you pay for.

I remember about 18 months ago, saying to a news executive "What I don't get is... since it's obvious the newspapers and Associated Press can't make it without charging, why don't they put up the paywall and stop giving it away for free?"

He said, "It's too late, Marti. They've already jumped off the cliff." (Sidenote: non-creative thinkers excel in management except when creative solutions and strategies are needed. Exception: journalism.)

At the time, I shook my head and said "Just because you jump off the cliff doesn't mean you can't go to the hospital."

Congratulations NYTimes.com. I'll come to your blood drive.

Good-bye Michael Jackson, Hello Media Mob!

So there I was, sitting at home, quietly writing *yet another* essay on why Republican politicians need to learn to keep it zipped, when I got distracted by some real work. Suddenly, I was whisked away from the tedium to a house in Holmby Hills, followed by a trip to Grauman's Chinese Theater, before finishing up at the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office. All in pursuit of covering Michael Jackson's demise and the resulting investigation for ABC News. A rather densely packed 12 hours, huh?

It was so much fun that I did it twice. Well, okay, the second day was spent all in one location: the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Yikes! What a pretentious name.

Lots of live shots. Lots of crazy folks. Lots of fun. And lots of pictures snapped. Here's the one I have to show you:


Yes, that is my extremely white arm, frame left, two-thirds of the way up. Pathetic, huh?

I'm having a touch of computer trouble (Laptop with dvd but no internet. PC with internet but no dvd. Why me?) and at this time can provide only one photo, swiped from LATimes.com.

I had a seriously great time. The best thing about such national news events is that in between the demanding clients, the completely fascinating weirdness of a life lived "Jackson," and all the nutty fans, such events are wonderful places to see professional friends, console each other about the state of the business and hear the latest goings-on at various news groups around town.

In this particular case, it was hard to hear that KTTV (Fox 11 in Los Angeles) laid off over 100 people on Friday. You can't see him, but a favorite investigative reporter friend from that station was standing to my left (which is his favorite position on any given subject) and I am hopeful for his future even though I've heard KTTV is offering contract renewals with 30-40 percent pay cuts.

We all know it's a tough time among journalists. Heck, it's tough for almost everyone. And it can seem strange to people outside our ranks when major news events, often tragic in nature, bring us together to support each other about things entirely unrelated to the events at hand. We tend to focus on the event as news, and in between chasing the story, talk over what's bothering us.

But it is part of what makes us objective. It can also sometimes make people think we're a little jaded and at times, downright calloused. Yet I hope that it's a tradition that never has a chance to disappear.

100th Blog Post Anniversary

This is my 100th post. I started at a time when journalism was changing, politics were in transition, and watching pop culture to be honest, was making me a little ill. The pendulum seems to be swinging more than anyone could have predicted.

I am certain journalism will never be what it was, nor should it be. But it will evolve into something useful. And those whose voices are strong will still be heard.

But as I looked around the online universe today and saw one more "long-time TV personality leaving his position to reinvent himself," it seems obvious things are changing. That statement no longer is cover for firing someone. It's more like the sad excuse of offering someone so little money that they can only hope they'll find something better by leaving.

I guess that's what all of us hope for: something better. Starting a little roadtrip this morning. Catch you on the other end.

Reporting Live on... Twitter?

I have a policy. You're allowed to complain about something almost exactly once with me. You're allowed to complain a fair bit. Occasionally, you're allowed more than one gripe session, but you need to bring more material. You need to have fresh complaints.

However, if you keep going back for more of the same without working toward a solution, then you probably need to find a new crying post.

I'm not trying to be cold. I don't want to seem unsympathetic. But yeah, I think you either stop putting up with it, you get to work on fixing it, or you stop complaining to me about it.

So if a business model stops working, shouldn't you stop working with that business model? If you keep trying, are you persistent? Or are you a bit slow on the uptake? Maybe you are doing as Benjamin Franklin (or was it Albert Einstein? Perhaps a Chinese proverb?) warned against by "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

"Who Moved My Cheese" by Dr. Spencer Johnson was published about ten years ago. It's about some mice and some cheese and basically, it lays out the need to grow and change both individually and organizationally. I read it in the subway one afternoon in Manhattan, going home from work. It wasn't exactly new information, but it was a well-done little book.

Someone moved our cheese in journalism. It's gone. We've got to figure out where to find new cheese or consider going vegan. Remembering the good old days is okay, but crying over those days doesn't work for me. By my calculations, we've been crying for over ten years now. Our business model seemed like it was evolving, but now it seems to have switched species. And no, it doesn't work.

