Showing posts with label popular culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label popular culture. Show all posts
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Pop Culture Identity Theft
All the syndicated radio talk show hosts in the country are trying to convince us to buy identity theft protection. So are our banks, our credit cards, our mortgage companies, and even some of our favorite TV shows. I'm now ashamed to say that I have traditionally rejected these entreaties to protect myself. I always figured that being me was not only nothing to brag about, but has in may ways been a serious detriment to my past, present, and future. I therefore couldn't understand why anyone would attempt to steal an identity like mine, what possible good it would do them to have it, and if they did for some reason find themselves in possession of it, would probably pay me money to take it back..
After all, I was a geek long before it was popular to be one. I not only owned a number of pocket protectors (cartridge pens leaked and ruined white school shirts), and wore them rather proudly. I owned a 24" slide ruler in a fake leather case, and was rather proficient in its use. I began reading sci-fi soon after learning how to read, beginning with the Tom Swift adventures, before moving on to Jules Vern and eventually graduating to the classics of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein; along with the fantasy of Tolkien, Robert E Howard's Conan, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, and Fritz Leiber's Fafhd and the Gray Mouser (with a overlarge and perhaps unhealthy dose of comic books filling the spots in between). I enjoyed school and loved learning, especially history, math, and science. I fulfilled every requirement for the position of geek in fact except for glasses with tape on them, and this only because it took me until my twenties to wreck my vision through reading too much in darkened rooms with the book crammed within three inches of my nose.
As you might expect, this didn't make me the most popular guy in my social strata during my youth. I was often only reluctantly picked for sports, had only a limited number of friends, and wasted far too much of that youth with the TV or a good book to bury myself in. I watched every episode of "Twilight Zone", "Outer Limits", and "Star Trek"; and was easily caught up in every cheesy sci-fi 'B' movies. As I grew up (I refuse to use the term 'matured' as I'm still waiting for that), this led to the obvious awkwardness in social situations. Speaking to members of the opposite sex was proof of ineptness and a source of lingering terror (actually, it still is). Dating was what be termed an infrequent occurrence (you know, like rain in the desert) and it's likely that I was saved considerable failure and embarrassment in this area by attending a Catholic all-boys school for most of my high school career.
Unlike many others, I failed to grow out of my 'geekhood'. I've owned as many computers in my life as I have cars. In my late fifties, I'm still playing video games (when I'm not caught up in weekend of cheesy movie festivals on the ScyFy channel). I spend much of my spare time (such as it is) researching and writing on a computer, when I'm not reading other literary efforts online and off. As for the state of my social life, let's just say that two marriages allowed me to be a small part of the lives of two pretty good women and continue to allow me to be part of three great kids and five grand-kids. Other than that, I have trouble even making Facebook friends and the concept of dating is one that should largely be considered an intellectual pursuit.
I'm sure many you are asking yourself why I'm admitting to so much that's at the very least embarrassing and borders on humiliating. (The rest of you are getting ready to click on to the next blog you follow or see if there's something on TV.) I'm enduring this personal torture however, so that you can clearly understand that my life is not one that anyone in their right mind would choose to covet. And yet ...
Now suddenly "The Big Bang Theory", a show fulls geeks, is one of the most popular situation-comedies on TV (and here I thought that laughing at geeks was restricted to schools). Sci-fi movies like "Oblivion" are the rage, and the latest incarnation of Star Trek is getting ready to release its much-anticipate sequel "Into Darkness". Science fiction has its own channel on cable these days with the 'ScyFy' channel (though I'm still trying to figure out where wresting fits into it). Fantasy has likewise taken its rightful place with the beginning of a successful portrayal of "The Hobbit" coming after the hugely successful "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. And need we even have to mention the unparalleled successes of Marvel and DC's characters whose movies have just come out ("Iron Man 3") or are much anticipated (Superman's "Man of Steel"). But it's not just the mainstream media.
Facebook is full this weekend of "May the Fourth Be With You" images from "Star Wars" (as well as "Revenge of the Fifth" or Sixth if they want to leave Cinco de Mayo in), and the Toledo Mudhens (wow, there's a geek name if ever there was one) are wearing 'Chewbacca' jerseys for their game today. Disney has recently purchased the entire 'Star Wars' franchise from George Lucas with a promised release of new movies, video games, and collectable crap coming out every year. People are even out there buying the 'red-shirts' from 'Star Trek', in tribute to their rather twisted meaning (these were usually the security guys who never had first and last names and seldom lasted half way through an entire episode). Something has turned the world upside down and inside-out, and it's become popular to be a geek whether you actually are or not.
I'm sorry people but this just isn't fair. I've had to spend in excess of a half a century attempting to deal with, if not hide my geekhood as best I can from the rest of society. To no one's shock, those attempts have been largely unsuccessful. That being said, I'm finding it far too painful, time-consuming, and largely unsuccessful for me to now calmly surrender this once pariah status identity to the whims of popular culture. Do you have any idea what's going to happen to the cost of replacement copies for my worn out John Carter books? Do you comprehend what kind of inflation is happening to the 'Star Trek' Enterprise collectibles market? Don't you realize that I'm now going to have to buy a Chewbacca Cubs jersey when I'm sure it will come out next year? Enough already!
You captains of the football team and ex-cheerleaders need to keep your grubby hands off of the geek identity that's been my private burden for so many years! Isn't it enough that you were able to establish superior social status in my youth without now attempting to rip the only thing left to me in a lost-in-book, front-of-the-class, pocket protector distinctiveness. Having murdered me in the past by pointedly remarking on my awkwardness and terminal shyness among my fellows, must you likewise now rob me of my ability to commit social suicide every time I now attempt some form of reinstatement to your existing social order? Having submitted to your whims in paisley, tie-die, and bell bottoms in my youth; must I also now surrender my technological hideaways and fantasy and sci-fi sanctuaries.
Dammit, that's it! I'm calling Lifelock tomorrow. I don't know if they can actually protect from all this rampant Pop Culture Identity Theft, but it's at least worth a try. Now where did I leave that slide ruler case?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Decide Dammit!
Don't get me wrong here, I know that there are sometimes tough choices that need to be made out there. Yoga pants or pajama jeans, the shortest route or the quickest one on your GPS system, and chunky or smooth peanut butter are but a few of the earth shattering determinations that apparently can only be made after lengthy deliberation by someone with your Solomon-like judgment skills. Of course there are those looking on from the sidelines who would like to see such resolution proceed at a less glacial pace, but certainly we can wait until you've completed proper contemplation on how much foam they should put on your latte (though the restraint required to keep our hands from your throat is almost crippling).
The problem now however, is that 2012 is a presidential election year; and that brings up even more indecision. The mainstream media cannot decide how far in the tank it's willing to go for Democrats. Fox News hasn't decided how far it's willing to go to counter the impact of its competitors on Republicans. Largely irrelevant daily newspapers can't decide, based on their own past bias and increasing loss of credibility, if endorsing a particular candidate will do them more harm than good.
Around the world, our traditional allies can't decide if more of what they've gotten for the last 3-1/2 years would be worse than what they might get from four years of the new guy. Inimical governments and terrorist organizations can't decide if taking advantage of the apparent foreign policy weaknesses of the current White House occupant (especially this close to an election) can be used to their own political advantage, or will simply facilitate the election of someone who might be another game-changer for them, like Reagan was after Carter.
