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.

What If?

What if the Internet suddenly stopped giving away free news? With so many people saying lately that they "get their news off the Internet," I wonder what would happen if the Internet stopped giving away the milk and instead made people start buying the cow?

I don't mean what would happen to people or society as a whole. I think we might scratch our heads for a moment, then pick up the phone and call back the few remaining people at newspapers' subscription departments and order up the "special." (Trust me. The subscription departments at your local paper are standing by, ready and waiting, with subscription specials anytime you call. Try it and see.)

I'm not suggesting that this will happen tomorrow. It would take some major doing because it would have to start with the wire services and go all the way down. No more freebies on information and intellectual property.

Those wire services, like Associated Press, Reuters, and United Press International, would all have to change their working agreements with groups to outlaw the posting of their reporting on the Internet. Since every major news organization in the world uses these wire services as the backbone of their product, this would shut down the Internet as a source of information, except in return for money. Which since the services pay their employees, is really how it should be, isn't it?

And all of the "stories" online? Most of those "news stories" that people would still see for free would suddenly be viewed as what they are: bloggers, babblers, pundits, and intellectual property thieves.

All of the real news therefore, would then be either distributed by television, radio, or in those quaint things called newspapers. Sure, the newspapers would go back to being the slowest of the medias, but they'd still retain their journalistic integrity by virtue of providing the most in-depth news coverage. And yeah, they'd have subscribers again. They might even hire back a few reporters.

Televisions and radio stations would gain viewers back, because well, yes, you'd have to get your news from one of the several legitimate sources, so they'd be back in demand.

It's an old school style approach. And it would require some allowances by the government. We'd have to invite the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to the meetings where such an agreement was negotiated because that might prevent us all from being dragged into court for an anti-trust case.

But there would be no "price fixing." Journalists have rarely agreed on anything (a more snarling, snapping dog-filled pack you've never seen) so how could they or even their bean-counters fix a price? But just to keep it all honest, as we work to restore the business model, it might be acceptable to have government approval.

And websites? Sure, we'd keep those. Why not post the freebie information, advertisements, a few teases to the real stories (available in the morning paper or evening newscasts) reporters and talent bios and emails. But generally, after a few details on the web, we let everyone go back to reporting things other than the latest demise of a venerated newspaper?

I put this question to someone in management at one of my current media clients. He said he thinks it's too late. He said he thought that newspapers and other media outlets had rushed onto the Internet years ago, without giving serious thought to what it would mean long-term and now the momentum was against them. The industry is "hemorrhaging without end."

But I wonder at that analogy and suggested he look at it in a different way:

"If you slit your wrists, you are allowed to go to the hospital."

Maybe it's time to do that. Maybe it's time to check in before we all check out.

Walter Cronkite: 1916-2009

If you notice, I have a photograph of Walter Cronkite and me about halfway down this page on the right side. That was a huge moment in my life as a journalist. Absolutely huge. I'm very proud of that picture. So let me tell you a little about that photo and the power Mr. Cronkite held over normally jaded, bored, and "oh-so-sophisticated journalists," like me.

The picture was taken several years back when I was working at one of the Los Angeles stations. I pulled the morning shift and the on-air day was over for me. I forget what I had covered. But I was back in the station, the morning shows were over and I was done.

One of the anchors was supposed to go interview Mr. Cronkite but she apparently had other, better, more important and anchorly things to do. In short, she had already left for the day.

The Assistant News Director shouted across the newsroom, "Hey Marti, are you busy? Can we get you to do us a favor?"

"Not particularly busy," I said. "What's up?"

I had already overstayed the shift and was about to slide out the door, but as a freelancer, I was always ready to suck up a little.

"Would you mind going over to UCLA to interview Walter Cronkite?" she queried.

"Would I? WOULD I?" I jumped up and started literally racing around in circles, too excited to know what direction to go with this. Did I look alright? Was my hair okay? Did I have on an okay suit? And most importantly, where was my personal camera? (At home under a pile of reading material.)

