We're just days away from the election now, and just when you thought you'd heard everything, we realize that there is an issue of tremendous importance to all Americans that has largely been ignored by the political parties.
Nowhere in their web of deception, distortions and fear tactics has either side addressed the concern of Bill Jarrett, a 79-year-old Grand Rapids, Michigan man, who wants all Americans to join his cause: the Great American Toilet Paper Debate. Jarrett wants to establish a "National Toilet Paper Hanging Way," which would settle once and for all whether the flow of paper should go up and over or behind and under the roll.
You can vote for your own preferred method -- mine is up and over, for what it's worth -- at his website. For $5.00, you can get a mail-in ballot, official voter's card, "Fun and Interesting Facts About Toilet Paper," (I'm sure that's a great read!) and a handy magnet that allows you to position the toilet paper however you like.
If you're seriously considering paying the $5.00, be afraid...be very afraid.
And just in case you need some little tune to get stuck in your head, there's always the "Cha-Cha-Cha-Charmin" jingle waiting for you at the Charmin website.
Click at your own risk. Once it gets in your mind, it doesn't want to let go!
News and Announcements
Friday, October 29, 2004
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Calling All Perverts!
If a strange person wants to take your picture with their cellphone, you should pay attention to where they point the small camera lens. Newsblues reports that in Japan, the latest rage is to equip the Vodafone V602 with a night-vision device made by Yamada Denshi:
"The device, meant for military and defense uses, works with the V602 and allows its users to 'see' through clothing with night-vision sensors that pick up body heat. The device is so popular among pervs in Japan that it prompted an official statement from Vodafone."What will they think of next? (And do we really want to know?!?)
A Very Odd Stamp
During a recent trip to the post office, I asked for two books of stamps. The attendant asked which stamp design I wanted, and I said it didn't matter, assuming that she would just hand me two of the small packs with the American flag. (Nothing wrong with that!)Instead, this attendant decided to give me a bit of variety and handed me two sheets. The first saluted Dr. Seuss, and featured a portrait of Theodor Seuss Geisel surrounded by some of his odd characters.
The second design is what you see pictured to the left. It salutes R. Buckminster Fuller, an architect, inventer, designer and philosopher. Fuller, as you might guess from the stamp, is famous as being the father of the geodesic dome. It's an interesting stamp, but just look at the way they depicted him for a minute. Is it just me, or is that giant head just a little disturbing?
Saturday, October 23, 2004
How to Complain Effectively
Many of us have reason to complain to companies about how we have been treated as customers. I have dealt with the public for many years, and I have done my fair share of complaining. I started compiling this list a while back, and I thought I'd share some tips with you:
1. The customer is not always right.
Anyone who has ever dealt with the public is aware of this. Most of the people who genuinely believe that the customer is always right have themselves dealt with people who couldn't be more wrong. Before you complain, climb down off your high horse: otherwise, you're starting things off in an adversarial way and you're more likely to get bristling, not results.
2. The company's job is not to make you happy.
The company's job is to make money. No matter how badly you feel you have been treated, they're not going to give you everything you want...they likely can't afford to meet all of your demands. Be reasonable...show them that you're main interest is in helping them solve a problem, not getting something free, and your complaints will be much more likely to be heard. Many situations that occur are beyond the control of anyone at the business itself. Keep this in mind.
3. Never tell them you won't be back!
You give up a huge advantage when you do this: if you tell a manager that you'll never darken their doorstep again, the manager has just lost all motive for wanting to satisfy you; if you're never going to do business with that company again, they have no reason to want to make you happy, and you frankly have no reason to waste your energy in complaining about how they do things. In broadcasting, I get this a lot from people who are angry that we have pre-empted their "favorite" show for breaking news or weather coverage. I politely remind them that if they never watch us again, they'll likely miss their show in the future. We both know, at that point, that their claim was made solely for effect. When you complain, you should let the management know that you value their goods or services and want to continue being a customer, but that treatment you have recently received has threatened that relationship. Empower the management to repair the damage; if you tell them the damage is irreparable, it's likely they won't try to repair anything.
4. Write out your complaint first.
Get the anger out of your system before you speak with anyone directly. If you're writing a letter or E-mail, write out what you want to say on paper or in notepad first. Then, don't send that. Print a copy of what you've written and set it aside for an hour or so. Do something else. Get over it. Then go back and rewrite what you've written, using the original as a guide. Drop all the clever cut-downs you're so proud of: all they accomplish is making you look like the unreasonable, petty one who probably deserves the bad treatment you received.
5. Keep facts and opinion separate.
Tell the management the facts first. Be as neutral as you can when you explain what happened. Be succinct, be accurate. If you have witnesses, say so. After you've explained what happened, then detail why you are upset about it.
6. Suggest a solution.
Don't make unreasonable demands. Don't expect the moon. People make mistakes. The more reasonable you appear to be, the more effort the management will be likely to put into satisfying you. If you give them a problem and suggest what they can do to solve it, you might be surprised how quickly they will consider your suggestion.
7. Be polite.
You're the innocent victim, right? You're the one who has been mistreated, taken advantage of, injured or insulted. So don't act like the bully. Management is going to be carefully considering not only the facts you present but also the way in which you present the facts. Remember: they put the employee who allegedly mistreated you into that position, so they want to believe that they made a good choice. If you come off looking like the bad guy, they will automatically believe that their employee behaved just the way they would have expected, while YOU were the real problem here.
8. Don't be an expert.
Unless you really have experience doing the exact same kind of work the people you are complaining to are doing, don't pretend to know everything that they do. Don't act like you've walked a mile in their shoes. If you haven't, sooner or later, you'll slip. When you do, your credibility has taken a hit, and your entire argument may have lost all of its strength. And even if you've done the same kind of job, you aren't doing this manager's job, so you may not be aware of unique problems he's up against.
9. Anticipate obvious defenses.
While you shouldn't pretend to know how the business operates if you really don't, you should at least be prepared for obvious stock responses managers like to give. Don't settle for explanations such as, "well, he's new" or "we were particularly short-handed that day." The response to "he's new" is that "he obviously was put on the sales floor without the benefit of proper training." The response to their being short-handed is to ask whether customers should be expected to call the business in advance to determine whether there is a sufficient staff on a given day, or whether they should assume that if the business is open, sufficient staffing is already in place. In other words, don't let your problem take the back seat to their failure to prepare.
10. Communicate.
Doing so requires give and take. Listen to the responses you get. Be willing to hear what is being said. Think about the answers and react to them. Be honest, but respectful. If a proposed solution isn't to your liking, say so then suggest something else. If that can't be worked out, listen to the reason and suggest an alternative. The key is compromise. It further demonstrates that you are the reasonable person in this problem and gives believability to your suggestion that a member of the manager's staff was at fault.