Of course all of this indecision inside the media and outside the nation, is because we are once more being told that this year's electoral process will be decided by ... you guessed it .... 'the Undecideds'. This apparent group of vacuous voters will, according to pundits and other so-called experts, be swayed in the coming weeks by any public (or private) misstep of the candidates, by who makes a better showing in the three presidential debates (or how badly 'Jokin' Joe Biden performs in his one), and by who can raise the most money and run the most TV ads running up to the election. (And people complained about how the BCS Championship decided the winner of College Football.)
Ostensibly the fate of the electoral process weighs on a group of people who, after over two years of campaigning, cannot now decide on their national leader. After a campaign whose length seemingly rivaled that of the 100 Years War, they are still unable to commit to a candidate. Apparently the fate of the nation will ultimately be decided by those who stand in the check out line at the grocery store, incapable of producing a decisive answer to, "Paper or plastic?"
Which of course leads me to my own 2012 dilemmas. I can't decide if I simply pity those who, with all the information out there cannot apparently complete the deliberative process; or if I just hate their guts. I'm undecided over whether perhaps if a few more people took more interest in learning about the people they vote for than about the lives and back stories of performers on 'American Idol' or on 'Dancing With The Stars', we wouldn't have Congressional gridlock (another form of indecision) and a $16 trillion national deficit. I am unable to reach a conclusion over whether perhaps there wasn't a two-party stranglehold on the national election process, there wouldn't be so much indecision in the first place. I am completely flummoxed over whether, if the education process in this nation spent a little more time teaching critical thinking and little less on fostering self-esteem, we'd have less people incapable of decisions on anything more important than whether they'll super-size their fries.
What I do know however is that there is a real pandemic of 'cranial / rectal inversion' occurring in this country; and it's far past time that people started pulling their aggregated heads out of their collective asses and Decide Dammit!
Monday, January 24, 2011
History - According To The Movies
While only a modest student of the history and certainly no expert on cinema, I cannot help but notice that more of the former is apparently being defined by the latter these days. For some inexplicable reason, screenwriters in Hollywood appear to have become our new historians.
This became glaringly apparent to me lately while watching a day of programs covering a variety of past events (or supposed ones) shown on the network devoted to the topic, 'The History Channel'.
The Battle of Thermopylae is understood these days only through the eyes of screenwriter and Director Zack Snyder's "300". The Declaration of Independence and Founding Fathers now appear to be defined by "National Treasure". Knowledge of The Ark of the Covenant is understood, but only according George Lucas in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". George make a similar contribution regarding another Biblical artifact in a later effort, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" regarding the Holy Grail. Of course the Holy Grail is also (and perhaps even more confusingly defined) by the movie adapted from the Dan Brown novel, "The Di Vinci Code".
(Though personally I find more humor and meaning in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"; as well as a more realistic depiction of the sometimes bizarre beliefs of the period surrounding the quests searching for it.)
The tragedy in these somewhat entertaining shows were the comments by at least supposedly reputable historians (mostly professors from colleges that I had never heard of) regarding the relation of these fictional movie efforts with actual events in history. These entertainment efforts were treated by these educators as legitimate sources of reference material, and the merits and interpretations of directors and screenwriters who were trying to write a story that would sell tickets and popcorn as data worthy of consideration in a careful study of the subject.
Are movie-makers then to become the new academics of history? Will we have to dumb the world down to the level of an Adam Sandler film and throw in some computer-generated effects in order to make it palatable to a society that increasingly accepts Reality Shows as a non-dramatic depictions of modern society? Have we sunk so low in the science of history and so bastardized the process of educating our young on such subjects that we are no longer concerned about the facts, but only about the entertainment value of their greater truth? Shall we ignore any factual details that don't move the plot along. throw in some occasional fictitious romance to tug at the heartstrings of an audience, or add a car chase (whether automobiles had been invented or not) in order to keep them riveted to their seats.
By such standards of academia, how can Robin Hood ever be considered as a fictional character when he's been played by Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner (yeesh), and Russell Crowe? (Yes, I know I left out Cary Elwes playing the role in "Robin Hood: Men In Tights", but I suspect that most at least still understand that Mel Brooks is not a historian, in spite of making the movie "History of the World: Part I".)
Shall we further accept that German soldiers and Roman Senators alike speak with crisp British accents and that Hitler was the only Nazi to speak with a German one? So let me state for the record for those of you apparently unable to understand the rudiments of critical thinking, academic study, or fictional entertainment:
This would be the equivalent of taking a degree in Biblical studies comprised of courses consisting of the collected efforts of the major studios on the subject (which is probably offered at a university as we speak and that I am simply unaware of). "The Ten Commandments", "Samson and Delilah", "David and Bathsheba","The Robe", and "King of Kings" among others, could provide all of the material required to pass such a course and perhaps even earn a Bachelor's degree on the subject. You could even throw in Norman Jewison's "Jesus Christ Superstar" and Kevin Smith's "Dogma" for post-graduate studies.
Better still, maybe we can have them run up a CG animated version and make every subject of academia more entertaining. If all of the facts fail to matter, why not make these historical characters more handsome, the voices more stirring, and maybe even drop a safe or two on their heads and have some stars dancing around their melons to lighten the dark moments of the Dark Ages. Of course we could just go back to treating the science of the study of history as an academic pursuit, and allow the fascinating nature of events that occurred to be entertainment enough. Nah ....
The Battle of Thermopylae is understood these days only through the eyes of screenwriter and Director Zack Snyder's "300". The Declaration of Independence and Founding Fathers now appear to be defined by "National Treasure". Knowledge of The Ark of the Covenant is understood, but only according George Lucas in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". George make a similar contribution regarding another Biblical artifact in a later effort, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" regarding the Holy Grail. Of course the Holy Grail is also (and perhaps even more confusingly defined) by the movie adapted from the Dan Brown novel, "The Di Vinci Code".
(Though personally I find more humor and meaning in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"; as well as a more realistic depiction of the sometimes bizarre beliefs of the period surrounding the quests searching for it.)
The tragedy in these somewhat entertaining shows were the comments by at least supposedly reputable historians (mostly professors from colleges that I had never heard of) regarding the relation of these fictional movie efforts with actual events in history. These entertainment efforts were treated by these educators as legitimate sources of reference material, and the merits and interpretations of directors and screenwriters who were trying to write a story that would sell tickets and popcorn as data worthy of consideration in a careful study of the subject.
Are movie-makers then to become the new academics of history? Will we have to dumb the world down to the level of an Adam Sandler film and throw in some computer-generated effects in order to make it palatable to a society that increasingly accepts Reality Shows as a non-dramatic depictions of modern society? Have we sunk so low in the science of history and so bastardized the process of educating our young on such subjects that we are no longer concerned about the facts, but only about the entertainment value of their greater truth? Shall we ignore any factual details that don't move the plot along. throw in some occasional fictitious romance to tug at the heartstrings of an audience, or add a car chase (whether automobiles had been invented or not) in order to keep them riveted to their seats.
By such standards of academia, how can Robin Hood ever be considered as a fictional character when he's been played by Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner (yeesh), and Russell Crowe? (Yes, I know I left out Cary Elwes playing the role in "Robin Hood: Men In Tights", but I suspect that most at least still understand that Mel Brooks is not a historian, in spite of making the movie "History of the World: Part I".)
Shall we further accept that German soldiers and Roman Senators alike speak with crisp British accents and that Hitler was the only Nazi to speak with a German one? So let me state for the record for those of you apparently unable to understand the rudiments of critical thinking, academic study, or fictional entertainment:
These are movies damn it!
