It has not been a good run for journalism. From the open cheerleading of the '08 and '10 electoral campaigns to the trading in speculation that has marked the Cam Newton "story", the profession continues to be its own worst enemy. As a former reporter - not a journalist, not a commentator, not a pundit (though I did have the chance to be one of those - it is troublesome to see such a casual disregard of the basics of the profession. Stories require facts, usually supplied either by documentation or on-the-record interviews. Maybe the most valuable lesson that any J-school can teach students today is that a reporter can only burn a source one time. After that, the source will never talk to you again, will discourage others from doing so, and will let anyone within shouting distance know of your unscrupulousness.
A generation ago, Reagan-era Transportation Secretary Raymond Donovan asked where he could go to reclaim his reputation after being acquitted of some very shaky charges. The question seems a quaint relic from different time when pesky little things like facts were considered staples of journalism. It may be that Newton will be come the Shoeless Joe Jackson of his generation but, thus far, there is not a shred of evidence, a trade of data, or a single person going on the record to accuse of him of anything. Not. One. Thing.
To keep the story alive, the narrative has relied on a combination of second- and third-hand allegations from shady characters and un-named sources who offer nothing to back up their stories, and internal navel-gazing and canibalism over the state of the profession. A few writers have taken shots at other writers which will last until the next round of allegations is launched so another batch of Heisman voters can self-righteously wax about wanting to avoid another Reggie Bush.
The voters' role is not elect the good citizen of the week, mister congeniality, or a public official; it's to choose the most outstanding college football player in the country and I do not hear any debate over who that is. And, the writers who chastise colleagues do so only after inserting some version of "if this turns out to be true" into their stories. Well, if the allegations are proven true, so be it. Cam will suffer, and it appears that Mississippi State will, too. Auburn appears in the clear all the way around save for wins that would have to be vacated in the case of a negative finding. We are a long way from such a finding, however; in fact, we are a long way from anything of substance.
The 24-hour media monster is aided and abeted by a public that demands to know everything about everyone, five minutes ago. That leads to sloppy reporting, rumor passed as fact, and an over-reliance on sources who may have axes to grind or are looking to cover their own hides. It's not pretty and if the industry does not take serious efforts to get its house in order, the next generation's Raymond Donovan is just an allegation away.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Is it over yet?
It's a year of the additional season - the political season, which makes NASCAR's silly season look like sanity. A couple of thoughts regarding future campaigns:
--a quiet period 36 hours from the closing of the polls. That means NO television ads, NO print ads, NO rallies or campaign appearances, NO nothing. Anyone who remains undecided at that point should forfeit their right to vote. Sorry, elections demand more than the equivalent of deciding between candy bars at the checkout counter.
--enough with the references to faith, church affiliation, and the other religious garb some candidates are determined to be cloaked in. While 'separation of church and state' is NOT in the Constitution, politics and religion were never meant to be intertwined. Besides, who can guarantee that the lead tenor in the choir at Antioch Baptist is better qualified than the New Ager or the candidate who happens to be Jewish, Hindu, or pagan?
--any ad that does nothing but slam the opponent should be required to provide references to fully back its criticism and I mean fully. No twisted contexts, no half truths, just reality. I get the point of negative campaigning, but shouldn't I vote FOR you rather than AGAINST your opponent?
--it's a shame that the current representatives of the word have rendered "liberal" a pejorative of the worst kind, but it is comical to watch candidates joust for the conservative label. Here's a clue - if your history of donations includes giving money to Obama, Kerry, and Edwards, you are not conservative.
--no Democrat is willing to admit to being one. In fact, Dems in ALA and GA make a point of referencing how the DON'T side with their party leadership. If you are going to vote like a Repub, have the decency to run as one. (Note to Charlie Crist - this applies to opportunists who bailed on the GOP when it became evident they would lose a primary.)
--a quiet period 36 hours from the closing of the polls. That means NO television ads, NO print ads, NO rallies or campaign appearances, NO nothing. Anyone who remains undecided at that point should forfeit their right to vote. Sorry, elections demand more than the equivalent of deciding between candy bars at the checkout counter.
--enough with the references to faith, church affiliation, and the other religious garb some candidates are determined to be cloaked in. While 'separation of church and state' is NOT in the Constitution, politics and religion were never meant to be intertwined. Besides, who can guarantee that the lead tenor in the choir at Antioch Baptist is better qualified than the New Ager or the candidate who happens to be Jewish, Hindu, or pagan?