11. Be fair.
The most difficult thing to do when you are angry with someone or dissatisfied with a business is to focus on the positive. But doing so will quickly show the person who is receiving your complaint that you're willing to give them the kudos where they deserve it, and they'll be much more likely to take what you say seriously. Otherwise, they're as likely to assume that you just had a bad day and decided to pick on them as a target for your frustration. Remaining fair does make a difference.
12. Confess your sins early.
If you were in the wrong or if you handled the situation badly as it happened, be upfront and say so. Apologize immediately for your behavior. It will throw the manager off guard, because he will expecting you to acknowledge no fault and require him to be the one doing all of the groveling.
13. Follow the chain of command.
If you're treated badly at a particular store, the first person to contact is the manager of that store. Only after you've talked to that person should you then seek out the district manager, and only after that has failed should you contact headquarters. Why? Simple. Because when headquarters gets your complaint, the first thing they will do is backtrack to the individual store to find out why its management failed to provide you with quality service and failed to satisfy you after the fact. If you never bothered to contact the store manager, that's likely to be the first person headquarters will refer you to.
1. The customer is not always right.
Anyone who has ever dealt with the public is aware of this. Most of the people who genuinely believe that the customer is always right have themselves dealt with people who couldn't be more wrong. Before you complain, climb down off your high horse: otherwise, you're starting things off in an adversarial way and you're more likely to get bristling, not results.
2. The company's job is not to make you happy.
The company's job is to make money. No matter how badly you feel you have been treated, they're not going to give you everything you want...they likely can't afford to meet all of your demands. Be reasonable...show them that you're main interest is in helping them solve a problem, not getting something free, and your complaints will be much more likely to be heard. Many situations that occur are beyond the control of anyone at the business itself. Keep this in mind.
3. Never tell them you won't be back!
You give up a huge advantage when you do this: if you tell a manager that you'll never darken their doorstep again, the manager has just lost all motive for wanting to satisfy you; if you're never going to do business with that company again, they have no reason to want to make you happy, and you frankly have no reason to waste your energy in complaining about how they do things. In broadcasting, I get this a lot from people who are angry that we have pre-empted their "favorite" show for breaking news or weather coverage. I politely remind them that if they never watch us again, they'll likely miss their show in the future. We both know, at that point, that their claim was made solely for effect. When you complain, you should let the management know that you value their goods or services and want to continue being a customer, but that treatment you have recently received has threatened that relationship. Empower the management to repair the damage; if you tell them the damage is irreparable, it's likely they won't try to repair anything.
4. Write out your complaint first.
Get the anger out of your system before you speak with anyone directly. If you're writing a letter or E-mail, write out what you want to say on paper or in notepad first. Then, don't send that. Print a copy of what you've written and set it aside for an hour or so. Do something else. Get over it. Then go back and rewrite what you've written, using the original as a guide. Drop all the clever cut-downs you're so proud of: all they accomplish is making you look like the unreasonable, petty one who probably deserves the bad treatment you received.
5. Keep facts and opinion separate.
Tell the management the facts first. Be as neutral as you can when you explain what happened. Be succinct, be accurate. If you have witnesses, say so. After you've explained what happened, then detail why you are upset about it.
6. Suggest a solution.
Don't make unreasonable demands. Don't expect the moon. People make mistakes. The more reasonable you appear to be, the more effort the management will be likely to put into satisfying you. If you give them a problem and suggest what they can do to solve it, you might be surprised how quickly they will consider your suggestion.
7. Be polite.
You're the innocent victim, right? You're the one who has been mistreated, taken advantage of, injured or insulted. So don't act like the bully. Management is going to be carefully considering not only the facts you present but also the way in which you present the facts. Remember: they put the employee who allegedly mistreated you into that position, so they want to believe that they made a good choice. If you come off looking like the bad guy, they will automatically believe that their employee behaved just the way they would have expected, while YOU were the real problem here.
8. Don't be an expert.
Unless you really have experience doing the exact same kind of work the people you are complaining to are doing, don't pretend to know everything that they do. Don't act like you've walked a mile in their shoes. If you haven't, sooner or later, you'll slip. When you do, your credibility has taken a hit, and your entire argument may have lost all of its strength. And even if you've done the same kind of job, you aren't doing this manager's job, so you may not be aware of unique problems he's up against.
9. Anticipate obvious defenses.
While you shouldn't pretend to know how the business operates if you really don't, you should at least be prepared for obvious stock responses managers like to give. Don't settle for explanations such as, "well, he's new" or "we were particularly short-handed that day." The response to "he's new" is that "he obviously was put on the sales floor without the benefit of proper training." The response to their being short-handed is to ask whether customers should be expected to call the business in advance to determine whether there is a sufficient staff on a given day, or whether they should assume that if the business is open, sufficient staffing is already in place. In other words, don't let your problem take the back seat to their failure to prepare.
10. Communicate.
Doing so requires give and take. Listen to the responses you get. Be willing to hear what is being said. Think about the answers and react to them. Be honest, but respectful. If a proposed solution isn't to your liking, say so then suggest something else. If that can't be worked out, listen to the reason and suggest an alternative. The key is compromise. It further demonstrates that you are the reasonable person in this problem and gives believability to your suggestion that a member of the manager's staff was at fault.
11. Be fair.
The most difficult thing to do when you are angry with someone or dissatisfied with a business is to focus on the positive. But doing so will quickly show the person who is receiving your complaint that you're willing to give them the kudos where they deserve it, and they'll be much more likely to take what you say seriously. Otherwise, they're as likely to assume that you just had a bad day and decided to pick on them as a target for your frustration. Remaining fair does make a difference.
12. Confess your sins early.
If you were in the wrong or if you handled the situation badly as it happened, be upfront and say so. Apologize immediately for your behavior. It will throw the manager off guard, because he will expecting you to acknowledge no fault and require him to be the one doing all of the groveling.
13. Follow the chain of command.
If you're treated badly at a particular store, the first person to contact is the manager of that store. Only after you've talked to that person should you then seek out the district manager, and only after that has failed should you contact headquarters. Why? Simple. Because when headquarters gets your complaint, the first thing they will do is backtrack to the individual store to find out why its management failed to provide you with quality service and failed to satisfy you after the fact. If you never bothered to contact the store manager, that's likely to be the first person headquarters will refer you to.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Just What We Need: Another Controversial Documentary!
The latest political controversy this election year involves a media conglomerate determined to have its stations air an anti-Kerry documentary this Friday. There are many issues worth discussing here. But first, let me go back to the basics for a moment.
The media conglomerate in question is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of 62 television stations, which make up approximately 24% coverage of American television households. This is an important fact, because the country is divided into geographic coverage areas called "markets." You live in a television market, whether you realize it or not. Normally, the closest major city to you (which is normally where your local stations are headquartered) is likely the home city for your market.