And neither does tweeting. Ha! Well, not endlessly anyway. So...

Thank you for twittering about: news conferences, seismic measurements, correct spellings of names, stories coming up, locations of very large fires, travel plans, updates on news conferences, parade times, business hours, show times, parking arrangements, flight arrival times, road closures, and um, occasionally blog postings.

Thank you again for NOT twittering about: wearing your fanny pack on your front, traffic complaints on your vacation to Southern California, reading Larry King's wife's twitters on your trip to Southern California, ANYTHING to do with American Idol, and kids or husbands who wear contact lenses/socks/underwear more than three consecutive days.

Here Today, But Tomorrow?

I read the Sunday paper today. It's not the Washington Post but rather something put together by a little group out here in Northern Virginia. It's been awhile since I've read an actual paper delivered to the house. I'd forgotten what a wonderful, tactile thing it can be.

It's sitting on the floor next to me as I write this. I read the first bit over lunch. Then lunch "struck" and I was suddenly overcome with drowsiness. But it's waiting there for me to pick it up, peruse through, keep a coupon or two, make a mental note or three and move on.

It's been awhile. It's been missed. There's only a Sunday paper delivered to this household, near as I can tell. But at least there's that on a cold, dreary Sunday. And if we're not careful in this country, we won't have that little bit of tactile comfort anymore either.

"All We Have to Fear is Fear Itself"

You've seen pictures like this before, right? I mean, we all know what this is: an ostrich with its head in the sand. It's the image of a frightened animal, avoiding the very thing it fears by hiding its eyes and leaving the majority of itself vulnerable to whatever threatened it.

I'm never really sure (nor is important to this post) that these images are real or photoshopped.

These are dark days for journalists. Dark, bleak, frightening days of seemingly endless cutbacks and layoffs and buyouts. The road to the unemployment office or back to college is well traveled.

It's a sad and painful and uncertain time. The recession is hitting at a moment when the internet was already encroaching on how journalists are valued. And we aren't coming out ahead.

So I was very excited to meet with a news executive at a major city television station a week ago. He had sternly warned me prior to the meeting, "I have no jobs to offer. If five people walk in and quit tomorrow, they will not be replaced." But I was ready to counter that. I said that I had internet proposals for social network marketing and other suggestions. He seemed agreeable and interested in that idea and I took heart in my preparations.

I like to speak in simple terms, so let's just say my proposals were grouped in two categories: freebies and not so free. The freebies included ideas for social network marketing and setting up structures to handle those responsibilities and give the TV station's team of highly respected journalists ways to express those deep voices in the "new media."

The news executive told me "My people wouldn't be interested in that. They seem to get a big head of steam and then lose interest after two weeks."

I must admit feeling a bit surprised. I can only conclude he flunked the class at management retreat on "locker room pep talks." His people lose interest? (Anyone who has ever given an up-and-coming reporter a chance to promote their stories knows they rarely think of anything else ever again.) These were suggestions that wouldn't have cost him a dime to put into place and it wasn't within my power to offend the man by asking how he could afford to allow his people to not utilize these methods? To not promote his news product in these newer ways? I tucked my hair behind my ear and thought "Ok, so much for the freebies."

Then I offered my larger, over-arching proposal. It might have required some effort and perhaps working with the other stations in his group to develop the concept. But I think it would be a worthwhile investment in terms of what the future holds. It would have put that group forward in terms of where they stand in the new media and multiple platform use. And I included a quote I had seen in an article on Forbes.com only days before:

"Every day a station doesn't push more of its resources online is another day a competitor might."

He said he didn't see any benefit to it. His community wasn't interested and any investment would be a waste. I think at that moment I realized that I could say to him "Oreos are good dunked in milk," and he would have responded, "No, I think that wouldn't work for our viewers."
Let me point out that he lives in one of the top 2 or 3 most internet-connected cities in the country, where a large percentage of the population utilizes mass transit in their commute and is very focused on the daily news. So interested are many of his older viewers that they have an eye on the day's events continuously throughout the day. My proposal addressed all three of those aspects, and would have put the station itself out in front of many other stations and... allowed them a bigger piece of the network-to-affiliate pie. (Food metaphors flowing fast here today.)

Change is difficult. It frightens most of us. It is terrifying and painful and scares us witless. But as frightening as change is, in the communications field what we ought to fear most is being left behind.