--any ad that does nothing but slam the opponent should be required to provide references to fully back its criticism and I mean fully. No twisted contexts, no half truths, just reality. I get the point of negative campaigning, but shouldn't I vote FOR you rather than AGAINST your opponent?
--it's a shame that the current representatives of the word have rendered "liberal" a pejorative of the worst kind, but it is comical to watch candidates joust for the conservative label. Here's a clue - if your history of donations includes giving money to Obama, Kerry, and Edwards, you are not conservative.
--no Democrat is willing to admit to being one. In fact, Dems in ALA and GA make a point of referencing how the DON'T side with their party leadership. If you are going to vote like a Repub, have the decency to run as one. (Note to Charlie Crist - this applies to opportunists who bailed on the GOP when it became evident they would lose a primary.)
Monday, October 4, 2010
So I met our next door neighbor......
...at 4 o'clock. In the morning. Seems Maria (that's my mom) and her dementia thought someone was being held captive in my car. That someone was my dad. Who died in February. She could have walked down the hall and told us about the "problem", but that would have been too easy and a dull story. So, she went outside to investigate for herself.
The neighbor is not a big sleeper and the light in her living room drew in mom like the proverbial moth. What an Asian lady with a pronounced accent was able to say to a Greek woman whose command English is deteriorating is a mystery, but it was enough to convince mom to let the lady walk her back home.
Her leaving the house was new, time of night notwithstanding, meaning countermeasures were necessary. After consultations with Homeland Security, the NSA, and a couple of ex-Special Ops contacts, we went with child-proofing tools and physics. Doorknob covers, a monitor at the front door, and re-arranged furniture to cover the back prevented further escapes, but these remedies mostly served to raise mom's agitation level beyond our ability to manage.
A couple of near-sleepless nights later (which makes for interesting lecture participation, by the way), we are preparing for another transition, one that involves a place that makes sure there are no late-night jaunts. It's not what the plan was and, frankly, feels a bit like failure. On the other hand, we're not medical professionals and this is a disease beyond our ability to control. Some lucid moments remain but the toughest part is knowing that the present day is the best that person is ever going to be. Try wrapping your head around that concept.
The neighbor is not a big sleeper and the light in her living room drew in mom like the proverbial moth. What an Asian lady with a pronounced accent was able to say to a Greek woman whose command English is deteriorating is a mystery, but it was enough to convince mom to let the lady walk her back home.
Her leaving the house was new, time of night notwithstanding, meaning countermeasures were necessary. After consultations with Homeland Security, the NSA, and a couple of ex-Special Ops contacts, we went with child-proofing tools and physics. Doorknob covers, a monitor at the front door, and re-arranged furniture to cover the back prevented further escapes, but these remedies mostly served to raise mom's agitation level beyond our ability to manage.
A couple of near-sleepless nights later (which makes for interesting lecture participation, by the way), we are preparing for another transition, one that involves a place that makes sure there are no late-night jaunts. It's not what the plan was and, frankly, feels a bit like failure. On the other hand, we're not medical professionals and this is a disease beyond our ability to control. Some lucid moments remain but the toughest part is knowing that the present day is the best that person is ever going to be. Try wrapping your head around that concept.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
THIS is research?
Enter graduate school and, sooner or later, you will run across a research piece that leads you to question who thought it would be a good idea to study the obvious. I ran across one such article in a Public Relations Theory class, an article that upheld the Curmudgeon Theory. That is the one that demands each generation to think poorly of the one that succeeds it. In this case, PR practitioners of the Baby Boomer variety do not think highly of Generation Y, or Millenials, if you prefer.
This distaste was based on the elders' belief that Millenials enter the workplace with out-sized senses of entitlement and self-importance. Gee, now where do you imagine those who have those things got them? Couldn't be from being reared by members of the same generation that is doing the complaining, could it? All those "spoiled" kids are the result of an atmosphere in which everyone got a trophy, score was not kept, high schools had multiple valedictorians, and all kids were treated as future kings and presidents. The remarkable thing isn't that the older set views the younger with a jaundiced eye, it's that the Millenials are able to function as well as they do. Few generations tried harder to ruin childhood than the same Boomers now whining about young 'uns.
The predictability in the study is that EVERY generation gripes about the one that follows it, whether the "problem" is tastes in music, hairstyles, clothing, or friends. And, this works both ways; young people like to think they're getting over on their parents. They're not; just like the youth of my day did not invent rebellious behavior, and neither did my parents. Or their parents. The bar of permissibility has changed but, again, whose fault is that?