There are 210 television markets in the country. The largest market is New York City, which consists, according to Nielsen Media, the company that tabulates television ratings, of 7,355,710 television households, or roughly 6.7% of the total television households in America. The second largest market is Los Angeles, with 5.4 million TV households (4.9%). Chicago is the third largest market. Some markets are "hyphenated," which means that they consist of several major cities close enough together that they all fall into the same coverage area. The nation's fifth largest market is a hyphenated market: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose. (Just for fun, because I know you're dying to know, the nation's smallest market is in Glendive, Montana, with just 5,150 television households.)
Sinclair's stations are located mostly in midsize markets and are mostly WB and Fox affiliates, thus the earlier statistic that even with 62 stations, they still manage to reach less than one quarter of all American households.
Earlier this year, Sinclair came under fire after "forbidding" its 8 ABC affiliates from airing a "Nightline" broadcast during which the names of every soldier killed in the War in Iraq were read. The company, according to industry insider Newsblues, also forces its affiliates to air a daily "commentary" by corporate spokesman Mark Hyman who has called the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" and antiwar Congressmen "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."
Now, Sinclair wants its stations to air "Stolen Honor," a 42-minute documentary that focuses on John Kerry's denunciation of the Vietnam War three decades ago. Democratic party leaders have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the documentary is basically an illegal corporate campaign contribution to President Bush.
I have worked for three media corporations in my career thus far. Sinclair has not been one of them. But one of the three I've worked for is one of those "major media conglomerates" that everyone loves to hate. But I can happily say that I have never worked for a company that made its corporate political beliefs well-known to its customers or employees. I didn't know how my corporate superiors voted, and I was pleased not to know. I would certainly be concerned if a company I worked for dictated that my station air such a broadcast.
But having said that, I think it's worth noting that there is once again a double standard in operation here with regard to the concept of political documentaries.
When Michael Moore came out with "Fahrenheit 9/11," Bush supporters were outraged. Kerry supporters were amused at their frustration, and came forward with several important points that they seem to have forgotten lately.
First, they said that Moore's movie was good for America because it contributed to the public discourse. If there were exaggerations or inaccuracies, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, they said, the American people are smart enough to judge for themselves and make up their own mind. I heard quite a few of Kerry's supporters say that all Americans should see Moore's film.
They apparently seem to feel that this film for some reason doesn't contribute to the public discourse. Despite the fact that they back a candidate who challenged everyone to judge him by his record, the same American people must be in election overload if they're no longer smart enough to judge for themselves what is and isn't reasonable.
They criticized those Republicans who tried to discredit Michael Moore and those who resorted to personal attacks against him.
But as you might expect, Democratic partyofficials, including Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, were only too happy to refer to the producer of "Stolen Honor" as a "discredited journalist who held no standing in the profession." Carlton Sherwood, the producer of the film, is a former Marine who served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts of his own. Apparently, Kerry supporters do not feel that all Purple Heart recipients are created equal.
Then they told us to forget that Moore has an agenda (and that he has made no bones about having one); his film is a "documentary," with real footage of what happened. It must be true.
This film, which apparently contains footage of Kerry's actions after the war, for some reason can't be true. As for Sherwood's agenda, the Miami Herald reported that the film was made with $220,000 in donations from Pennsylvania veterans angered by Kerry's post-war remarks which they feel hurt veterans and their families. It also mentions that Sherwood is a "friend" of Tom Ridge, but that Ridge had no involvement in the movie.
Those who were fans of Moore's film were furious that anyone would criticize the film without first seeing it. I'm sure that those who are speaking out against "Stolen Honor" haven't seen it, either.
But my favorite comment comes from Democratic party spokesman David K. Chai, who claimed that the movie is an attempt by Bush supporters to change the topic away from the War in Iraq.
If the topic of the day ever drifted to the War in Iraq for more than about twenty minutes at any time over the last year, it seems that the Kerry camp was quick to focus attention back where they felt it belonged: Kerry's prestigious military service record. What he did in Vietnam, and what he said about what he'd done when he got back from doing it isn't nearly as important as the War in Iraq. But how many times have we listened to the talk of his three Purple Hearts? And do keep in mind that Kerry's side was the one that made military service such an issue to begin with; since Bush had no war service record, it's not hard to figure out that the Bush camp wasn't the one to make a big deal over who served overseas!
I realize that there is a difference between this film and Moore's movie: "Stolen Honor" is to be broadcast over the airwaves and won't require its audience to go to a theater and pay admission. But considering that "Stolen Honor" is only reaching only 24% of the country (if all stations involved air it), while Moore's movie reached from coast to coast, I seriously doubt much damage will be done to Kerry.
Do I believe it's right to air the program this close to the election? No.
But I have to wonder how many of the Kerry supporters now complaining about Sinclair's decision to air this program would complain as loudly if a different media conglomerate ordered its stations to broadcast "Fahrenheit 9/11" this Friday night. Somehow, I doubt that there would be many who would.
There's something wrong with that, too.
The media conglomerate in question is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of 62 television stations, which make up approximately 24% coverage of American television households. This is an important fact, because the country is divided into geographic coverage areas called "markets." You live in a television market, whether you realize it or not. Normally, the closest major city to you (which is normally where your local stations are headquartered) is likely the home city for your market.
There are 210 television markets in the country. The largest market is New York City, which consists, according to Nielsen Media, the company that tabulates television ratings, of 7,355,710 television households, or roughly 6.7% of the total television households in America. The second largest market is Los Angeles, with 5.4 million TV households (4.9%). Chicago is the third largest market. Some markets are "hyphenated," which means that they consist of several major cities close enough together that they all fall into the same coverage area. The nation's fifth largest market is a hyphenated market: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose. (Just for fun, because I know you're dying to know, the nation's smallest market is in Glendive, Montana, with just 5,150 television households.)
Sinclair's stations are located mostly in midsize markets and are mostly WB and Fox affiliates, thus the earlier statistic that even with 62 stations, they still manage to reach less than one quarter of all American households.
Earlier this year, Sinclair came under fire after "forbidding" its 8 ABC affiliates from airing a "Nightline" broadcast during which the names of every soldier killed in the War in Iraq were read. The company, according to industry insider Newsblues, also forces its affiliates to air a daily "commentary" by corporate spokesman Mark Hyman who has called the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" and antiwar Congressmen "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."
Now, Sinclair wants its stations to air "Stolen Honor," a 42-minute documentary that focuses on John Kerry's denunciation of the Vietnam War three decades ago. Democratic party leaders have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the documentary is basically an illegal corporate campaign contribution to President Bush.
I have worked for three media corporations in my career thus far. Sinclair has not been one of them. But one of the three I've worked for is one of those "major media conglomerates" that everyone loves to hate. But I can happily say that I have never worked for a company that made its corporate political beliefs well-known to its customers or employees. I didn't know how my corporate superiors voted, and I was pleased not to know. I would certainly be concerned if a company I worked for dictated that my station air such a broadcast.