And why do we have to be afraid? Can we not go forward with the knowledge that yes, there is a bit of Darwin's process is at work here. The fearless are going to make it. The weak are not. I don't know which I will be numbered among but I do know, I am not wanting to sit idly by and wait for it to happen. I'd rather bruise my knuckles knocking on the door than sit in the newsvan and do nothing. I'd rather get in the mix and be swallowed than the last kid in the game. There's always a risk that you get leftout that way, you know.

And if you stick your head in the sand, there is a possibility that winds will come up, swirling the sand around your body in a drift and bury you. Or at the very least, looking odd and a bit left out.

What If?

What if you could talk to your viewers/
readers/ content recipients every day, all day long, offering them little tidbits about your story to intrigue and excite them? Wouldn't you do that?

Then why aren't you Twittering?

The New York Times says, Twitter is "one of the fastest-growing phenomena on the Internet". The free social messaging service provides anyone who signs up with the opportunity to connect and stay connected with their network.

To use it, Twitter users simply answer - "What are you doing" in 140 characters or less. Using a rich set of tools, hosted by twitter and 3rd-party developers, twitter users then connect around these conversations.

Maybe those users might send a message back. Maybe it might be a helpful little bit of information to steer a journalist towards another source, a different direction, or something they had previously discarded but now perhaps deserves more thought. Maybe it might provide NEWS.

Twittering isn't what it used to be anymore. And by tomorrow, it won't be what it is today. But neither is journalism. It's not the flat, dead, and decaying profession we were warned it might be in J-school. It's vibrant, alive, on the web and growing. And we're going to have to get behind it.

If you started with pad and pencil, typewriters might have been fearsome things. Computers --the devil personified and humming along towards the Gates of Hell. But Twitter might be the little bit of self-promoting, viewer-inducing technology of your dreams. And it will only be that if you allow your definition of dreams to involve the word "change."

And who knows? Change might be for the better.

Forward... MARCH!

Yes, I think we've got to EMBRACE IT.

The New York Times Sunday magazine has a lovely article this weekend. It's the second weekend in a row where the NYTimes puts a scare on the media. Last weekend, it told the world the dirty secret that we've all known for awhile: tv stations are getting rid of high priced talent. That's nothing new. It's been the established pattern of every recession ever seen, so why would this one be different?

This week's scare puts all the cards on the table for all media everywhere. It says basically, get with the new media or get ready to fade away. It sorta reminds me of the elves in the Lord of the Rings who say that they will "fall in to shadow and go to the North."

Before we fall upon our swords on behalf of righteous journalists, let's think this through. Why would we NOT want to use twitter? Why would we not want to put up a profile on facebook and market the #!$!&%!! out of it? Market ourselves? Our abilities, talents, people, viewpoints and the fascinating quirks we see in the world around us?

I read a quote once from Anais Nin where she was talking about coming to a turning point in her life. She stood poised on the precipice of a great decision, questioning whether to go forward or back in that moment. She said she finally moved forward realizing that her fear of going back or even standing still was greater than her fear of moving forward into the unknown.

I think that's admirable. If we were afraid as journalists, we'd all be working in tiny little places, never moving forward. But instead we surge forward, looking for new challenges. Isn't it better to bruise your knuckles knocking on the door rather than to sit quietly and never ask?

And think about it. In every great story, does the hero or heroine ever find happiness by going back? No, they move forward. They go with confidence, strength, and a positive attitude, but by golly, they go FORWARD. And lean into it.

The Times blogger closes with this comment, "For old-media types, mental flexibility could be the No. 1 happiness secret we have been missing." I think that's really true. We trained and worked so hard that we're afraid of letting go of what we learned to try something new. But the truth is that if we examine the new media, we find new ways to offer our content to new receivers. Embrace, people! EMBRACE!

Of course Anais never had a blackberry, did she? Yeah sure, facebook-twitter-ning-RSS and farking are a little scary to some. But me? I sorta... digg it.

What Are You Watching?

According to a new survey from the Pew Research Center, we're still getting our news from television. Whew! That's great news and very comforting to some of us.

The Pew Research Center's Biennial News Consumption Survey was released over the weekend andit shows that Americans still turn to traditional platforms, television is included in there, for their news. Yeah, yeah, they're going to the net. But a whopping 46 percent of those polled, the largest block, still head for the boob tube at some poit during the day.

Sadly, the survey also found this group skews the oldest, with a median age of 52 and is also the least affluent, with 43 percent unemployed. Aren't you glad you don't live in that neighborhood.