This would be the equivalent of taking a degree in Biblical studies comprised of courses consisting of the collected efforts of the major studios on the subject (which is probably offered at a university as we speak and that I am simply unaware of). "The Ten Commandments", "Samson and Delilah", "David and Bathsheba","The Robe", and "King of Kings" among others, could provide all of the material required to pass such a course and perhaps even earn a Bachelor's degree on the subject. You could even throw in Norman Jewison's "Jesus Christ Superstar" and Kevin Smith's "Dogma" for post-graduate studies.
Better still, maybe we can have them run up a CG animated version and make every subject of academia more entertaining. If all of the facts fail to matter, why not make these historical characters more handsome, the voices more stirring, and maybe even drop a safe or two on their heads and have some stars dancing around their melons to lighten the dark moments of the Dark Ages. Of course we could just go back to treating the science of the study of history as an academic pursuit, and allow the fascinating nature of events that occurred to be entertainment enough. Nah ....
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Christmas 2010
While looking for something else, I came across a posting that I did about Christmas three years ago. I was so taken by the apparent timelessness of the sentiment of this piece that I decided that it might be worth dragging it out into the open again and revisiting. (The fact that it allowed me to post to this site with little or no original work had nothing to do with the decision, I assure you.)
While the piece has been edited slightly due to the timing of its appearance and the changes of the last three years, I believe that it remains true to the insight of the original.
The Christmas season is once again upon us ... and with a vengeance. Retail outlets have shoved aside the last lingering Halloween or Thanksgiving displays in a full-throated effort to separate us from us much of the money that we really don't possess as they possibly can. Many are now hunkered down and beginning to look forward to the arrival of that white-haired fat guy with a beard (but enough about me).
This is a time when families gather together, trees are decorated, and aggressive shopping behavior becomes a truly Olympic sport. It's also the time when I most question the manners and intelligence of my fellow man.
Think I'm kidding, then answer these questions for me: When did people start waiting in line all night in front of a store like it was a "Harry Potter" movie premier? Do we really need to begin shopping at 3 AM in order to save a couple of bucks and buck up the sales of what is still a bloated retail marketplace, or would it make more sense to at least wait until the sun comes up before attempting to do our small parts in the massive consumerism more commonly known as the US economy?
Has anyone bothered to think of the poor schmuck store employees who have to worry about you freezing to death on their sidewalk while waiting, only to break their sleep rhythm to come in long before the crack of dawn and face the thundering herd waiting on their doorstep? What part of the Christmas spirit is it to fight with your fellow man over the latest over-hyped gift that your kid or spouse simply can't live without? Is this year's game system or $200 laptop any better than last years, or has it simply fallen prey to the obsolescence that was designed into it in the first place. Forget the religious implications of such behavior here folks, if Santa sees this going on, you're definitely getting put on the 'naughty' list and getting a rock in your stocking.
When did we become so stupid (or the assumption of such ignorance on the part of advertising agencies and retailers become so pervasive) that diamonds, big screen TV's, and expensive cars are the only presents believed to make us happy? I've watched "Charlie Brown Christmas" for years, and I get that Christmas has gone commercial. I missed part however, where the whole thing turned into 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".
What part of the Christmas spirit is it to run up all of your charge cards buying expensive and over-hyped presents for the family in order to assuage your guilt for always being at work; only to realize that you will now have to continue to spend all of you time away from them in order to pay for the purchases you just made to make it up to them? What happened to the toy commercials (or have I just been watching the wrong channels)? The Christmas hype always used to be about kids, now it's about adult toys. Is this about the spirit of giving or just a contest to see who has the most disposable income? (We know the answer of course, but I had to ask the question.)
Will they be playing all the versions of "Miracle on 34th Street" over and over again this year, with the colorized version following the black and white and the color one following it? Is this instead some new and diabolic plot by some evil corporation to replace "A Christmas Story" as our favorite Christmas movie, since they've worn out the copy they are showing anyway? (Or could it instead be a plot to follow Miracle on 34th with Christmas Story with repeated showings allowing them to short-staff the studios and turn our brains into Christmas tapioca?)
Why do we feel the need to overindulge at Christmas parties, as if we had taken a vow of abstinence on the 4th of July that we feel can finally be broken? Is the likely chance of a DUI and spending some time in jail or the commission of some personal or professional faux pas at one of these social gatherings worth the long term repercussions of breaking the pledge? Are the nauseating feelings of guilt and retribution (and hangover) worth a few hours of alcoholic indulgence in public? Take my advice ... If you really feel the need to be over-served, do it to yourself, at home, while watching "Miracle on 34th Street". Don't worry if you happen to nod off from time to time from the effects, you can fill in the blanks during the subsequent replays.
Listen folks, I may not be the Spirit of Christmas present (though I admit to bearing a remarkable resemblance to someone hanging out in neighborhood shopping malls); but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that somehow we've missed a turn that was indicated on the societal GPS. I know that December 25th has now been recognized by the Catholic church as not being the day on which Jesus Christ was born. In spite of being a date co-opted from a pagan mid-winter festival (Mithras) however, the day does still has serious spiritual traditions and implications. In both the pagan and Christian teachings, this holiday was supposed to be about fellowship and good cheer.
Let's try not to lose sight of that as we gather to celebrate this special time of year. So lighten up everyone; and in the words of Tiny Tim (no relation),
"God bless us, every one".
While the piece has been edited slightly due to the timing of its appearance and the changes of the last three years, I believe that it remains true to the insight of the original.
The Christmas season is once again upon us ... and with a vengeance. Retail outlets have shoved aside the last lingering Halloween or Thanksgiving displays in a full-throated effort to separate us from us much of the money that we really don't possess as they possibly can. Many are now hunkered down and beginning to look forward to the arrival of that white-haired fat guy with a beard (but enough about me).
This is a time when families gather together, trees are decorated, and aggressive shopping behavior becomes a truly Olympic sport. It's also the time when I most question the manners and intelligence of my fellow man.
Think I'm kidding, then answer these questions for me: When did people start waiting in line all night in front of a store like it was a "Harry Potter" movie premier? Do we really need to begin shopping at 3 AM in order to save a couple of bucks and buck up the sales of what is still a bloated retail marketplace, or would it make more sense to at least wait until the sun comes up before attempting to do our small parts in the massive consumerism more commonly known as the US economy?
Has anyone bothered to think of the poor schmuck store employees who have to worry about you freezing to death on their sidewalk while waiting, only to break their sleep rhythm to come in long before the crack of dawn and face the thundering herd waiting on their doorstep? What part of the Christmas spirit is it to fight with your fellow man over the latest over-hyped gift that your kid or spouse simply can't live without? Is this year's game system or $200 laptop any better than last years, or has it simply fallen prey to the obsolescence that was designed into it in the first place. Forget the religious implications of such behavior here folks, if Santa sees this going on, you're definitely getting put on the 'naughty' list and getting a rock in your stocking.
When did we become so stupid (or the assumption of such ignorance on the part of advertising agencies and retailers become so pervasive) that diamonds, big screen TV's, and expensive cars are the only presents believed to make us happy? I've watched "Charlie Brown Christmas" for years, and I get that Christmas has gone commercial. I missed part however, where the whole thing turned into 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".
What part of the Christmas spirit is it to run up all of your charge cards buying expensive and over-hyped presents for the family in order to assuage your guilt for always being at work; only to realize that you will now have to continue to spend all of you time away from them in order to pay for the purchases you just made to make it up to them? What happened to the toy commercials (or have I just been watching the wrong channels)? The Christmas hype always used to be about kids, now it's about adult toys. Is this about the spirit of giving or just a contest to see who has the most disposable income? (We know the answer of course, but I had to ask the question.)