But having said that, I think it's worth noting that there is once again a double standard in operation here with regard to the concept of political documentaries.
When Michael Moore came out with "Fahrenheit 9/11," Bush supporters were outraged. Kerry supporters were amused at their frustration, and came forward with several important points that they seem to have forgotten lately.
First, they said that Moore's movie was good for America because it contributed to the public discourse. If there were exaggerations or inaccuracies, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, they said, the American people are smart enough to judge for themselves and make up their own mind. I heard quite a few of Kerry's supporters say that all Americans should see Moore's film.
They apparently seem to feel that this film for some reason doesn't contribute to the public discourse. Despite the fact that they back a candidate who challenged everyone to judge him by his record, the same American people must be in election overload if they're no longer smart enough to judge for themselves what is and isn't reasonable.
They criticized those Republicans who tried to discredit Michael Moore and those who resorted to personal attacks against him.
But as you might expect, Democratic partyofficials, including Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, were only too happy to refer to the producer of "Stolen Honor" as a "discredited journalist who held no standing in the profession." Carlton Sherwood, the producer of the film, is a former Marine who served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts of his own. Apparently, Kerry supporters do not feel that all Purple Heart recipients are created equal.
Then they told us to forget that Moore has an agenda (and that he has made no bones about having one); his film is a "documentary," with real footage of what happened. It must be true.
This film, which apparently contains footage of Kerry's actions after the war, for some reason can't be true. As for Sherwood's agenda, the Miami Herald reported that the film was made with $220,000 in donations from Pennsylvania veterans angered by Kerry's post-war remarks which they feel hurt veterans and their families. It also mentions that Sherwood is a "friend" of Tom Ridge, but that Ridge had no involvement in the movie.
Those who were fans of Moore's film were furious that anyone would criticize the film without first seeing it. I'm sure that those who are speaking out against "Stolen Honor" haven't seen it, either.
But my favorite comment comes from Democratic party spokesman David K. Chai, who claimed that the movie is an attempt by Bush supporters to change the topic away from the War in Iraq.
If the topic of the day ever drifted to the War in Iraq for more than about twenty minutes at any time over the last year, it seems that the Kerry camp was quick to focus attention back where they felt it belonged: Kerry's prestigious military service record. What he did in Vietnam, and what he said about what he'd done when he got back from doing it isn't nearly as important as the War in Iraq. But how many times have we listened to the talk of his three Purple Hearts? And do keep in mind that Kerry's side was the one that made military service such an issue to begin with; since Bush had no war service record, it's not hard to figure out that the Bush camp wasn't the one to make a big deal over who served overseas!
I realize that there is a difference between this film and Moore's movie: "Stolen Honor" is to be broadcast over the airwaves and won't require its audience to go to a theater and pay admission. But considering that "Stolen Honor" is only reaching only 24% of the country (if all stations involved air it), while Moore's movie reached from coast to coast, I seriously doubt much damage will be done to Kerry.
Do I believe it's right to air the program this close to the election? No.
But I have to wonder how many of the Kerry supporters now complaining about Sinclair's decision to air this program would complain as loudly if a different media conglomerate ordered its stations to broadcast "Fahrenheit 9/11" this Friday night. Somehow, I doubt that there would be many who would.
There's something wrong with that, too.
Another Draft? -- Part Two
In response to my earlier essay about the possibility of reinstating the draft, Neil of "Neil's Journal" pointed out a few important facts, most recently telling me that it "seems you were way off on this one." I like Neil and his journal, and I'm not trying to pick on him. Instead, I think that there are a few additional points that should be considered in light of this new information.
Neil mentioned that it was the Republicans who stirred up the controversy about a draft as a fear tactic. But the E-mails that flooded the internet fueling speculation that President Bush wanted to reinstate the draft to supply more troops for the War in Iraq certainly were not written by card-carrying Republicans! Rather, they were produced by Kerry supporters who wanted to suggest that Bush's war, which was based entirely on lies, would cost voters their children's lives by causing a new draft. The E-mails didn't mention that Democratic congressmen introduced the bills to create a new draft. They clearly hoped to stir up fear among voters that Bush and his party would be the one to reinstate the draft by neglecting to include the important fact of who sponsored the legislation. That is the politics of fear, pure and simple.
When we were getting the calls and E-mails in our newsroom from worried parents, virtually all of them had one thing in common: the question was phrased around the following assumption: "I heard Bush is trying to reinstate the draft! Is that true?" No one asked if Democrats were trying to reinstate the draft. Why do we suppose that this would be the case, if the E-mails were completely factual in their presentation of the possibility of a draft?
Once those E-mails begin flying and Republicans begin hearing from their constituents, is it a "tacky political ploy" to point out that it was the Democrats who sponsored the bills that called for a draft? Or is it clarifying a point that was conveniently left out of the propaganda designed to scare voters into selecting Kerry? You'll have to decide that for yourself.
Finally, there's this important statement Neil sent. Sen. Fritz Hollings, (a man I greatly respect and voted for as long as I lived in South Carolina), one of the politicians who sponsored a bill to reinstate the draft, made the following comment after the companion bill was killed in the House: "We introduced a draft bill in January 2003, when our nation's defense needed more troops -- and we still do. We were misled into Iraq, and now the Commander in Chief tells the troops they can't win. You don't draft young Americans for a mistake, particularly when they can't win. Under these circumstances, I would vote against my own bill."
Did Hollings withdraw the bill? Or is it still active? Surprisingly, it's still there, though his office insists that it's dead.
But think about it for a minute: let's suppose that you're a Democratic congressman who doesn't approve of the current war and doesn't trust the motives of the current president. Would you allow a bill that would reinstate the draft to linger, waiting for support among Republican congressmen who you don't trust, either? Would you allow a bill with your name on it to exist, even if you yourself wouldn't vote for it? Even if your initial motive to introduce the proposal was on "principled grounds," if your position changes, shouldn't your active legislation reflect that?
If there's nothing wrong with a politician having a change of heart (indeed, if that's something that constituents will find laudable), why would such a politician leave the proposal he no longer believes in out there?
To be fair, his office claims that it's a dead bill because no one will bring it up: "They have too many other things to do before the end of the session," according to a spokesperson. But that itself is an assumption. If we are to believe that "evil" Republicans are only out to prolong an "unjustifiable war," as the original fear-mongering E-mails suggested, how are we then to rule out the possibility that these same "evil" Republicans wouldn't be above suddenly and unexpectedly drumming up support on a bill before the session ends? Why not remove it from consideration, and with it, the talk of a draft if a draft -- at this time -- is the wrong thing to do?
Neil ends one of his comments with the hope that on November 2nd, "America willreject the politics of fear, and elect John Kerry." If Kerry's side of the issue, through either lies of omission or the fueling of assumptions, are trying to make it look like Bush (not Democratic congressmen) are proposing a draft, I would suggest that the Democratic party isn't above using the politics of fear, either.