Immediately after buying a disposable camera, I raced off to UCLA as fast as I could. I didn't know how to get there before, but I mapquested and had the desk guys on the phone directing me. I was determined.

I was a little bit late, but none of the ceremonies had started. Mr. Cronkite was wandering the hall and hugging Judy Muller, who was apparently an old friend of his and receiving an honor that day. I was so excited that I could have spit.

Unfortunately, it was not "as billed," in that it was not an interview. It was a media availability, which means that about 6 of us were supposed to ask one question each. UCLA was video-taping it and didn't seem to have a reporter.

Because I was so thrilled to meet "Uncle Walter," who had been the most trusted man in America for years, I made a total fool of myself. But who cared? I got to meet him.

He was very kind and gracious to a reporter falling all over herself and bumbling with excitement. In his 90's already, he was a little hard of hearing, but beyond that bit of limitation, he was clear as a bell. I pushed a little and asked about four questions. (You knew that was going to happen, right?) He told me afterward that it was obvious who the students were and who had been a working journalist for awhile. He was a definite charmer and I walked away feeling, well, charmed.

I also got the photograph. I sent him a copy and he signed it. I framed it. It's a treasured memento. And now it almost seems appropriate, with everything that is happening in journalism currently, that he passes. Those of us to whom the torch passed and then dimmed don't really want him seeing our failings. He shouldn't have to see what's going on. It seems almost respectful that he fades from our sight.

But not from memory.

More Media Insight

Since one of my friends commented on how much she enjoyed seeing "behind the scenes" of coverage of a big national story, such as Michael Jackson's death, I thought I'd show you some more of the pictures you didn't see.

We'll start with this first one. You see the young man "praying" there at the barricade in front of the dead singer's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? Yeah. I first spotted him around 7am on June 27th. He had his head bowed over that guardrail but his eyes weren't actually closed.

Instead, his eyes were darting back and forth to checking to see who was watching him. He was positioned directly behind me, and as I watched a little longer, I could see that this "gentleman" was watching to see which cameras were on, and where he could best position himself to be in their line of sight.

That sounds pretty bad, but guess what happened next? I pointed him out to the BBC and Reuters photographers, and then the BBC cameraman shouts to the Reuters photog, "Hey, make sure you get a shot of that dude who's praying."

Guess what happened next? You got it: "praying dude" snapped his eyes shut and stayed that way off and on for the next two and a half hours. Whenever someone started to shoot, he started to pray. Not exactly sincere, is he? But he did make the LATimes, the TV Guide Channel and a couple of other media outlets. He invested 2.5 hours and got his 15 minutes.

You already saw this next fan. He claimed to be one of Michael Jackson's biggest fans, but apparently can't spell his idol's name correctly.

By the way, when I arrived at the Walk of Fame at 12am Friday night, I noticed a sharp increase in the number and quality of "party dresses." And not just any kind of party dresses. These were the most expensive, short little outfits I'd ever seen down there. Not a sparkly glove in sight.

To give you an idea, usually, the Friday/Saturday night crowds are bar-hopping, but these crowds were mostly on one side of the street: walking up and down in front the barricaded area of "the Walk." Maybe they were there to honor Michael Jackson, but they all seemed to want to get their moment in front of the cameras. Interesting, isn't it?

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't want to suggest that Michael Jackson doesn't have his fans. He does. He was a huge influence in the music industry. He has legions of fans. His misfortune was dying in a town that is full of posers. And lots of those turned out to "honor" him and be photographed in doing so. It's stunning to think of the numbers of people who were hoping to be "discovered" at a sidewalk memorial, isn't it?

This photo shows the reporter and photographer in position for a live shot. You can tell the shot is coming up soon because my jacket is on. It was so warm that between shots, my jacket was off and the sun glasses were on.