Will they be playing all the versions of "Miracle on 34th Street" over and over again this year, with the colorized version following the black and white and the color one following it? Is this instead some new and diabolic plot by some evil corporation to replace "A Christmas Story" as our favorite Christmas movie, since they've worn out the copy they are showing anyway? (Or could it instead be a plot to follow Miracle on 34th with Christmas Story with repeated showings allowing them to short-staff the studios and turn our brains into Christmas tapioca?)
Why do we feel the need to overindulge at Christmas parties, as if we had taken a vow of abstinence on the 4th of July that we feel can finally be broken? Is the likely chance of a DUI and spending some time in jail or the commission of some personal or professional faux pas at one of these social gatherings worth the long term repercussions of breaking the pledge? Are the nauseating feelings of guilt and retribution (and hangover) worth a few hours of alcoholic indulgence in public? Take my advice ... If you really feel the need to be over-served, do it to yourself, at home, while watching "Miracle on 34th Street". Don't worry if you happen to nod off from time to time from the effects, you can fill in the blanks during the subsequent replays.
Listen folks, I may not be the Spirit of Christmas present (though I admit to bearing a remarkable resemblance to someone hanging out in neighborhood shopping malls); but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that somehow we've missed a turn that was indicated on the societal GPS. I know that December 25th has now been recognized by the Catholic church as not being the day on which Jesus Christ was born. In spite of being a date co-opted from a pagan mid-winter festival (Mithras) however, the day does still has serious spiritual traditions and implications. In both the pagan and Christian teachings, this holiday was supposed to be about fellowship and good cheer.
Let's try not to lose sight of that as we gather to celebrate this special time of year. So lighten up everyone; and in the words of Tiny Tim (no relation),
"God bless us, every one".
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The O'Reilly Factor
There has been a lot of talk in recent years about the tone of discourse and punditry in the media today. Many rightly feel that there is a distinct media bias in the coverage of news these days, and that this is in some way a dramatic change from the past.
I would argue however that the plethora of news sources out there has simply made the playing field so diverse that the ability of one organization to point out the failings others only highlights the slant and selective coverage of both. I would further point out that the number of bloggers out there serving as an alternative 'amateur' news source also serves to point out the glaringly apparent shortcomings where both print and broadcast media are concerned.
Information shows have seen a change however, and not necessarily for the better where the interview and news-talk shows are concerned. This began perhaps with the descent of weekly news shows like '60 Minutes'. This show at some point went down the dark path not only in the choice of the stories that it covered, but in the editing of the interviews in order to drive home the particular point of view of the segment producer. Good guys and bad guys were decided by camera angles, lighting, and the careful cutting of even more carefully worded questions and responses. A predisposed bias was subtly and effectively promulgated in what was sold to us as hard-hitting investigative journalism; but in fact was a careful blending of ambush and editorializing.
Next came the the plethora of news shows with live interviews, where both hosts and guests quickly discovered that in order to play the game effectively, one had to be 'prepped' by increasingly more professional handlers. Being visible on such shows was important, but more important was having the required clever lines and talking points memorized. It didn't matter if the questions were hard-hitting, or the answers had anything to do with them, as long as those answers were part of a biased message that the guest was trying to deliver.
Hosts of these shows became frustrated, since they attempted to play by the rules while not antagonizing guests; and the guests refused to follow their lead. The visiting team had a distinct advantage by playing the game it wanted the way it wanted to, while the home team looked mostly irrelevant. There was no longer information being sought and explored, but instead a disjointed and fractious competition where the winner had already been decided. The level of discourse and interviewing used today has become little more than a meandering diatribe followed by non sequitur.
Nowhere is this more personified than on one of the more popular of the purported news commentary shows, 'The O'Reilly Factor'. Now for those who don't or haven't watched this show, Bill O'Reilly is someone who has been part of journalism for some time. As well as spending time as a legitimate reporter, he also spent some time on the tabloid side while hosting shows like 'Hard Copy'.
Since 1996, he has hosted a show on the Fox News Channel (perhaps its most popular) in which he combines the worst of both of those worlds. This has nothing to do with Mr O'Reilly's opinions, which I may or may not agree with, but with the level that such discourse has sunk to in the process. Mr O'Reilly seems to personify the current concept of political punditry, which has become little more than hosts saying 'look at me'.
Interviews normally begin with him expressing an opinion and then asking the guest to tell him where he's wrong. If the guest agrees, he get 20 seconds to do so before being interrupted to confirm the host is right and move on to the next host opinion/question. If he disagrees, he gets half of that time before being called out as foolish or misinformed.
In fact while I haven't timed it, I think a comparative analysis of microphone 'time of possession' would find Mr O'Reilly holding the field of play better than 75% of the time. This begs the question that if you are not going to let a guest answer the questions posed, why bring them on at all.
Bill O'Reilly is not alone however. Rush Limbaugh forgoes interviews on his 3 hour syndicated show 5 days a week, but finds a different path to the same goal. While saying that he doesn't want to talk about himself, he instead spends much of each hour sharing with us what others have said about him, as if that's all that's going on.
Sean Hannity spends probably more of his time on his radio and TV show telling us about the personal appearances, book signings, and things that he will be talking about later than he does telling us anything else. Glenn Beck is equally busy promoting books, personal appearances, movie theater broadcasts of personal appearances; and less so in informing us of information that he claims is vital that we hear and understand.
Media stores and subscription websites can do little but prove to us that such labors are exercises in capitalism rather than information. (And for those of you who believe that I am attacking those on the right without due consideration to the panderers on the left, let me state that my failure to comment on Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow is only because their efforts so nauseate me that I cannot stand to subject myself to such punishment long enough to properly critique them.)
Unfortunately, lost in all this self-promotion is any legitimate news or insight that any of these pundits might offer. Picking the nuggets of truth and information from the overwhelming barrage of self-serving nonsense is difficult at best. Even when one concedes that these are potentially intelligent and well-read individuals, the constant self-promotion leaves one too tired to retain the carefully winnowed rewards.
The few legitimate news and opinion offerings out there are drowned out by egotistic tabloid punditry. And while everyone has a right to try and make a buck, it's unfortunate that we've turned news and opinion into little more than a traveling medicine show. It's likewise unfortunate that at a time when so many are looking for unbiased facts and answers to vital questions in society, all we are offered is the equivalent of entertainment at the intellectual level of the WWE. It's sad to me especially that at a time when this country would be well-served by reasoned Conservative voices, all we are offered is little more than hucksters and little better than the O'Reilly factor.
I would argue however that the plethora of news sources out there has simply made the playing field so diverse that the ability of one organization to point out the failings others only highlights the slant and selective coverage of both. I would further point out that the number of bloggers out there serving as an alternative 'amateur' news source also serves to point out the glaringly apparent shortcomings where both print and broadcast media are concerned.
Information shows have seen a change however, and not necessarily for the better where the interview and news-talk shows are concerned. This began perhaps with the descent of weekly news shows like '60 Minutes'. This show at some point went down the dark path not only in the choice of the stories that it covered, but in the editing of the interviews in order to drive home the particular point of view of the segment producer. Good guys and bad guys were decided by camera angles, lighting, and the careful cutting of even more carefully worded questions and responses. A predisposed bias was subtly and effectively promulgated in what was sold to us as hard-hitting investigative journalism; but in fact was a careful blending of ambush and editorializing.