It comes down to this: if pointing out only part of the story is a fair tactic, while naming names is a "tacky political ploy," then we cannot ever allow ourselves to be surprised that so few people trust our politicians and that so many are shocked after hearing the "other side" of the story!
Neil mentioned that it was the Republicans who stirred up the controversy about a draft as a fear tactic. But the E-mails that flooded the internet fueling speculation that President Bush wanted to reinstate the draft to supply more troops for the War in Iraq certainly were not written by card-carrying Republicans! Rather, they were produced by Kerry supporters who wanted to suggest that Bush's war, which was based entirely on lies, would cost voters their children's lives by causing a new draft. The E-mails didn't mention that Democratic congressmen introduced the bills to create a new draft. They clearly hoped to stir up fear among voters that Bush and his party would be the one to reinstate the draft by neglecting to include the important fact of who sponsored the legislation. That is the politics of fear, pure and simple.
When we were getting the calls and E-mails in our newsroom from worried parents, virtually all of them had one thing in common: the question was phrased around the following assumption: "I heard Bush is trying to reinstate the draft! Is that true?" No one asked if Democrats were trying to reinstate the draft. Why do we suppose that this would be the case, if the E-mails were completely factual in their presentation of the possibility of a draft?
Once those E-mails begin flying and Republicans begin hearing from their constituents, is it a "tacky political ploy" to point out that it was the Democrats who sponsored the bills that called for a draft? Or is it clarifying a point that was conveniently left out of the propaganda designed to scare voters into selecting Kerry? You'll have to decide that for yourself.
Finally, there's this important statement Neil sent. Sen. Fritz Hollings, (a man I greatly respect and voted for as long as I lived in South Carolina), one of the politicians who sponsored a bill to reinstate the draft, made the following comment after the companion bill was killed in the House: "We introduced a draft bill in January 2003, when our nation's defense needed more troops -- and we still do. We were misled into Iraq, and now the Commander in Chief tells the troops they can't win. You don't draft young Americans for a mistake, particularly when they can't win. Under these circumstances, I would vote against my own bill."
Did Hollings withdraw the bill? Or is it still active? Surprisingly, it's still there, though his office insists that it's dead.
But think about it for a minute: let's suppose that you're a Democratic congressman who doesn't approve of the current war and doesn't trust the motives of the current president. Would you allow a bill that would reinstate the draft to linger, waiting for support among Republican congressmen who you don't trust, either? Would you allow a bill with your name on it to exist, even if you yourself wouldn't vote for it? Even if your initial motive to introduce the proposal was on "principled grounds," if your position changes, shouldn't your active legislation reflect that?
If there's nothing wrong with a politician having a change of heart (indeed, if that's something that constituents will find laudable), why would such a politician leave the proposal he no longer believes in out there?
To be fair, his office claims that it's a dead bill because no one will bring it up: "They have too many other things to do before the end of the session," according to a spokesperson. But that itself is an assumption. If we are to believe that "evil" Republicans are only out to prolong an "unjustifiable war," as the original fear-mongering E-mails suggested, how are we then to rule out the possibility that these same "evil" Republicans wouldn't be above suddenly and unexpectedly drumming up support on a bill before the session ends? Why not remove it from consideration, and with it, the talk of a draft if a draft -- at this time -- is the wrong thing to do?
Neil ends one of his comments with the hope that on November 2nd, "America willreject the politics of fear, and elect John Kerry." If Kerry's side of the issue, through either lies of omission or the fueling of assumptions, are trying to make it look like Bush (not Democratic congressmen) are proposing a draft, I would suggest that the Democratic party isn't above using the politics of fear, either.
It comes down to this: if pointing out only part of the story is a fair tactic, while naming names is a "tacky political ploy," then we cannot ever allow ourselves to be surprised that so few people trust our politicians and that so many are shocked after hearing the "other side" of the story!
A Discussion About Ebonics
A reader recently dropped me an E-mail to ask about my profile. The two things that caught her eye was my mention that "I don't do A/S/L," and that "if you think 'cuz' or 'kewl' are words, we have little to talk about. I speak and WRITE in English."
In the E-mail, she admitted that she doesn't like the A/S/L thing, either, but then wrote:
First, if I, as a writer, were to use Ebonics in a script to be read by a person of color, I would invariably receive angry phone calls from people who were complaining about my disrespectful stereotyping. Ebonics is not a "language" that everyone can use equally. Those who fit certain criteria seem to be able to use the language and expect others to "deal with it." Those who do not fit certain criteria find themselves accused of trying to "poke fun" or belittle others it they use it. Consider the commercial that was recently re-edited after apparent complaints about a child's use of a non-standard phrase and pronounciation, "Oh, no he dih-ehnt."
Second, the reader says, "it sounds to me as if you are saying in order to function in society we have to follow the rules of society." Well, of course that's what I am saying. We all follow certain rules of society. Some of us simply choose to follow more of them than others.
Let's take another example: let's suppose that you invite friends to a wedding. One of society's rules is that one should dress nicely for a wedding. How would you feel if friends showed up at your wedding in ratty jeans and t-shirts with offensive messages on them rather than dressing more appropriately for the occasion? I would imagine that it would bother you; it would certainly bother some of your guests, unless every single one of them dressed in the same manner. But this is a perfect example of "rules of society" that we live by.
The point is, I didn't make up the rules of society. They were made for me, long before I was ever born. When it comes to communicating with others, I choose to follow as many of those rules as I can. That is my choice. I have every right to make it. The person who wants to use Ebonics has every right to follow "rules" of a non-language if they wish. But I have every right not to interact with such a person if I cannot understand what they are saying and if they are not willing to communicate with me in a manner that would make it easier for me to understand them.
Among my friends are people of different genders, ages, races, religions, and orientations. What we all share is an ability to communicate with each other and enough respect for each other that we are willing to make the attempt to communicate effectively.
Am I missing out somehow because I might not sit down and try to converse with someone who isn't willing to speak in a manner other than Ebonics? Perhaps. But if I am, then there are plenty of people who are willing to speak only Ebonics who are preventing themselves from from experiencing relationships with others, too.
What happens when these people go out into the workforce and attempt to find a job? How are they to be taken seriously? Would you hire someone who speaks Ebonics to represent your company? Unless all of your clientele speaks in Ebonics as well, it would seem likely that you wouldn't. Is that fair? Before you answer, how happy are you when you call a toll-free number for customer service only to reach an operator whose Indian accent is so thick that you can't understand what they're saying?
Would you like to turn on the evening news and have all of the newscasters speak in Ebonics, or some other language to which you must adapt so that you can understand what is being said?