Next is a picture of the reporter, in a rare moment of doing what she's supposed to do between live-shots. I'm supposed to sit down and update my information by reading wire copy stories on my pda and maybe do a little writing. Usually, I pace. I pace a lot. I like pacing. I think it should be a national sport. I could be an Olympian. But for this moment, I grabbed a chair, sat, and read.

This is a photograph of a happy and successful crew: two truck operators, a correspondent and a wonderful producer.

By way of explanation, I took no pictures from the first day after the 50 year old singer died. Candid pictures are something that gets done after the writing, tracking, shooting and other set-up are complete and between live shots. The first day's schedule was just too busy. We started at the Holmby Hills rental house at midnight, ran on to the Walk of fame at around 8 am, and then raced to the Los Angeles County Coroner's office by mid-morning. No time for intelligent, hard working and dedicated news crews to shoot pictures until Day Two and beyond.

Michael Jackson Coverage Pictorial...courtesy Ken Koller

Here are a few pictures of the two days I spent working with ABC News to cover the death of Michael Jackson. First, a scene-setter at the late singer's star on the Walk of Fame in Hollywood:


Trust me, you'd be wearing low-heeled, padded insole sandals, too. The pavement was hot and hard and the workday was 12 hours long.

All of these pictures were taken by the photographer friend I mentioned in the previous post. Ken Koller was dispatched to position a local news live truck at the scene. He didn't have anything to do but take the truck to find a parking spot and then keep it from getting towed. So instead of being bored, he walked around and chatted with friends and played with his new Sony digital camera. (I was so jealous. That camera was so tiny, yet took amazingly good pictures. Or rather HE took amazingly good pictures with it.)


The BBC was the second crew to show up at the star that day. (We were there first.) They were quite nice, neighborly and very fun. Although, I will say the "presenter" who was there earlier, Emily Maitlis, was a firecracker. This guy seemed a touch bland after her. But I rather think chili peppers might seem a touch bland after her.


Too many pictures spoil the reporter.


Day Two, Hour 11. Just a little exhaustion setting in.

This was my favorite fan who showed up.

He placed a plasma TV on Michael Jackson's star. Nothing on the screen. No hookup to a video. Just a screen. Right.

Oh, and check on the spelling on his dead idol's last name.

"J-A-C-H-S-O-N." Now THAT is love. Sure it is.

Next to me in this next photo is the lovely and talented Jen Weiss-Watts, just completing her first day ever as a field producer. She was everything needed, plus professionalism and kindness.



This was only Day Two. Doubtless there will be many more days to come in this story, but I'm off to new sights. Ta!

PS: I do feel bad that I only got photos with one producer, but during the first day, we changed locations three times and at the end of it, everyone scattered so fast there was no time for pictures.

Sarah Palin Takes On...

Sarah Palin is blasting away at the Universe these days. Or maybe she's just exploding at the Universe of TV folks who are bigger than her.

Remember when she was first announced as the chosen running mate of GOP Presidential Candidate John McCain? There was much excitement and hope. She came from obscurity and was initially believed to be The Answer to Barack Obama, whose historic set of "firsts" was steamrollering everything in its path.

Then she took a few interviews.

We saw Charlie Gibson talk down to her. We witnessed Katie Couric's mortifying little set down. If we missed it on the evening news, it was replayed on Saturday Night Live with one of the more wickedly funny playbacks in excruciatingly exact detail ever witnessed. The sadly funny part was that the playback was almost completely unaltered. It was both painful and hilarious. And very, very strange. And we watched as events unfolded from losing the race to her daughter's metamorphosis to unwed mother. It hasn't been good. There are worlds of "what might have beens" for the former beauty queen-cum-governor of Alaska.

Recently, Mr. and Mrs. Todd Palin took their little family to New York and directly to the center of a media storm. Or more accurately a tempest in a teacup, but a messy little tempest at that.