Next came the the plethora of news shows with live interviews, where both hosts and guests quickly discovered that in order to play the game effectively, one had to be 'prepped' by increasingly more professional handlers. Being visible on such shows was important, but more important was having the required clever lines and talking points memorized. It didn't matter if the questions were hard-hitting, or the answers had anything to do with them, as long as those answers were part of a biased message that the guest was trying to deliver.
Hosts of these shows became frustrated, since they attempted to play by the rules while not antagonizing guests; and the guests refused to follow their lead. The visiting team had a distinct advantage by playing the game it wanted the way it wanted to, while the home team looked mostly irrelevant. There was no longer information being sought and explored, but instead a disjointed and fractious competition where the winner had already been decided. The level of discourse and interviewing used today has become little more than a meandering diatribe followed by non sequitur.
Nowhere is this more personified than on one of the more popular of the purported news commentary shows, 'The O'Reilly Factor'. Now for those who don't or haven't watched this show, Bill O'Reilly is someone who has been part of journalism for some time. As well as spending time as a legitimate reporter, he also spent some time on the tabloid side while hosting shows like 'Hard Copy'.
Since 1996, he has hosted a show on the Fox News Channel (perhaps its most popular) in which he combines the worst of both of those worlds. This has nothing to do with Mr O'Reilly's opinions, which I may or may not agree with, but with the level that such discourse has sunk to in the process. Mr O'Reilly seems to personify the current concept of political punditry, which has become little more than hosts saying 'look at me'.
Interviews normally begin with him expressing an opinion and then asking the guest to tell him where he's wrong. If the guest agrees, he get 20 seconds to do so before being interrupted to confirm the host is right and move on to the next host opinion/question. If he disagrees, he gets half of that time before being called out as foolish or misinformed.
In fact while I haven't timed it, I think a comparative analysis of microphone 'time of possession' would find Mr O'Reilly holding the field of play better than 75% of the time. This begs the question that if you are not going to let a guest answer the questions posed, why bring them on at all.
Bill O'Reilly is not alone however. Rush Limbaugh forgoes interviews on his 3 hour syndicated show 5 days a week, but finds a different path to the same goal. While saying that he doesn't want to talk about himself, he instead spends much of each hour sharing with us what others have said about him, as if that's all that's going on.
Sean Hannity spends probably more of his time on his radio and TV show telling us about the personal appearances, book signings, and things that he will be talking about later than he does telling us anything else. Glenn Beck is equally busy promoting books, personal appearances, movie theater broadcasts of personal appearances; and less so in informing us of information that he claims is vital that we hear and understand.
Media stores and subscription websites can do little but prove to us that such labors are exercises in capitalism rather than information. (And for those of you who believe that I am attacking those on the right without due consideration to the panderers on the left, let me state that my failure to comment on Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow is only because their efforts so nauseate me that I cannot stand to subject myself to such punishment long enough to properly critique them.)
Unfortunately, lost in all this self-promotion is any legitimate news or insight that any of these pundits might offer. Picking the nuggets of truth and information from the overwhelming barrage of self-serving nonsense is difficult at best. Even when one concedes that these are potentially intelligent and well-read individuals, the constant self-promotion leaves one too tired to retain the carefully winnowed rewards.
The few legitimate news and opinion offerings out there are drowned out by egotistic tabloid punditry. And while everyone has a right to try and make a buck, it's unfortunate that we've turned news and opinion into little more than a traveling medicine show. It's likewise unfortunate that at a time when so many are looking for unbiased facts and answers to vital questions in society, all we are offered is the equivalent of entertainment at the intellectual level of the WWE. It's sad to me especially that at a time when this country would be well-served by reasoned Conservative voices, all we are offered is little more than hucksters and little better than the O'Reilly factor.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Dancing With An American Idol On The Jersey Shore
It's always a relief to see an election cycle end, not because of who wins or loses the races; but because we don't have to watch and listen to the "half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies" of political candidate ads any longer. Of course, then I remember about what's left on television, and my relief is short-lived.
Actually, I found a number of curious comparisons here when looking at politics and popular culture:
Quite frankly, I have never seen television as a medium that did well at providing information. Entertainment sure, but information ... not so much. And even the entertainment value of television has taken a nose-dive in recent years. Information and entertainment are now chopped into discreetly defined segments that can be fit between the advertising that pays for it. Any news story or part of the plot that doesn't fit in these visual slices ends up being left out of the story, even if it makes things more difficult to understand.
To add to the mixed metaphors here, imagine television as a sports league. When there were only a few franchises, only the best of the best rose to prominence in their game and got their chance. When the league discovers that there is a lot of money to be made out there however and add teams at a frightening rate in an attempt to cash in while they can (like any other evil corporation), it inevitably leads to a dilution of the limited talent pool available.
Eventually, such attenuation means that we end up with what most professional sports leagues like to call 'parity', but which we know really means a level of mediocrity that most of us watching find more than a little objectionable. Cable has now given us hundreds of franchises attempting to dip into the limited talent pool of writers, directors, and actors that exist. When they reach the shallow end of that pool (which they appear to have done some time back), they are forced create celebrities out of people whose only real talent was convincing someone to put them on TV in the first place to fill the void. There are no plots, no scripts, and no performances worthy of note; only bad behavior, worse hygiene, and faux tragedy to entertain the masses.
Owners of the Roman Empire's coliseums would be proud of the circuses and bloodsport that we have turned cable into, reveling in these thinly veiled and badly acted gladiatorial contests (and that's before I get started on wrestling). Politics has begun to show the same decided lack of talent when seeking its principal performers. While there are some legitimate artists remaining in the field (for which we should be truly grateful), the sheer scope and scale of government at every level has begun to dilute the talent pool.
In truth, many of those with any real talent have simply abandoned the auditions; finding what the process has become too intrusive, personally abusive, and to ungraciously fickle to make it worth bothering with. While some with a real gift or an overwhelming desire to participate remain, many of them simply find other ways to express their genius, and abandon the political venue to the more venial and power hungry of the inferior players.
These elections and shows are now often filled with flawed individuals who do not deserve the limelight or the applause. Their lack of ability is exceeded only by their demands for diva status; and once illuminated on these public stages, they prove themselves mostly talentless and particularly unattractive. Yet we continue watch, helplessly staring, often without any care or understanding of the plot or the meaning of the drama unfolding before us.
Perhaps like watching a traffic accident, we are simply shocked or fascinated by the appalling spectacle and simply cannot take our eyes away. On the other hand, like many other times when sitting on the couch at home, perhaps we've simply been unable to reach the remote yet to change the channel.
- Many of those eligible to vote know who is on 'American Idol', 'Dancing with the Stars', 'Jersey Shore', and the flood of 'wives' programs from New Jersey, the South, and Orange County. Far fewer knew the cast of characters on their local ballots.
- Many Americans know the names and life stories of the judges on Idol and 'America's Got Talent', but far fewer can come up with even the names of an equal number of Supreme Court Justices.
- Far too many people believe that the level of civil political discourse in this country is defined by 'The View', 'The O'Reilly Factor', and 'The Sean Hannity Show'. They believe that shouting down ones opponents, refusing to let people complete the answers to questions, and walking off of the set qualify as good interview techniques.
- People are often disillusioned and disappointed when public political debate does not turn into a bad episode of 'The Jerry Springer Show'.