How would you like to open the newspaper and turn to an article written in Latin? Would it bother you if you recognized fragments here and there, but missed the point? Would it bother you if, upon complaining to the newspaper editor, you were told that you should stop complaining and embrace diversity?
I'd love to know your feelings about Ebonics. If you think it's a language...if you really believe that Ebonics is its own language, I'd love to know how you define a language versus regionalizations and dialects.
In the E-mail, she admitted that she doesn't like the A/S/L thing, either, but then wrote:
"I was wondering what the deal is with the 'Cuz.' What is your belief on Ebonics? And why is it that the way others speak and their grammar isn't considered english to you?"I responded:
As a writer, I appreciate the English language as it exists. I realize that there are constantly changes to it and that the English we speak today is a far cry from that which was spoken centuries ago.
However, I have a problem with words like "cuz" and "kewl" because, quite simply, they aren't words at all. I'm sure there are many people who feel that there is nothing wrong with such abbreviations, particularly during an online chat. I happen to feel, however, that if I'm going to take the time to chat with someone online, it might not be unreasonable to take the time to spell out words. "Cuz" is a little to "cutesy" for me. "Kewl" isn't an abbreviation, since it contains the same number of letters as "cool," which is a legitimate word. There is no reason for "kewl" to even exist.To this, she responded:
My profile made no mention of Ebonics, but since you asked, I don't consider it a language at all. I consider it to be a combination of regional dialects, stereotypical street language, poor grammar and laziness. Those who choose to speak in that manner are often putting themselves in a position where they will not be taken seriously in the "real world." We have rules in grammar for a reason: so everyone can understand what everyone else is saying. Those who blatantly defy those rules run the risk of being misunderstood...and in some cases, even ignored. I think that it's a shame that people who might have a great deal to contribute to our society would willingly put themselves behind such a wall; we have too many people who are "written off" in our society because of the color of their skin, their religion, their manner of dress and countless other reasons without having to add poor sentence construction to the list.
"I can understand where you are coming from. However, many people type the way they talk. I am a person who has dealt with many different people and I think that all languages have their slang but it is still a language. When studying the Spanish language Hispanics don't all speak the same Spanish. Cuban and Mexican Spanish are different however they are both Spanish to the hear. I think that it is sad that people put themselves behind a wall however when deciding not to speak to certain people because it is not the standard English that we learn in school is also putting yourself behind a wall because you are cutting yourself off from learning another's culture. Yes, sometimes people use these words as a shortcut but I think it is sad to not even consider speaking to people because of their differences. I think to often society's rules are not inclusive of all cultures. If we all decide that we won't speak to someone because they don't fit into society's standards we miss out on some really cool friendships and it doesn't allow you to see into someone else's world. If that is what you want then fine. But if you are a person who likes to learn about different cultures and people then these are the types of words that will have to be accepted.My response to this was:
"People like Nelly and Sean Combs are people who use these types of words in their everyday life and yet they are able to be noticed and be successful. I think that just by having this type of dialogue is great because I get to see a different point of view on it and while you make some very good points it sounds to me as if you are saying in order to function in society we have to follow the rules of society. Which is just not true? We all have a choice to either be a follower of what society wants us to be or change society. I am not saying that we all should be walking around using our Hip Hop language however I do think that it should be considered as a language because just as we have to learn Spanish to speak to Hispanics they have to learn English in order to speak to us. In turn we all should be willing to learn and accept the same of other 'Americans' who use Ebonics. If for some reason a person is misunderstood why wouldn't the person who isn't understanding at least try to understand through asking questions. I think that society thinks of Ebonics as a joke but it isn't; it is a person's real life and self expression. Besides, society wouldn't exist without diversity so why not accept it?"
"First, you suggest that Ebonics is to English what 'Mexican Spanish' is to 'European Spanish.' That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it holds water. By that logic, the Southern dialect, which is strewn with phrases like 'Y'all come back now, ya hear?' is not a dialect but rather its own language. It isn't. It is a regionalization of the English language. I don't see people calling for the Southern dialect to be taught in classes as an acceptable way for people to speak. By the same token, 'Yankee,' in which people pronounce car as 'cah' and New York as New Yahwk, should also be taught. Some places call soft drinks pop while others refer to them as sodas. Some places call them "Coke" whether it's Coke or Pepsi. This isn't a language (of its own).A few more thoughts on the subject:
"Second, you suggest that while you don't advocate that all people should walk around speaking in 'Hip Hop,' the rest of us who choose not to should be willing to learn to accept that as a language of its own. You then justify this by suggesting that since we have to learn Spanish to speak to Hispanics, and since Hispanics have to learn English to speak to us. But here is my problem with that argument: it presupposes that those who wish to speak in Ebonics don't have to learn anything. They can speak however they want, fracturing English as they please, while those who wish to speak English in a way that it is properly taught in school must learn this alternative method of speaking it. In other words, those who speak in Ebonics can speak their way, but the rest of us should speak their way to communicate. Why can't those who speak Ebonics raise their linguistic ledgerdomain to address those who don't speak in Ebonics? Why do those who speak the way we were taught have to adjust out pattern of comprehension to embrace speech patterns that don't follow any formal rules of English that we were taught, and that instead reflect a lack of formal education?
"You make an excellent point about those who speak 'hip hop' having something to contribute to society. I'm not saying that the use of Ebonics is a practical indication that one who uses it has nothing to contribute. But you must consider this: I come from the South, where many people with thick southern accents are considered hicks just because of their speech. I would refer you to the excellent movie, "My Fair Lady," which illustrates that even in England, one's speech patterns can prevent them from advancing socially. When I am with friends who are also southern, my speech may reflect a stronger Southern accent than when I am with strangers. This is because if I know I am with friends who will understand what I'm saying, I am less likely to be overly-precise when it comes to grammar. When I am in the presence of strangers who might not be willing to accept me if I am speaking in a non-standard manner, I make it a point to speak in a standard manner, so that they will make a judgement about who I am that is based upon my character, not my method of speech. To me, it would show a lack of respect to those to whom I speak if I did otherwise.
"As a writer, who actually derives income from writing, I am at a loss to understand why people would encourage others to speak in a way that makes themselves not be understood by large segments of the population. We live in a world with countless problems. Do you really believe that the acceptance of Ebonics is a paramount concern? When you state that we can choose to be a "follower of what society wants us to be or change society," do you really believe that Ebonics somehow essentially improves society or solves a real social problem? Does it improve education, or does it excuse failures to educate? Does it encourage people to accept each other, or does it demonstrate at once one's differences?
"I am a writer. I write and speak to be understood. If I decided to start twisting words and sentence constructions to morph English into a method that I liked better, I would be running the risk of alienating my audience and making myself harder to understand. I do not see how my interests would be served by doing so.
