Bars and Tone

Today, President Obama spoke to the AFL-CIO in Cincinnati. Toward the end of the speech, he talked about the difference one person can make in our world. He said he was tired of all the negativity on television and told the story of the origin of the phrase “Fired Up,” which became a rallying cry during his Presidential campaign.

It began in Greenville, South Carolina. He had just begun his campaign, was an unknown and had no support. He was sitting next to a woman and asked for her support of his campaign. She said she’d support him if he came to her hometown, Greenwood, S.C.
He said yes. Weeks later, he flew there to fulfill his promise. But Greenwood was in the middle of nowwhere. He arrived at a small hotel and was told he had to be in the car at 6:30 in the morning for the hour and a half drive to Greenville. Obama was feeling a bit angry, the weather was awful, and he was tired, very tired.

Before getting in the car, he grabbed the New York Times and proceeded to read an unflattering story about himself. Then, his umbrella broke. Shortly thereafter he’s talking to himself saying, “I’m sleepy, wet and mad.
They arrive in Greenville 90 minutes later

and the car pulls up next to a fieldhouse. After the hour and a half drive, President Obama sees there are only 20 people inside. He’s shakingeveryone’s hands and suddenly, hears a voice saying “Fired Up.” Everyone else then begins saying “Fired Up and Ready to Go!” Obama looks around to find a 5 ft. 2 woman in the audience, about 50 or 60 years old, all dressed up wearing a wide brimmed hat. She continues to chant “Fired Up.” It turns out she’s a city councilwoman and is known for chanting in public gatherings. So, for the next 5 minutes, she continues to chant and the President starts feeling alot better, in fact, he’s fired up! He’s ready to go.

That story became one of the foundations of his campaign and as he recounts “It just goes to show you how one voice can change a room. If if one voice can change a room, it can change a building. And if it can change a building it can change a city. And if it can change a city it can change a state. And if it can change a state, it can change the country, and if it can change a country, it can change the world.”

This optimistic sentiment is frequently reflected in television ads like Southwest’s new campaign “It’s On,” and Bank of America’s positive American heartland commercials. But on television news channels, the focus remains on negativity and self-gratification. Commentators care less about solutions and more about celebrity.

That diminutive 5 ft. woman in South Carolina needs a televison show.

It is interesting how, on a few memorable days and under extremely rare circumstances, television can redefine how we feel and what we do.  Immediately after Senator Ted Kennedy died, I was on a ferry that passed by his home in Hyannisport, Massachusetts. Many times, I’d seen pictures of his boat, the Maya docked near his home. On that day, we sailed by the small harbor where the boat sat. It was a beautiful summer afternoon, his boat was bobbing quietly on the sea and as we moved further away, I thought “it looks different than on television.” The following Saturday, all the networks broadcast the Senator’s funeral. Local Boston stations provided wall-to-wall coverage beginning with the funeral and continuing as the family escorted the casket to Hanscom Air Force Base in nearby Bedford. The weather that day was unusually stormy. It was cool for August and tropical storm Danny was bringing torrential rains to Massachusetts. It’s on days like this that television serves as both a companion and a catalyst.

There was something so compelling about the television broadcasts. As the motorcade proceeded from downtown Boston, people were stopping along the highway to pay tribute. We suddenly felt the urge to get in the car to see if we too could drive close to the motorcade. We drove to nearby Lexington, near the airport where the family would depart for Washington. We pulled over to a small parking lot. At first, we were one of only a few cars, but in a short time, car after car pulled in. I was surprised. More and more people came, exiting their cars with
umbrellas in hand. Some had flags, some carried cameras, some even brought lawn chairs but all stood or sat
patiently in the driving rain just to catch a glimpse of the motorcade. Cars passed, and everyone looked closer, peering inside. “This is it,” some said, but after an hour of enduring soaking, windswept rains, word spread that the motorcade had entered Hanscom Field at a different point and wouldn’t be going past our drenched line of dedicated, damp, citizens. The rain fell so hard that umbrellas were buckling under the weight of the cold rain. It soon became clear we weren’t going to see the motorcade. As we packed up and drove away, I wondered if people felt disappointed, but no one seemed to mind.

Great television moves people. When we got home, we watched more coverage of the funeral and the motorcade. We saw people just like us. We recognized the road we were on. This time, it didn’t “look different on tv.”  Television, at its best, captures the most powerful and historic experiences of our society and then propells us to act.