Sarah Palin still believes, somewhere in her heart of hearts, that she can be the President of the United States. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Las Vegas oddsmakers would put her at the very longest of long shots. But this belief has her still making public appearances, offering opinions and generally baring her neck before the blood-thirsty media.

David Letterman took the bait. With deadly, dark comic aplomb, he quipped,

"There was one awkward moment during the seventh inning stretch. Her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Palin took immediate offense and assumed that the comment was aimed at her middle daughter, Willow. Whereupon Mr. Letterman clarified, stating that no, he was referring to the other, older daughter, Bristol. Here's his statement:

"I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl."

He also conceded that his was a joke of "desperation." But he didn't apologize. Why? Because he's a comedian. He's not a newsmaker. Not a public official. Not a news person. He is a comic who makes jokes for a living. And sometimes, they land a little off-base. Or in this case, a little off-color or in fact, a bit too dark for comfort. But you don't expect cats to come when called, drug addicts to eat healthy, or late night comics to say they're sorry when they are soaking up the media spotlight during a crucial moment when they need the attention to settle an old score with arch-nemesis Conan O'Brien.

Mrs. Palin shouldn't wait around for apologies. She probably shouldn't let herself get involved in mudslinging with people who have bigger, more established pulpits and are known for going for the laughs. She doesn't have a regular microphone to cry foul into and she won't get it by crying foul over some late night comic's lines.

Or a morning talk show host's questions. Gov. Palin was interviewed a few days later on NBC's Today Show and when Matt Lauer quite reasonably asked her about Letterman's explanation, she wasn't gracious. In fact, she then came at Matt,

"OK Matt I would say that you and anybody else are extremely naive to believe that very convenient excuse of David Letterman's. It took him a couple of days to think of that excuse and 'Uhhh... No, he wasn't talking about my daughter that was there with me at the game, the 14 year-old. He was talking about some other daughter.' Well I think it was a weak excuse and regardless it was a degrading comment about a young woman and I would hope that people would rise up and decide it's not acceptable."

Wow. She just called the host naive on his own show?

I can understand Mrs. Palin defending her child and family. I think we all understand that. But she just killed the messenger. And in doing so, she killed her own message.

You can't wonder why the Republican party doesn't always succeed when their most visible members attack those who they should make friends with. These are not examples of "media bias." They are examples of a comic doing what a comic does, and a member of the media doig what they do: asking Mrs. Palin for her reaction. It was her own reactions that did any damage.

Mrs. Palin needs to consider that maybe she's had her 15 minutes in the spotlight. It may well be that those few minutes are all she ever gets but that book isn't written yet. What would be wise is to let the bruises heal. Let the swelling go down. Go back to Alaska and attend to business. Raise your kids. Stop making these public appearances until you've had some serious media training and stopped being such an anger management hot spot for your handlers.

You don't need to be Madame President in your 40's. You can wait, calm down, learn to manage your media and learn to pick on people your own size. In your case, older may be wiser.

Of course, purely in the interest of being obtuse along with late night laughs and morning show guffaws, we can always hope not.

Is This A Reporter?

This may be a little "inside ball game" for those of you who aren't in the media. For those of us watching the demise of our once-noble profession, today offered up an example of everything that we warned and watched against. So this blog briefly examines this example of what happens now that anyone with a laptop and some brassiness in approaching a media outlet can now hang a "press" tag on the brim of a cap and head out for a news event. The results are something that was only a matter of time and actually, it could have been worse.

A "reporter" was removed from near Air Force One today in Los Angeles, after she seemed a little too forceful in her efforts to give President Barack Obama a letter she had written.

According to various reports, the woman, Brenda Lee, said she had a letter for the President and asked a Secret Service officer to give it to Mr. Obama. He refused, referring her to a White House staffer. She refused to give the letter to the staffer so apparently, after refusing to leave quietly, she was carried out by her hands and feet.