- Candidates and TV shows are both defined, not by the quality of the characters or the level of the writing; but on how outrageous, controversial, and manipulative they are.
- Far more people seem to get their news perspective from parody shows like 'The Daily Show' and 'The Colbert Report' on The Comedy Channel than do from network news.
Quite frankly, I have never seen television as a medium that did well at providing information. Entertainment sure, but information ... not so much. And even the entertainment value of television has taken a nose-dive in recent years. Information and entertainment are now chopped into discreetly defined segments that can be fit between the advertising that pays for it. Any news story or part of the plot that doesn't fit in these visual slices ends up being left out of the story, even if it makes things more difficult to understand.
To add to the mixed metaphors here, imagine television as a sports league. When there were only a few franchises, only the best of the best rose to prominence in their game and got their chance. When the league discovers that there is a lot of money to be made out there however and add teams at a frightening rate in an attempt to cash in while they can (like any other evil corporation), it inevitably leads to a dilution of the limited talent pool available.
Eventually, such attenuation means that we end up with what most professional sports leagues like to call 'parity', but which we know really means a level of mediocrity that most of us watching find more than a little objectionable. Cable has now given us hundreds of franchises attempting to dip into the limited talent pool of writers, directors, and actors that exist. When they reach the shallow end of that pool (which they appear to have done some time back), they are forced create celebrities out of people whose only real talent was convincing someone to put them on TV in the first place to fill the void. There are no plots, no scripts, and no performances worthy of note; only bad behavior, worse hygiene, and faux tragedy to entertain the masses.
Owners of the Roman Empire's coliseums would be proud of the circuses and bloodsport that we have turned cable into, reveling in these thinly veiled and badly acted gladiatorial contests (and that's before I get started on wrestling). Politics has begun to show the same decided lack of talent when seeking its principal performers. While there are some legitimate artists remaining in the field (for which we should be truly grateful), the sheer scope and scale of government at every level has begun to dilute the talent pool.
In truth, many of those with any real talent have simply abandoned the auditions; finding what the process has become too intrusive, personally abusive, and to ungraciously fickle to make it worth bothering with. While some with a real gift or an overwhelming desire to participate remain, many of them simply find other ways to express their genius, and abandon the political venue to the more venial and power hungry of the inferior players.
These elections and shows are now often filled with flawed individuals who do not deserve the limelight or the applause. Their lack of ability is exceeded only by their demands for diva status; and once illuminated on these public stages, they prove themselves mostly talentless and particularly unattractive. Yet we continue watch, helplessly staring, often without any care or understanding of the plot or the meaning of the drama unfolding before us.
Perhaps like watching a traffic accident, we are simply shocked or fascinated by the appalling spectacle and simply cannot take our eyes away. On the other hand, like many other times when sitting on the couch at home, perhaps we've simply been unable to reach the remote yet to change the channel.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Due To Technical Difficulties
We are never more vulnerable these days than when the technology that we use to prop up our everyday existence fails us. Even when the lack of such technology is merely an inconvenience and not of a life sustaining nature, we find ourselves up the proverbial shit creek without a paddle (pardon my technical jargon). Modern man has seemingly in fact become a victim of his own technological success.
Or so it seemed to me over this last week at least, when the desktop computer that I have been relying on for many years both for these often meandering blog posts and for frequently substandard efforts for the Toledo Free Press suffered a rather sudden, catastrophic, and ignominious passing. There is little doubt that the poor beast was tired, aging even more badly than its erstwhile companion. It should likewise be noted that like most technology, it undoubtedly suffered from possession of a much shorter relative life-span than its biologic pal. Much like a favored pet however, it had been a good and faithful companion, always ready to answer the call for both work and play as it suited the needs and whims of its careless master.
There are some no doubt, who will claim that in fact this ever-present ally suffered an untimely end, victim to the second-hand cigar smoke of one who should probably go nameless (owing no doubt, to a tragic and almost shameful level of cowardice on his part). Personally however, I believe that this explanation is anything but the final word on the subject. In fact, I believe that the recently departed enjoyed a good cigar, even if it was capable of experiencing such rapturous experiences only vicariously.
Since both wine and whiskey were likewise substances potentially lethal and therefore forbidden to it (and hence only available to its more than willing accomplice), I think that the smell of a good cigar was in fact one of its few careful diversions, and well within its sphere of appreciation in spite of the dire warnings issued on potential hazards.
Even now in its passing, we know that there is no true rest for this all too willing participant in the practice of electronic excess: and that rather than proper ceremony (an Irish wake comes to mind) and a decent burial, it will instead be kept on a shelf like a poor relation ... a ghoulish memory and a potential future donor of components for its newer and more stylish replacement.
And as I write this poor attempt at a eulogy for the poor creature that in the end gave its all in service, I cannot help but wonder which of us was truly the master. How much of what has been produced was a product (and the fault) of the method and how much that of the mover? I wonder as well how much of the technology that we tell ourselves we are served by in fact has in fact taken that very power from us.
Forget where most of us would be without the computer, the cell phone (especially those of you with smart phones),or the microwave oven; how many of us would now find life all but unimaginable and unbearable without without email, Twitter, or heaven forbid ... without Facebook? How many of us would be able to perform the oh so vital activities that have become far more than mere routines without the crutch of technologies that we really don't understand and could not substitute for. Sure we could all cook over a fire, but not without an electronic igniter to provide the flame for the propane tank fueling the process on a gas grill. Certainly we could all get from place to place without automobiles, but wouldn't we look damned silly with a GPS unit on a bicycle, let alone a belt (and wouldn't some of us be shocked to discover that all bicycles are not stationary and some walking is not done on treadmills).
Of course we could all communicate, but imagine what written letters would look like today after the mess we have made of the written word with texting. It is in fact, a curious world that we have created for ourselves, and one that I'm not sure that many of us yet know our place in. How much of what we consider the essential part of ourselves is tied to constant electronic connection and instant gratification? How many of us recognize as we use it, that the very technology we are now so dependent upon changes so fast that by the time most of it becomes commonplace, it's already outdated?
So it is with one good and faithful electronic soul who will not be with us here today, or ever again in the days to come. For though perhaps this colleague might have been brought back to life (with significant technical effort and at considerable cost), in the end it seemed kinder to simply allow the gentle passing of an existence of one whose day had passed (something that I sometimes feel I understand all too well). Alas, where this long-time cohort is concerned, no future appearances will be possible ... Due to technical difficulties.
Or so it seemed to me over this last week at least, when the desktop computer that I have been relying on for many years both for these often meandering blog posts and for frequently substandard efforts for the Toledo Free Press suffered a rather sudden, catastrophic, and ignominious passing. There is little doubt that the poor beast was tired, aging even more badly than its erstwhile companion. It should likewise be noted that like most technology, it undoubtedly suffered from possession of a much shorter relative life-span than its biologic pal. Much like a favored pet however, it had been a good and faithful companion, always ready to answer the call for both work and play as it suited the needs and whims of its careless master.
There are some no doubt, who will claim that in fact this ever-present ally suffered an untimely end, victim to the second-hand cigar smoke of one who should probably go nameless (owing no doubt, to a tragic and almost shameful level of cowardice on his part). Personally however, I believe that this explanation is anything but the final word on the subject. In fact, I believe that the recently departed enjoyed a good cigar, even if it was capable of experiencing such rapturous experiences only vicariously.
Since both wine and whiskey were likewise substances potentially lethal and therefore forbidden to it (and hence only available to its more than willing accomplice), I think that the smell of a good cigar was in fact one of its few careful diversions, and well within its sphere of appreciation in spite of the dire warnings issued on potential hazards.