I have high hopes for the Millenials, partly because I have two sons and two step-daughters in their ranks and partly because I am surrounded by them all day. These are not brats-in-waiting; they are sharp, motivated people. Sure, they're different from my generation but they are supposed to be. Their experiences and the things they have been exposed to are different, as those things were different in my childhood as compared to my parents.
The one surprising thing (at least to me though I am probably wrong) is that Millenials were found to be averse to conflict, a bit startling considering that their parents' generation practically invented youthful conflict. Then again, those same parents likely overcompensated, so busy wanting to be their children's friend that they ignored being mothers and fathers. The real study here may be that more Millenials are not in need of therapy. Good thing. My retirement years depend on their productivity.
This distaste was based on the elders' belief that Millenials enter the workplace with out-sized senses of entitlement and self-importance. Gee, now where do you imagine those who have those things got them? Couldn't be from being reared by members of the same generation that is doing the complaining, could it? All those "spoiled" kids are the result of an atmosphere in which everyone got a trophy, score was not kept, high schools had multiple valedictorians, and all kids were treated as future kings and presidents. The remarkable thing isn't that the older set views the younger with a jaundiced eye, it's that the Millenials are able to function as well as they do. Few generations tried harder to ruin childhood than the same Boomers now whining about young 'uns.
The predictability in the study is that EVERY generation gripes about the one that follows it, whether the "problem" is tastes in music, hairstyles, clothing, or friends. And, this works both ways; young people like to think they're getting over on their parents. They're not; just like the youth of my day did not invent rebellious behavior, and neither did my parents. Or their parents. The bar of permissibility has changed but, again, whose fault is that?
I have high hopes for the Millenials, partly because I have two sons and two step-daughters in their ranks and partly because I am surrounded by them all day. These are not brats-in-waiting; they are sharp, motivated people. Sure, they're different from my generation but they are supposed to be. Their experiences and the things they have been exposed to are different, as those things were different in my childhood as compared to my parents.
The one surprising thing (at least to me though I am probably wrong) is that Millenials were found to be averse to conflict, a bit startling considering that their parents' generation practically invented youthful conflict. Then again, those same parents likely overcompensated, so busy wanting to be their children's friend that they ignored being mothers and fathers. The real study here may be that more Millenials are not in need of therapy. Good thing. My retirement years depend on their productivity.
Friday, September 17, 2010
The ABCs of APA
It is not that APA writing style is particularly difficult, it is that this method is complicated, particularly for a newcomer. On each of my first two papers, I may have spent as much time on the stylistics imposed by APA requirements as with the substance of the actual writing. Yes, I get the point; these are research-based works and citation of sources is necessary so anyone curious about a particular point that is made can easily track that information down. Still, it is quite foreign when compared to anything else I have ever written and, like so many other things associated with grad school, has taken some adjustment.
The one aspect of APA that practically leaps off the page at both reader and writer is how seemingly everything, no matter how innocuous, is treated as worthy of citation with author, publication, date, and page number. I half expect to find a paper that includes a source to justify the claim of the sun rising in the east. Shouldn't some things be considered public knowledge, facts established beyond any hint of doubt?
For example, I recently did a literature review on envy between siblings. Every article I looked at included a citation for stating that a sibling relationship is usually the longest-lasting relationship any of us has. That seems obvious, doesn't it? The age difference puts a limit on one's relationship with parents; even the best of marriages won't start until a person is over 20; and, friendships also have built-in chronological limitations. Apparently not good enough.
Can't help but reminisce on occasion about the relative freedom of writing a 750-word column where the only requirement was writing something that others would actually want to read and, if all went really well, be moved enough by it to write a letter to the editor to either hail the piece or condemn it. I have had folks do both and have no particular preference as to which tack readers take. Both are satisfying in that 1) people took the time to read something I wrote and 2) took a bit more time to think about it and formulate an opinion of their own.
To a degree, I suppose APA sets the tone for similar results among academics. They read another's published work, see where material and information came from, scour through the actual piece and possibly some of the sources, and find themselves intrigued enough by the subject matter to attempt to move the discussion further along by doing their own study. None of this is meant as a complaint; it is simply an observation from someone new to the style. I'll get better at it and fully expect to be able to justify each of its requirements as more assignments are completed. A former colleague of mine may have been thinking of APA in saying "learning never ends, but will time?"