But here's an eye opener, the viewers of "fake news" like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are the best informed of the group still glued to the tube. Scratch your head over that one, if you will.

They're far more informed than those who tune in for "real news" programs such as Larry King Live, the O'Reilly Factor and Lou Dobbs.

The survey also classifies news consumers in four categories: Traditionalist, Integrator, Netnewser or Disengaged. If you'd like to check your status, here's a web address:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1357

"A Gift from the World to Us in so many Ways!"

Are you one of those poor down-trodden right-thinking Americans who believes the candidates aren't being covered equally? Turns out you're right. At least according to Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News. But it turns out, there's a reason why.

Williams says that newscasters in the United States are giving more airtime to the Democratic candidate because of the historic significance of his campaign, and because he was a new face in comparison to Mr McCain.

(The difference in coverage has prompted the McCain campaign to put together a video entitled "Obama Love", which pokes fun at the media's "bizarre fascination with Barack Obama."

Here it is, just in case you missed this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6CSix3Dy04. Doesn't it sorta remind you of something the MRC would put together?)

Williams said: "He (Obama) is the newcomer. His uniqueness in several areas, beyond just the physical, is obvious. So....as the young fresh-to-the-scene candidate, as a man who would be revolutionary in terms of our past presidents, he is getting the lion's share of the coverage.

"Senator McCain has run before and is a well-known figure to Americans, and in name and recognition terms is far and away in front of Obama."

I thought as journalists, we were supposed to rise above the "newness factor" in favor of fairness, particularly in election years. In fact, I would have sworn there were laws requiring us to do exactly that. Sure, we have a little ADHD, but couldn't we hide it better during working hours.

And historic significance? Uniqueness? I bet Hillary Clinton is locked in a closet somewhere screaming with her head spinning 360 degrees every .5 seconds.

Are you one of those poor down-trodden right-thinking Americans who believes the candidates aren't being covered equally?

(Editor's Note: Someday, when I learn to properly work with this site, I will be able to give photographic equal time to candidates. Until then, it's one photo per posting. Apologies to any offended.)

A Spot of Semantics...

"The financial markets were roiling today..."

"Car sales numbers roiled the markets today."

Do you know what the word 'roil' means? As in to roil someone beyond their ability to tolerate? It's one of those words you almost never hear except when the economy is in trouble or the markets are being rocketed up or down by some particular news or event.

Roil:–verb (used with object)
1. to render (water, wine, etc.) turbid by stirring up sediment.
2. to disturb or disquiet; irritate; vex: to be roiled by a delay. –verb (used without object)
3. to move or proceed turbulently.
4. when a nearby member of the British House of Winsor sneezes on you. You can accurately then describe yourself as having been roiled.

Didn't we all learn about such words in journalism class? I took Journalism 101 for Broadcast majors where we learned that "yes, those words are available for use." But we were also told that the big words, the "$40 words," were best left for the folks in print. The reason for that of course, is because in a newscast the viewer (usually) can't go back and re-listen to the information. It's a one-time offering on our stories, therefore the information must be easily understood instead of full of sticking points.

Or snobbery. Who talks like that? People who went to schools where their education cost half the operating budget of a small Third World country and they rightfully want to make sure everyone around them knows it.

I'm for everybody knowing who bought what in a college education and all, but... isn't the use of such words also a bit divisive? It drives a wedge between the people in the Ivory Towers and the people in the plain states. And the Plains States, for that matter.

How can we wonder why the viewers are leaving us behind if we're not talking to them, but instead intentionally talking over their heads? If we direct our stories at the lofty few who understand what we're saying, can we really be surprised when the rest of the people get up and leave the room?

I'm not suggesting we need to talk down to viewers, but since most people (including the well-educated among us) don't use the R-word in every day conversation, should we be using it at all when communicating on television? I always heard that good manners were best defined as 'the art of making others feel comfortable.' Since we've always used the metaphor of being invited into someone's living room to describe the evening newscast, perhaps we need to remember our manners?

If we want to advertise the impressiveness of our education, we should stick to annoying, er, informing those in our immediate circle and perhaps post it somewhere on the Internet. That would allow our fans easy access to such information and at the same time, give others the opportunity to understand what the devil we are talking about.

By the way, I attended a small private university in the West. I graduated with 5 cents to my name and no debt. And yes, I do know how to use roiled in a sentence. (See definition #4 above. And see "Sucking Viewers In:" over under my picture on the left.)

"I went to London a few years back, but didn't see any opportunities to get roiled."