Ms. Lee claims to be a reporter for a Macon, Georgia newspaper. She claimed that she has White House Press credentials. She is a resident of Anaheim, California. Lee also says she's a "Roman Catholic Priestess."

I wonder if Ms. Lee may be a case of a "citizen journalist" thinking she has gotten into the sky-box and can now call the game to benefit the home team. She may be a little confused by the dizzying height that she perceives herself to have attained.

White House Press credentials, as those of us who have had them now and in the past can attest, are different things than just "access for an event." White House Press credentialing requires filling out forms, being photographed and fingerprinted, and then giving the Secret Service months to look into who you are and the life that you've lived. It's not granted easily to anyone who doesn't require it. Usually, such credentials aren't extended to people who live in California, based on the fact that they don't need such access because they don't frequent the White House Press Briefing Room.

Access for an event is likely what Ms. Lee was granted by the Secret Service.

Reporting for a Macon, Georgia newspaper such as the Georgia Informer is very possible. Ms. Lee is published and some of her writings appear on the monthly newspaper's website. She is probably a "stringer," who has sold some of her writings to the small media outlet which, like all media outlets, is struggling to keep itself in the game and afloat.

That's one of the ugly realities of modern journalism.

As for the letter that she had written, Brenda Lee says she wrote a letter opposing gay marriage. She says she's a Roman Catholic Priestess. She said her black dress was in fact a cassock, the garment of a Catholic priest. I am not Catholic, so I don't ever claim to be an authority on that religion. (Nor do I claim to be an authority on my own religion. I've got my learners' permit there and that's enough for me.) But since the Catholic religion doesn't ordain women as priests, I am skeptical of the idea that she represents that faith.

But let me also point out this: an actual journalist wouldn't have tried to hand something to President Obama. A professional journalist would realize that anything he or she had to say could be said where we would say everything else: in the media outlet. Anything I have to say to Barack Obama is said on the air or in writing.

We're in an era where we have to look closer than ever to see who the legitimate journalists are. Just as a polaroid digital camera and access to Adobe Photoshop doesn't make someone a photographer, picking up a notebook, taking a few notes and writing a couple hundred words doesn't make you a writer... much less a reporter.

We now have newspapers being published in places like Pasadena, but written half-way around the world by "reporters" in Jakarta. People are listening to talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill Maher and confusing these pundits with reporters.

Sometimes this new era has produced great results. We've seen cell phone video of news events that would otherwise never have been seen. People are witnessing things and coming forward more ready to describe what they've seen than ever before.

But it also results in pictures of women being carried out of press areas by their hands and feet. And it's likely to produce more and more of these bad outcomes for awhile, until all of this shakes out. It's guaranteed to make those of us who are professional reporters cringe a bit.

I saw a quote from Morley Safer of CBS "60 Minutes" last week. He said that he "would trust citizen journalism about as much as (he) would trust citizen surgery." That's about right.

David Geffen, Patron Saint of Journalism?

That headline is a stunner, huh? Thanks! I thought you'd like it.

But think of it. If David Geffen, the sort of Peter Pan (yes, with green tights) of Hollywood for the last ten years, has his way, he'll be the new owner of one of the most venerated names in journalism.

Geffen made an offer for the Los Angeles Times a couple of years back. It wasn't accepted. Newspapers weren't in the same position then as they are now, which if you need a mental picture is rather like a burly hiker who wandered out close to the cliff's edge, then found the ground underneath him is giving way. The hiker started to fall, grabbed at the crumbling cliff beneath him and for the past two years, he's lost inch after inch. There are no footholds, and yes, he's a LOT thinner than he used to be.

Being a professional journalist isn't what it used to be. In fact, it's downright tough at the moment. There isn't a bright future for television journalists, and the sky over our print brethrens' heads is absolutely midnight black.