The one aspect of APA that practically leaps off the page at both reader and writer is how seemingly everything, no matter how innocuous, is treated as worthy of citation with author, publication, date, and page number. I half expect to find a paper that includes a source to justify the claim of the sun rising in the east. Shouldn't some things be considered public knowledge, facts established beyond any hint of doubt?
For example, I recently did a literature review on envy between siblings. Every article I looked at included a citation for stating that a sibling relationship is usually the longest-lasting relationship any of us has. That seems obvious, doesn't it? The age difference puts a limit on one's relationship with parents; even the best of marriages won't start until a person is over 20; and, friendships also have built-in chronological limitations. Apparently not good enough.
Can't help but reminisce on occasion about the relative freedom of writing a 750-word column where the only requirement was writing something that others would actually want to read and, if all went really well, be moved enough by it to write a letter to the editor to either hail the piece or condemn it. I have had folks do both and have no particular preference as to which tack readers take. Both are satisfying in that 1) people took the time to read something I wrote and 2) took a bit more time to think about it and formulate an opinion of their own.
To a degree, I suppose APA sets the tone for similar results among academics. They read another's published work, see where material and information came from, scour through the actual piece and possibly some of the sources, and find themselves intrigued enough by the subject matter to attempt to move the discussion further along by doing their own study. None of this is meant as a complaint; it is simply an observation from someone new to the style. I'll get better at it and fully expect to be able to justify each of its requirements as more assignments are completed. A former colleague of mine may have been thinking of APA in saying "learning never ends, but will time?"
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
They said it would happen
And, they were right. "They", in this case, being professionals warning of the tangential effects of caring for someone with mental deterioration. The 'effect' this time was my brother, spurred into an inquisition of mom's care after her dementia made a couple of incoherent phone calls that left him upset.
Fair enough; prior to moving to Auburn, I had also gotten such calls. They leave the recipient feeling helpless and confused; they usually do NOT leave one feeling hostile or accusatory, which was the course my brother chose to take.
His belligerence stirred the Col. Nathan Jessup that lies in all of us. Jessup, if you recall, was the character played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", the one whose signature line was telling the Tom Cruise character "you can't handle the truth". Not only is my brother unable to handle the truth about mom, he is denying its existence.
I will not go into details other than to say, unless you are with the deteriorating person every day, you are in a woefully weak position to judge those who are. My Jessup sentiment was along the lines of "she has to be cared for and her peculiarities accepted. Who's going to do that? You? Not so far. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. You get to sleep and rise knowing that she is taken care of yet have the audacity to gripe about that care is given. Frankly, I would prefer you just said thank you. Otherwise, take up a shift and see if your perspective doesn't change a bit."
Books on this subject are filled with tales of intrafamily strife and the theme is consistent - those on the outside have little clue as to what the inside looks and feels like, yet want to play some sort of directorial role. Look, circumstances happen in every family where one sibling or another is precluded from being an active participant. Such is the case with my brother and I don't begrudge him that. My opportunity to go to grad school was knowingly coupled with returning mom to her home; I am neither a martyr nor seeking canonization. But, reality is what it is and it cannot be seen from 300 miles away.
Fortunately, there is a vast repository of literature available, and his email and regular mailbox will fill up with both. He can choose to read them and modify his approach, or take a second pass on the path of confrontation. The latter is guaranteed to not only fail but to potentially cause irreversible harm. He's a smart guy who works in health care, no less. It is not like he lacks for resources. This should be easy to figure out. Should be. Nathan had his exercise for the week but he is manning a post.
Fair enough; prior to moving to Auburn, I had also gotten such calls. They leave the recipient feeling helpless and confused; they usually do NOT leave one feeling hostile or accusatory, which was the course my brother chose to take.
His belligerence stirred the Col. Nathan Jessup that lies in all of us. Jessup, if you recall, was the character played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", the one whose signature line was telling the Tom Cruise character "you can't handle the truth". Not only is my brother unable to handle the truth about mom, he is denying its existence.
I will not go into details other than to say, unless you are with the deteriorating person every day, you are in a woefully weak position to judge those who are. My Jessup sentiment was along the lines of "she has to be cared for and her peculiarities accepted. Who's going to do that? You? Not so far. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. You get to sleep and rise knowing that she is taken care of yet have the audacity to gripe about that care is given. Frankly, I would prefer you just said thank you. Otherwise, take up a shift and see if your perspective doesn't change a bit."