"If we're really trying to be tolerant of others...if that's our primary goal...I should think that those who want to speak any way they want should be tolerant of those who choose to speak English the way it is supposed to be spoken, according to the same rules of grammar we all have been brought up with. If I decided to start speaking German to everyone I come in contact with, unless they also spoke German, they wouldn't understand what I was saying. I could campaign to have everyone around me learn German so that I could be understood, or I could learn to speak English and make sure that the masses understand me. If Ebonics is a language of its own, and not a lazy dialect form of traditional English, there should be no difference between Ebonics and German.
"That's why I think Ebonics is not a helpful 'alternative' to English in our society."
First, if I, as a writer, were to use Ebonics in a script to be read by a person of color, I would invariably receive angry phone calls from people who were complaining about my disrespectful stereotyping. Ebonics is not a "language" that everyone can use equally. Those who fit certain criteria seem to be able to use the language and expect others to "deal with it." Those who do not fit certain criteria find themselves accused of trying to "poke fun" or belittle others it they use it. Consider the commercial that was recently re-edited after apparent complaints about a child's use of a non-standard phrase and pronounciation, "Oh, no he dih-ehnt."
Second, the reader says, "it sounds to me as if you are saying in order to function in society we have to follow the rules of society." Well, of course that's what I am saying. We all follow certain rules of society. Some of us simply choose to follow more of them than others.
Let's take another example: let's suppose that you invite friends to a wedding. One of society's rules is that one should dress nicely for a wedding. How would you feel if friends showed up at your wedding in ratty jeans and t-shirts with offensive messages on them rather than dressing more appropriately for the occasion? I would imagine that it would bother you; it would certainly bother some of your guests, unless every single one of them dressed in the same manner. But this is a perfect example of "rules of society" that we live by.
The point is, I didn't make up the rules of society. They were made for me, long before I was ever born. When it comes to communicating with others, I choose to follow as many of those rules as I can. That is my choice. I have every right to make it. The person who wants to use Ebonics has every right to follow "rules" of a non-language if they wish. But I have every right not to interact with such a person if I cannot understand what they are saying and if they are not willing to communicate with me in a manner that would make it easier for me to understand them.
Among my friends are people of different genders, ages, races, religions, and orientations. What we all share is an ability to communicate with each other and enough respect for each other that we are willing to make the attempt to communicate effectively.
Am I missing out somehow because I might not sit down and try to converse with someone who isn't willing to speak in a manner other than Ebonics? Perhaps. But if I am, then there are plenty of people who are willing to speak only Ebonics who are preventing themselves from from experiencing relationships with others, too.
What happens when these people go out into the workforce and attempt to find a job? How are they to be taken seriously? Would you hire someone who speaks Ebonics to represent your company? Unless all of your clientele speaks in Ebonics as well, it would seem likely that you wouldn't. Is that fair? Before you answer, how happy are you when you call a toll-free number for customer service only to reach an operator whose Indian accent is so thick that you can't understand what they're saying?
Would you like to turn on the evening news and have all of the newscasters speak in Ebonics, or some other language to which you must adapt so that you can understand what is being said?
How would you like to open the newspaper and turn to an article written in Latin? Would it bother you if you recognized fragments here and there, but missed the point? Would it bother you if, upon complaining to the newspaper editor, you were told that you should stop complaining and embrace diversity?
I'd love to know your feelings about Ebonics. If you think it's a language...if you really believe that Ebonics is its own language, I'd love to know how you define a language versus regionalizations and dialects.
Friday, October 08, 2004
For Jeff and Anna
It was a romance that began in AOL Journal-land. Many of us followed each new development with great eagerness as things seemed to go so well. There were bumps along the way, but many of us encouraged them to work their way through them and to keep the faith. It now seems that the relationship has come to an end.
I have suggested before that there are those here in J-land who are quick to side with whoever their friends are, and when one of them is hurting, they are ready to condemn the person who hurt them to hell whether they know the "whole story" or not. I suppose it is human nature to take sides.
I found myself in the middle of the situation to an extent, attempting to be the "sympathetic ear" for both of them. I was hoping that I could give them advice to keep them going, not because I wanted anything in return or hoped for any credit for having done so, but simply because I, like so many others, was living vicariously through them.
One of the things I told them recently was to sit down face to face and talk their problems out. If there were issues that either of them were concerned about, the other needed to hear them. They needed to get their likes, dislikes and fears out in the open, decide on a strategy to deal with them and then decide if the strategy was one they -- both of them -- could live with. (I suppose that what I've learned from Dr. Phil can come in handy every now and then.)
I had a few concerns in the back of my mind, but I didn't make them known at the time, because I felt that as long as they were willing to work through their differences, it didn't matter what anyone else thought.
I also told them that they might realize that their relationship wasn't meant to be, but at least they'd know for sure. Now, it seems, that's exactly what happened. If you've read this far in the hopes that I will reveal some of their dirty laundry, you're going to be disappointed. What I know about the relationship that isn't necessarily "common knowledge" will remain between me and them.
The reason I mention this breakup at all is to address one important point:
There have been those who have suggested that they never should have made their relationship so public. I told them that by doing so, they did put additional pressure on themselves. But I cannot agree with others who feel that they shouldn't have written about their relationship. Their journals are, after all, theirs. A reader should expect one's journal to reflect something of the writer's life. There are plenty of journals that deal with personal relationships; those who want to address such personal topics have every right to do so. And since relationships are so important to people who want them, it's hardly a surprise that such a subject might appear in a journal entry from time to time.
Unfortunately, the consequence of doing so is that pressure I spoke of. Those who have befriended either one or both naturally want happiness to be the end result of the journey. Some of us will follow it more closely than others; some will take sides at the slightest sign of trouble. But in the end, what does or doesn't end up happening is their business, not ours, even if we have been "let in" along the way.
While the relationship didn't end the way many of us who had been following the situation wanted, if it is meant to be that they aren't meant to be, we should at least be relieved (as I hope they eventually will be) that this decision arrived sooner than later. If a relationship cannot survive, the sooner this realization comes to light, the easier it will be for the two people involved to deal with this fact, no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. And let's face it: their feelings are far moreimportant than ours in this situation.
I am disappointed about how things worked out. But I won't attempt to debate who was hurt worse: they both were hurt in their own way. Since I value both of them, I will instead say that I hope both of them are quickly able to put the pain behind them, and I will hope that they will eventually be able to salvage a lifelong friendship. They have been through a lot together, and I hope neither is willing to completely throw all of that away.
I have suggested before that there are those here in J-land who are quick to side with whoever their friends are, and when one of them is hurting, they are ready to condemn the person who hurt them to hell whether they know the "whole story" or not. I suppose it is human nature to take sides.
I found myself in the middle of the situation to an extent, attempting to be the "sympathetic ear" for both of them. I was hoping that I could give them advice to keep them going, not because I wanted anything in return or hoped for any credit for having done so, but simply because I, like so many others, was living vicariously through them.