Back to our story. Now Mr. Geffen is eyeing the New York Times. And he's looking at her with a very benevolent eye. Sources quoted at Newsweek.com:

"The New York Times is a very special institution," said one of the persons. "It's essential to be preserved. And David believes the correct model to preserve it is nonprofit."

Why not? 66 year old Geffen made his money in music and entertainment. He's estimated to be worth about $4.5Billion. He can afford to lose a few dollars. But then there's the stand of Warren Buffett who recently said, that newspapers "have the possibility of going to unending losses." And further, "We would not buy them at any price."

It is said that Mr. Geffen views the Great Grey Lady, as she is often called, as a national treasure and something that cannot be allowed to fade away into nothingness amidst ongoing financial losses.

I hate being grateful publicly, so maybe, if his purchase does go through, I can just allow a quiet sigh of relief on her behalf.

Thanks Mr. Buffett... NOT!

Ever feel like someone is jumping up and down on your grave? Warren Buffett says the one industry he would not invest in is newspapers. He seems to think they're a sinking ship.

35,000 people showed up in Nebraska for Berkshire Hathaway's Stockholder Meeting, or as the locals refer to it "Buffett's Big Deal." The locals aren't invited. Most of them don't own so much as one share of Berkshire Hathaway stock, which can run sky-high per share, regardless of whether you are buying "A" or "B."

And what does the Oracle of Omaha tell them? He tells them he wouldn't buy newspaper stocks at any price, based on the outlook for media stocks.

It feels a little like he's jumping up and down on my grave. Yes, it does. Except that to be perfectly accurate, what Warren Buffett said was that he wouldn't buy MORE newspaper stock. He already owns a sizable stake in the Washington Post (saved only, he says, by its position in cable television. I wonder if he's noticed the shift from television to internet? And BH owns the Buffalo News outright. He says they are "working on the business model with the unions" in that company. Good luck.

The NYTimes today notified the federal government that since they have failed to get neccessary concessions from unions at the Boston Globe, they will stop the presses at that venerated old voice in 60 days.

Some say it's a negotiating tactic. Perhaps they've never heard of the Rocky Mountain News, which closed its doors in February after nearly 150 years.

Maybe those same unions aren't acquainted with anyone who worked at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which went all digital only a few weeks ago.

It's a sad time for newspapers, isn't it? But maybe it's also sad for Berkshire Hathaway's stockholders, if their "oracle" couldn't see this one coming from a mile off.

What Will We Talk About On Thursday?

I think we can all expect that on Wednesday, the day after the voting, we will still be talking about who was elected. The media will do the most unsufferably long examination of the campaign and a completely over-the-top, self-absorbed and outright self-destructive examination of the coverage in which we'll find ourselves completely innocent of all charges of bias in reporting and covering the election.

Not exactly news, but we'll call it that, yes?

So what will we talk about on Thursday? It's rather like the 1970's housewife who has to answer the daily grinding question of what's for dinner?

Here are a few of my suggestions:

Global warming?
Child Poverty in Orange County, CA?
Internet Marketing?
Nut harvesting in the Amazon?
Why Gas Prices Always Go Up Stunningly AFTER an Election?
The Economy? (Stupid!)
The Ethics of Being Giving More Lower Priced Christmas Gifts Manufactured by 7-Year Olds in Southeast Asia or Fewer Higher Priced Gifts Made by Overpaid Kentuckians?
Inflation in Apartment Living in Dubai?

But please, no more Proposition 8.

"It's the Economy, Stupid!"

So... it IS the economy. Stupid!

Ha! Okay, but enough is enough, right? Lately, it seems we are all caught up in the pain of watching the markets meltdown.

Or at least some of us are. Others are watching what they believe is the meltdown being brought on by the media.

Some folks say this is being made worse by all the negative reporting going on. Television newscasts that nightly run dramatic "Economic Meltdown" banners while sounding the alarm with very serious background music and the newspaper photographers who seem to capture the most unimaginably negative facial expressions plastered on traders faces as the days events transpire. (Seriously, folks, for all we know, the photograph above was taken when someone dropped a cardboard tray containing four Starbucks cups and a donut. "Not the donut! Catch it! Catch it! For the love of Heaven, CATCH IT!!")