Even now in its passing, we know that there is no true rest for this all too willing participant in the practice of electronic excess: and that rather than proper ceremony (an Irish wake comes to mind) and a decent burial, it will instead be kept on a shelf like a poor relation ... a ghoulish memory and a potential future donor of components for its newer and more stylish replacement.
And as I write this poor attempt at a eulogy for the poor creature that in the end gave its all in service, I cannot help but wonder which of us was truly the master. How much of what has been produced was a product (and the fault) of the method and how much that of the mover? I wonder as well how much of the technology that we tell ourselves we are served by in fact has in fact taken that very power from us.
Forget where most of us would be without the computer, the cell phone (especially those of you with smart phones),or the microwave oven; how many of us would now find life all but unimaginable and unbearable without without email, Twitter, or heaven forbid ... without Facebook? How many of us would be able to perform the oh so vital activities that have become far more than mere routines without the crutch of technologies that we really don't understand and could not substitute for. Sure we could all cook over a fire, but not without an electronic igniter to provide the flame for the propane tank fueling the process on a gas grill. Certainly we could all get from place to place without automobiles, but wouldn't we look damned silly with a GPS unit on a bicycle, let alone a belt (and wouldn't some of us be shocked to discover that all bicycles are not stationary and some walking is not done on treadmills).
Of course we could all communicate, but imagine what written letters would look like today after the mess we have made of the written word with texting. It is in fact, a curious world that we have created for ourselves, and one that I'm not sure that many of us yet know our place in. How much of what we consider the essential part of ourselves is tied to constant electronic connection and instant gratification? How many of us recognize as we use it, that the very technology we are now so dependent upon changes so fast that by the time most of it becomes commonplace, it's already outdated?
So it is with one good and faithful electronic soul who will not be with us here today, or ever again in the days to come. For though perhaps this colleague might have been brought back to life (with significant technical effort and at considerable cost), in the end it seemed kinder to simply allow the gentle passing of an existence of one whose day had passed (something that I sometimes feel I understand all too well). Alas, where this long-time cohort is concerned, no future appearances will be possible ... Due to technical difficulties.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Face Time
Recent sales training that I'm doing has brought to mind many of the things that I have learned about the subject over a long career in the field (though contrary to popular belief, it is not true that I sold lumber to Noah). I was reminded that much of the sales being done these days is in fact consultive sales; which strangely enough entails not selling anything at all to a potential customer, but instead seeking to remove the impediments that keep them from making a purchase that they should.
Even if the final result is not possible however, the relationship building process that occurs in the sales process is a valuable one which can lead to future benefits for both parties. The only way to succeed in such an effort is by getting face time with the customer. In fact, there is nothing more important to success than such face time. In this day and age and with all of the available means of communication however, this does not necessarily mean being face to face with that potential customer (though that is certainly the preferred method), but also in finding any opportunity to exchange ideas. In order for the process to take its course one must build a rapport with a customer, discover that customer's needs, and attempt to find a way to help that customer fulfill them (hopefully, but not always, with the product or service that you are getting paid to sell) by showing them the benefits that you can offer and their value to the prospective customer.
Once upon a time, political candidates likewise understood this. They took every opportunity to get face time with their constituents. Whether it was shaking hands at a local event, giving stump speeches at 'rubber chicken dinners' (rubber chickens having less chance of passing on salmonella), or most especially at candidate debate opportunities. These latter not only provided the chance to showcase the candidates views and opinions, but did so in such a way so as to allow them to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
It worked for John Kennedy over a more experienced Richard Nixon. It worked for Ronald Reagan over both incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Walter Mondale. It worked for Bill Clinton over the senior George Bush. In fact, study and prep for debates became one of the most important parts of running a political campaign for many years. It mostly seems however, that such is no longer the case.
Candidates sometimes seem reticent to appear in public, lest an irreverent constituent or inconvenient question rear its ugly head. (Can you say "Joe the Plummer"?) They seem to desire to avoid anything other than carefully scripted events with restricted guest lists, lest it backfire and show up on You Tube. They certainly seek to control anything and everything said by and about them, lest a stray soundbite derail their carefully crafted campaign efforts. (Can you say, "Boo Ben Konop"?) Campaigns today seem to have become all about Facebook sites and and media buys; all carefully crafted to give out the required message of the campaigns ... but even with all of this control, they seem to get it wrong.
When did the message stop being "I believe as you do" and start becoming "My opponent does not believe as you do"? When did it become more important for a candidate to frame their opponents message rather than their own in the first place? When was the last time that you saw a political commercial on TV that did not show the opponent of the candidate as much, if not more, than the one paying for it? How can any candidate expect to win when the only face a voter remembers is that of the opponent they paid to show them?
Techniques have come and gone over the years and many different practices have fallen in and out of favor, but two things always seem to hold true:
1. Mention the competition as seldom as possible (and not at all if possible) to keep from drawing attention to them.
2. Maximize you face time with the customer.
If politicians would like to understand why it is that they are suffering from such a general lack of popularity these days, perhaps the failure to follow these two simple rules might have something to do with it. If politicians seem somehow to fail to get their message out, in spite of all of the media available to them, perhaps it's because they have lost sight of the simplicity of these rules.
If good people fail to get elected when they should, perhaps it is not a failure of funding (though money seems to be the greatest concern of both those running and those seeking to control elections these days), but a simple failure to maximize the available face time with their constituencies in the days running up to an election.
Even if the final result is not possible however, the relationship building process that occurs in the sales process is a valuable one which can lead to future benefits for both parties. The only way to succeed in such an effort is by getting face time with the customer. In fact, there is nothing more important to success than such face time. In this day and age and with all of the available means of communication however, this does not necessarily mean being face to face with that potential customer (though that is certainly the preferred method), but also in finding any opportunity to exchange ideas. In order for the process to take its course one must build a rapport with a customer, discover that customer's needs, and attempt to find a way to help that customer fulfill them (hopefully, but not always, with the product or service that you are getting paid to sell) by showing them the benefits that you can offer and their value to the prospective customer.
Once upon a time, political candidates likewise understood this. They took every opportunity to get face time with their constituents. Whether it was shaking hands at a local event, giving stump speeches at 'rubber chicken dinners' (rubber chickens having less chance of passing on salmonella), or most especially at candidate debate opportunities. These latter not only provided the chance to showcase the candidates views and opinions, but did so in such a way so as to allow them to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
It worked for John Kennedy over a more experienced Richard Nixon. It worked for Ronald Reagan over both incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Walter Mondale. It worked for Bill Clinton over the senior George Bush. In fact, study and prep for debates became one of the most important parts of running a political campaign for many years. It mostly seems however, that such is no longer the case.
Candidates sometimes seem reticent to appear in public, lest an irreverent constituent or inconvenient question rear its ugly head. (Can you say "Joe the Plummer"?) They seem to desire to avoid anything other than carefully scripted events with restricted guest lists, lest it backfire and show up on You Tube. They certainly seek to control anything and everything said by and about them, lest a stray soundbite derail their carefully crafted campaign efforts. (Can you say, "Boo Ben Konop"?) Campaigns today seem to have become all about Facebook sites and and media buys; all carefully crafted to give out the required message of the campaigns ... but even with all of this control, they seem to get it wrong.