One of the things I told them recently was to sit down face to face and talk their problems out. If there were issues that either of them were concerned about, the other needed to hear them. They needed to get their likes, dislikes and fears out in the open, decide on a strategy to deal with them and then decide if the strategy was one they -- both of them -- could live with. (I suppose that what I've learned from Dr. Phil can come in handy every now and then.)
I had a few concerns in the back of my mind, but I didn't make them known at the time, because I felt that as long as they were willing to work through their differences, it didn't matter what anyone else thought.
I also told them that they might realize that their relationship wasn't meant to be, but at least they'd know for sure. Now, it seems, that's exactly what happened. If you've read this far in the hopes that I will reveal some of their dirty laundry, you're going to be disappointed. What I know about the relationship that isn't necessarily "common knowledge" will remain between me and them.
The reason I mention this breakup at all is to address one important point:
There have been those who have suggested that they never should have made their relationship so public. I told them that by doing so, they did put additional pressure on themselves. But I cannot agree with others who feel that they shouldn't have written about their relationship. Their journals are, after all, theirs. A reader should expect one's journal to reflect something of the writer's life. There are plenty of journals that deal with personal relationships; those who want to address such personal topics have every right to do so. And since relationships are so important to people who want them, it's hardly a surprise that such a subject might appear in a journal entry from time to time.
Unfortunately, the consequence of doing so is that pressure I spoke of. Those who have befriended either one or both naturally want happiness to be the end result of the journey. Some of us will follow it more closely than others; some will take sides at the slightest sign of trouble. But in the end, what does or doesn't end up happening is their business, not ours, even if we have been "let in" along the way.
While the relationship didn't end the way many of us who had been following the situation wanted, if it is meant to be that they aren't meant to be, we should at least be relieved (as I hope they eventually will be) that this decision arrived sooner than later. If a relationship cannot survive, the sooner this realization comes to light, the easier it will be for the two people involved to deal with this fact, no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. And let's face it: their feelings are far moreimportant than ours in this situation.
I am disappointed about how things worked out. But I won't attempt to debate who was hurt worse: they both were hurt in their own way. Since I value both of them, I will instead say that I hope both of them are quickly able to put the pain behind them, and I will hope that they will eventually be able to salvage a lifelong friendship. They have been through a lot together, and I hope neither is willing to completely throw all of that away.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
CBS Fallout? Rather Not!
When the CBS document controversy came to light, many bloggers took great delight in predicting the downfall of CBS News. A few of them suggested that that within months, the ratings of the "CBS Evening News" would take a nosedive.I asked one of the bloggers who made that comment exactly how we'd be able to tell, since the "CBS Evening News" had been in third place for years, anyway. (Naturally, I never got an answer.)
A few weeks ago, a report suggested that CBS's news ratings had "plunged" in the major markets. I was immediately suspicious of this report, since its ratings in major markets aren't generally that different than its ratings nationwide. Even more suspicious was the lack of any mention of the old ratings or any information about how much the new ratings had dropped.
Now, it seems, there's good reason for the lack of critical information: TV Week reports that Nielsen, the company that measures ratings, has determined that there has been no major fallout in CBS's ratings following the controversy:
"'CBS Evening News' averaged a 4.9 national household rating/11 share for the week ending Sept. 24. Because the week of Sept. 13-17 was driven by coverage of Hurricane Ivan, (Nielsen) looked at the three weeks starting Aug. 23, Aug. 30 and Sept. 6 and found that 'CBS Evening News' averaged a 4.8/10 -- slightly below its average last week.In a related story, even Dan Rather's chief competitors, who most assumed would have everything to gain from CBS's downfall, have come to the defense of their colleague. Yahoo News reported that at a weekend forum, NBC's Tom Brokaw and ABC's Peter Jennings didn't shy away from the controversy:
"Nor do the ratings suggest that 'CBS Evening News' competitors are benefiting from the CBS news scandal, which is now being investigated by former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi.
"The same week, 'NBC Nightly News' averaged a 6.8/15 (compared with a 6.7/14 Aug. 23 through Sept. 10), while 'ABC World News Tonight' averaged a 5.8/12 (compared with its three-week average of 5.6/12)."
"They pointed out that mistakes had been made in the reporting of what are apparently faked documents from Bush's then-superior officer but said it wasn't fair to single out Rather and CBS News for ulterior motives. "I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," Jennings said to heavy applause. Brokaw railed against the attempt by some -- particularly Internet bloggers, who were among the first critics -- for a "kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News." He added, "It's certainly an attempt to demonize CBS News ... and it goes beyond any factual information."A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll revealed that most Americans thought Rather made an "honest mistake." In the poll, 56% said that Rather and CBS made the error perhaps because of "carelessness in their fact-checking and reporting." Asked if CBS News should fire Rather, 64% said no. The poll also found 55% of people think they can trust CBS News to report the news accurately; 41% said they can't.
But before you celebrate that last statistic, when asked about general media accuracy, only 52% of respondents answered positively and 47% answered negatively, which means that slightly more people trust CBS News specifically than the overall media. It's naturally not good that 47% of people don't trust the media. But at least for CBS News, it's not as bad as the overall picture would lead you to believe.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Happy Anniversary!
On this date, 40 years ago, my parents were married.
I recall thinking a few months back about what I could do for their 40th Anniversary. My parents are the kind of people who don't really need anything and don't really want anything. Christmas and birthday shopping is always a challenge. I thought long and hard about what I could do for them and decided I'd have to give it more thought.
Fast forward to today...and you can figure out the rest of the story.
I was talking to my mom on the phone earlier, when she mentioned the date and asked if I knew what today was. It wasn't to rub in the fact that I had forgotten; she was basically setting up a joke about whether either of us could believe she had made it that far.
I apologized for not having remembered sooner and she told me what I had already known: they didn't want anything and didn't expect anything. We've all had lots of things going on, and my dad was feeling under the weather today, anyway, so there was no big anniversary dinner, yet. They're not upset that I didn't remember.
But still...40 years!!!
Maybe I'll come up with a combination anniversary/Christmas present by December!
I recall thinking a few months back about what I could do for their 40th Anniversary. My parents are the kind of people who don't really need anything and don't really want anything. Christmas and birthday shopping is always a challenge. I thought long and hard about what I could do for them and decided I'd have to give it more thought.
Fast forward to today...and you can figure out the rest of the story.
I was talking to my mom on the phone earlier, when she mentioned the date and asked if I knew what today was. It wasn't to rub in the fact that I had forgotten; she was basically setting up a joke about whether either of us could believe she had made it that far.
I apologized for not having remembered sooner and she told me what I had already known: they didn't want anything and didn't expect anything. We've all had lots of things going on, and my dad was feeling under the weather today, anyway, so there was no big anniversary dinner, yet. They're not upset that I didn't remember.
But still...40 years!!!
Maybe I'll come up with a combination anniversary/Christmas present by December!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