Books on this subject are filled with tales of intrafamily strife and the theme is consistent - those on the outside have little clue as to what the inside looks and feels like, yet want to play some sort of directorial role. Look, circumstances happen in every family where one sibling or another is precluded from being an active participant. Such is the case with my brother and I don't begrudge him that. My opportunity to go to grad school was knowingly coupled with returning mom to her home; I am neither a martyr nor seeking canonization. But, reality is what it is and it cannot be seen from 300 miles away.
Fortunately, there is a vast repository of literature available, and his email and regular mailbox will fill up with both. He can choose to read them and modify his approach, or take a second pass on the path of confrontation. The latter is guaranteed to not only fail but to potentially cause irreversible harm. He's a smart guy who works in health care, no less. It is not like he lacks for resources. This should be easy to figure out. Should be. Nathan had his exercise for the week but he is manning a post.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The First Assignment
"Do not overthink this". With those words, the class and I were dispatched on our first writing assignment of the semester. Don't overthink it; easy for the professor to say. No one will be grading her work. Besides, who likes writing? No, wait; I do. I love writing. But, this is for academia, the kind of writing that makes one think of stuffy language, stodgy vocabulary, and stiff syntax. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing one is supposed to overthink?
It's not like the assignment snuck up on me. Reading and writing are as common to grad school as polls and pundits are to politics. The past month's volume of reading has topped that of the previous few years, without a single box score or opinion column. Still, as that noted wordsmith Dan Quayle once said - "how terrible to lose one's mind, or not have a mind at all", or words close to that. He took a catch phrase about a mind being a terrible thing to waste and absolutely butchered it. I want to avoid anything similar on this writing assignment.
I have already violated the professor's commandment. Repeatedly. But, it is a thought piece, so what else does one do except think, right? Maybe if there was no grade involved, but I checked. There will be. Seems they don't give trophies to everyone just for being on the team; they actually keep score. Hmmm; the folks in K-12 are not going to like this. They specialize in avoiding any hint at the malicious truth that all students are not created equal, to the point of having multiple valedictorians at some high schools, which totally defies the point of the word 'valedictorian'.
But I digress, which is not a part of the assignment but does provide a break from thinking about it. Now, however, I am thinking about it again - writing and re-writing witty intros, snappy transitions, and a clever ending. If I can only get those components to actually address the topic of the assignment, this will be easy. And, I can stop thinking about it. Until the next assignment.
Totally unrelated note - was anyone else embarrassed that during Saturday's game the athletic department was pushing tickets for the remaining schedule? Really? This schedule has 5 home games that are sure-fire national television attractions and we can't sell out the stadium? Sorry; I don't like it. Tennessee regularly fills up a larger venue with lesser teams; Bama has a waiting list on season tickets; and, even South Carolina has more people wanting in than seats in which to put them. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to act like you are serious. The players and coaches are doing their part. I have season ducats; do you?
It's not like the assignment snuck up on me. Reading and writing are as common to grad school as polls and pundits are to politics. The past month's volume of reading has topped that of the previous few years, without a single box score or opinion column. Still, as that noted wordsmith Dan Quayle once said - "how terrible to lose one's mind, or not have a mind at all", or words close to that. He took a catch phrase about a mind being a terrible thing to waste and absolutely butchered it. I want to avoid anything similar on this writing assignment.
I have already violated the professor's commandment. Repeatedly. But, it is a thought piece, so what else does one do except think, right? Maybe if there was no grade involved, but I checked. There will be. Seems they don't give trophies to everyone just for being on the team; they actually keep score. Hmmm; the folks in K-12 are not going to like this. They specialize in avoiding any hint at the malicious truth that all students are not created equal, to the point of having multiple valedictorians at some high schools, which totally defies the point of the word 'valedictorian'.
But I digress, which is not a part of the assignment but does provide a break from thinking about it. Now, however, I am thinking about it again - writing and re-writing witty intros, snappy transitions, and a clever ending. If I can only get those components to actually address the topic of the assignment, this will be easy. And, I can stop thinking about it. Until the next assignment.
Totally unrelated note - was anyone else embarrassed that during Saturday's game the athletic department was pushing tickets for the remaining schedule? Really? This schedule has 5 home games that are sure-fire national television attractions and we can't sell out the stadium? Sorry; I don't like it. Tennessee regularly fills up a larger venue with lesser teams; Bama has a waiting list on season tickets; and, even South Carolina has more people wanting in than seats in which to put them. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to act like you are serious. The players and coaches are doing their part. I have season ducats; do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)