When did the message stop being "I believe as you do" and start becoming "My opponent does not believe as you do"? When did it become more important for a candidate to frame their opponents message rather than their own in the first place? When was the last time that you saw a political commercial on TV that did not show the opponent of the candidate as much, if not more, than the one paying for it? How can any candidate expect to win when the only face a voter remembers is that of the opponent they paid to show them?
Techniques have come and gone over the years and many different practices have fallen in and out of favor, but two things always seem to hold true:
1. Mention the competition as seldom as possible (and not at all if possible) to keep from drawing attention to them.
2. Maximize you face time with the customer.
If politicians would like to understand why it is that they are suffering from such a general lack of popularity these days, perhaps the failure to follow these two simple rules might have something to do with it. If politicians seem somehow to fail to get their message out, in spite of all of the media available to them, perhaps it's because they have lost sight of the simplicity of these rules.
If good people fail to get elected when they should, perhaps it is not a failure of funding (though money seems to be the greatest concern of both those running and those seeking to control elections these days), but a simple failure to maximize the available face time with their constituencies in the days running up to an election.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Area of Expertise
I was surfing TV stations recently when I came upon a couple of actors speaking out about the passage of immigration legislation in Arizona on one of the cable news networks. It isn't important which station we are talking about, nor are the actors names particularly important. What was important however, was that neither of them appeared to have actually read the legislation they were commenting on and it appeared that they were simply mimicking some talking points that they had heard or read elsewhere.
Their lack of informed opinion was the point that struck me ... that and the fact that the only reason anyone was willing to listen to what they had to say had nothing to do with what they knew and was all about who they were. So I asked myself: What makes the opinions of actors (or musicians for that matter) in any way important on subjects other than acting or music?
Certainly an actor can have credibility when it comes to speaking about the theater, doing TV, or making movies; but how does that translate to expertise in the area of state or federal legislation (or any other subject for that matter)? If achieving celebrity is to be the arbiter of who gets to have opinions, one might just as easily accept their opinions on medical ethics or nuclear physics. If being famous is the only scale that counts, one could just as easily decide that since everybody seems to care what the judges from American Idol think every week, we should send them over to negotiate peace in the Middle East once and for all.
This is not to say that celebrities have no right to an opinion or to express it. They in fact have the same rights of free speech that everyone in this country has. Nor is this an indictment of a particular point of view that any chooses to express (whether I agree with it or not), but instead a question of its relevance. If you choose to speak out publicly on a subject, then you need to at least take the time to become informed on it. If the mainstream media is going to give you a national platform to express your convictions, then someone in charge should make sure that you have some idea of what's going on before allowing you to do so.
The whole thing took me back (way back) to my days in high school, when those of us who were not the popular or cool kids were so concerned about the approval, the personal style, and the opinions of those who were. Looking back on it now of course, I realize now that members of the football team or the cheerleaders were in no way smarter or better than anyone else; but we certainly seemed to think so at the time, and far too often we let them influence our decisions. I would venture to say that those who still have any contact with these people today would probably not consider asking for their views, let alone continuing to follow their lead.
This need to influence on the part of the famous seems to stem from the atmosphere that makes up the celebrity lifestyle. Catered to at home and at work by an entourage of handlers, assistants, and agents (all of whom would like to keep their celebrity jobs), these performers are surrounded by little more than a group of human bobble-head dolls. The result of such an atmosphere is foreordained: spend enough time with people who always agree with you (whether you're right or not) and you can't help but grow into the belief that your opinions are not only always right, but of greater value to the world at large. Few of us exposed to such constant approbation and worship could retain the proper level of humility, or fail to succumb to a feeling of ingenuous self-importance, if not false omniscience.
Now I know that there are some celebrities that take a genuine interest in causes around the world. They take the time to do careful research, consult with actual experts in the field, and try to gather as many facts as possible before putting themselves forward. They then use their celebrity to draw attention to causes and lend their support with personal appearances and with monetary donations. For this they deserve our respect.
I fear however, that they are the exception rather than the rule. Most seem far less involved and far too easily swayed by whoever manages to bend their ear while massaging their ego. Having once been swayed, they mount their steed of self-importance and ride off in quest to right a wrong that they don't understand and which may not exist; secure in the knowledge that as one of the beautiful people, they will never really be questioned.
Overall, I think that the world would be better served if these over-aged "popular kids" spent more time concentrating on their art and craft, and less pontificating on subjects that they saw on a PBS special or read about in People Magazine. No matter how pretty they are and how far-reaching their celebrity, most of the world's great issues are simply outside their area of expertise.
Their lack of informed opinion was the point that struck me ... that and the fact that the only reason anyone was willing to listen to what they had to say had nothing to do with what they knew and was all about who they were. So I asked myself: What makes the opinions of actors (or musicians for that matter) in any way important on subjects other than acting or music?
Certainly an actor can have credibility when it comes to speaking about the theater, doing TV, or making movies; but how does that translate to expertise in the area of state or federal legislation (or any other subject for that matter)? If achieving celebrity is to be the arbiter of who gets to have opinions, one might just as easily accept their opinions on medical ethics or nuclear physics. If being famous is the only scale that counts, one could just as easily decide that since everybody seems to care what the judges from American Idol think every week, we should send them over to negotiate peace in the Middle East once and for all.
This is not to say that celebrities have no right to an opinion or to express it. They in fact have the same rights of free speech that everyone in this country has. Nor is this an indictment of a particular point of view that any chooses to express (whether I agree with it or not), but instead a question of its relevance. If you choose to speak out publicly on a subject, then you need to at least take the time to become informed on it. If the mainstream media is going to give you a national platform to express your convictions, then someone in charge should make sure that you have some idea of what's going on before allowing you to do so.
The whole thing took me back (way back) to my days in high school, when those of us who were not the popular or cool kids were so concerned about the approval, the personal style, and the opinions of those who were. Looking back on it now of course, I realize now that members of the football team or the cheerleaders were in no way smarter or better than anyone else; but we certainly seemed to think so at the time, and far too often we let them influence our decisions. I would venture to say that those who still have any contact with these people today would probably not consider asking for their views, let alone continuing to follow their lead.
This need to influence on the part of the famous seems to stem from the atmosphere that makes up the celebrity lifestyle. Catered to at home and at work by an entourage of handlers, assistants, and agents (all of whom would like to keep their celebrity jobs), these performers are surrounded by little more than a group of human bobble-head dolls. The result of such an atmosphere is foreordained: spend enough time with people who always agree with you (whether you're right or not) and you can't help but grow into the belief that your opinions are not only always right, but of greater value to the world at large. Few of us exposed to such constant approbation and worship could retain the proper level of humility, or fail to succumb to a feeling of ingenuous self-importance, if not false omniscience.
Now I know that there are some celebrities that take a genuine interest in causes around the world. They take the time to do careful research, consult with actual experts in the field, and try to gather as many facts as possible before putting themselves forward. They then use their celebrity to draw attention to causes and lend their support with personal appearances and with monetary donations. For this they deserve our respect.
I fear however, that they are the exception rather than the rule. Most seem far less involved and far too easily swayed by whoever manages to bend their ear while massaging their ego. Having once been swayed, they mount their steed of self-importance and ride off in quest to right a wrong that they don't understand and which may not exist; secure in the knowledge that as one of the beautiful people, they will never really be questioned.
Overall, I think that the world would be better served if these over-aged "popular kids" spent more time concentrating on their art and craft, and less pontificating on subjects that they saw on a PBS special or read about in People Magazine. No matter how pretty they are and how far-reaching their celebrity, most of the world's great issues are simply outside their area of expertise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)