Just now as I walked past my television, NBC interrupted afternoon programming once again to give us the news: The NYSE closed down.... again. It lost another 100+ points.

I must admit that after a week in which the American stock market has lost about a quarter of its value, I don't think that the market being "off another 100+ points" is necessarily news.

I've heard one piece of good advice in the last couple of weeks: don't check your funds and accounts daily. Avert your vision to something more positive. I've found that helps.

Last night's local newscast on the Los Angeles ABC affiliate featured interviews with people who lived through the Great Depression. I know they were trying to be helpful. The interviews all said "This isn't nearly as bad as that." But somehow the knowledge that they were bringing these people forward and reminding me of that very difficult time made things seem all the more painful.

It's a difficult time. We all know that. In the coming weeks, we may see even more painful financial times. (I have no idea. I am NOT a financial analyst, nor do I *ever* claim to be one on TV.)

But better days are ahead. The government's rescue program will have effect on the credit markets. Life will improve once again. And then I think we'll all hope that perhaps this moment in time has it's one potentially positive effect: making Americans respect their earnings again.

I've Been Talking to God, and Man Is He Ticked!

Have you noticed how much God is in our conversations these days? Well, maybe not yours. But definitely in the public discussion. And look at him in that picture. He looks anything but happy about it.

I don't mean discussion as in societally, we're actually talking about religion, spirituality, the Greater Good or the spirit of the rocks that some folks pray to. (I live in California.)

I'm talking about the use of the word God.

A few years back, the words "Oh my God" weren't used in general conversation. They certainly weren't acceptable in use by the media or on television shows for impact. They weren't usable anymore than any of the "Seven Words that You Can Never Say On TV" inaugurated by the late George Carlin. (I checked. None of his "7" are 3-letter words.)

I remember not so long ago when Deborah Norville, Jane Pauley's ill-fated replacement, was practically drummed off the air. One of the gripes that viewers had was that they didn't like her tendency to exclaim "Oh My Gawd!" whenever she was surprised by something. Viewers felt it was disrespectful, irreverent and flat-out wrong for her to do that on air.

But these days, thanks to a bunch of little girls that were never famous for anything other than being famous, we hear it everywhere. We hear it on little girl tv. (Think about it: you know which shows on what network I'm talking about.) We hear it on the occasional newscast. And at the moment, it seems to be on a constant loop at CBS where the season premiere includes the death of one of the major characters (That's what happens when the actor playing the character is caught in a drug bust that is believed to be beyond simply "going to rehab.") and the final 2 seconds are another character sounding an agonized "Oh my God!!!"

I work with men all day long. Many of them are brilliant. Some of them are profane. I recall working with one particularly talented man who also swore a lot. I never minded until one day, he fixated on the same word all day long. It was in every sentence. It's a verb, so sometimes he conjugated it differently, but still I grew tired of it.

At 2pm one fine afternoon as we worked in a small room editing the visuals of the story, he got frustrated one more time and shouted that same profane word at the machine. I looked at him and said "Joe, (not his real name) you know I don't care about your swearing, but pick a different word. I don't care what you say but PICK A DIFFERENT WORD. You have worn that one out. I need variety in my swearing! Break it up for me!"

I'm reaching burnout on "Oh my God." And the "God" word in general. I can't be the only person out there who is offended by all the "Oh my God" references going on. I'm a little surprised that TV networks haven't suggested that executive producers red-line that reference because it is potentially offensive. And when I get offended, I tune out.

And as for me, I'd like a return to that gentler age when God was someone whose might we respected, whose Second Commandment we respected, and whose other children we respected by not shouting potentially offensive things about God to them.

Because You Know Who might just get ticked off by the whole thing.