Today on television, two very different women dominated the news and talk show circuit and both were under the spotlight over their traditional beliefs. But who deserves the crown? In the competetive arena that is cable television news, isn’t it inevitable that women are placed in competition against one another in negative fashion?  During this year’s Miss USA Pageant, Miss California, in response to a question from Perez Hilton, stated that marriage is only viable between a man and a woman. Initially, I didn’t think her response was remarkable or unexpected.  It’s a bit humerous that we should expect something different from a beauty pageant. This annual beauty contest is not exactly a breeding ground for progressive thought or dissent.

As the controversy over Miss California’s answer grew, nude pictures of her appeared, then the question was asked: should she be “de-crowned?” Is she “unworthy?” Today, Carrie Prejean appeared with Donald Trump and the verdict was delivered. She can keep her title.  She explained that her comments about gay marriage were from the heart and that semi-nude pictures did not prohibit her from carrying on her duties as a rode model for America’s young women.

Later Tuesday evening, Elizabeth Edwards appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live. She is promoting her new book called Resilient, a wide-ranging personal story in which Mrs. Edwards describes how she and her family have overcome tremendous hardships including the death of her son, her incurable cancer and her husband’s infidelity.

I wonder what Americans think about these very different women and their very public personas? I hear cynical comments about both. Some think Miss California’s public dilemma is an orchestrated controversy aimed at generating interest in the Miss USA Pageant. Many people believe the pageant is a relic of the past and no longer relevant to today’s young women.  Regarding Elizabeth Edwards, some believe she’s just out to make money, others think she’s out to re-make her husband’s image. Is she genuinely still in love with John Edwards? During her interview, she said marriage is full of ups and downs and she took a vow to uphold the sacrament. She reacted to being called “naive” in by columnist Maureen Dowd’s in the NY Times earlier in the week.

Is it naive to love your husband and trust he is honoring your wedding vows? Is it appropriate to give so much television coverage to a young woman who’s “reconfigured” herself with breast implants to win a beauty contest?  Would you like your daughter pictured naked all over the internet? Is winning all that counts in this modern contest to wear a crown?

Why are we so critical of women? Why are women so critical of other women? Why don’t we salute a woman for working to save her marriage and her family? Is it always a competition based on beauty, and the prettiest young woman gets the crown? How about a Pageant for woman facing really tough things like cancer and infidelity while preserving their self-respect.

That’s not naive, that’s worthy of a crown.

I don’t want to increase the panic level, but television coverage of the swine flu could make you sick!

When news about the swine flu outbreak in Mexico made it across the border to the U.S., the story quickly took hold, and like a virus infected the cable and broadcast news channels with headlines including the words panic and crisis. It’s understandable that news organizations would embrace the story since it had the potential to become a serious world-wide health emergency. Gradually, officials from the Center for Disease Control began to speak out and reporters like CNN’s Sunjai Gupta traveled to Mexico and shows including Nightline headed to a small Mexican village to interview the young boy who was believed to be “patient one,” the first victim of the flu. For a few days, fear spread across the world faster than Susan Boyle’s remarkable singing performance.

Local news reporters in Boston (like local reporters around the nation) did live shots outside schools where cases of swine flu began to emerge. Watching the news was definitely not for the faint of heart. Perhaps stepping back from the TV would help. You could almost feel the anxiety level of the nation rising. What would this mean? One began thinking of building a bunker, stocking up on water, cancelling travel, how would we handle this seemingly unprecedented worldwide crisis? What else could go wrong?

First, the economy, now this!

Precisely at the right time, two leaders simultaneously alleviated anxiety through logic and provided valuable context and rationality. First, President Obama judiciously stated the situation was a cause for concern but not alarm. Then, WCVB-TV Boston’s medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson rose above the hoopla with authority and reason. He embodies the trustworthy television personality who cares more about the public’s health than temporary ratings gains achieved through shock and awe.  Throughout their history, local television stations built extremely successful businesses based on one critical human quality: trust. Tim Johnson epitomizes the trustworthy television personality, a huge asset who cuts through the clutter and provides truth, honesty and facts. Dr. Johnson talks to us like we’re grownups.

We need trustworthy, fact-finding reporters now more than ever, and local television stations can find their futures in their past. These news departments need to make themselves necessary. They can do so by re-establishing a reputation for unique news coverage information-gathering delivered by trustworthy people.

Most local television news has a base case of the flu. Television executives need to start thinking like us, the viewer. Americans want the facts, and context to the story. No more alarming “Breaking News” coverage! No more ridiculous celebrity controversies! Produce a special “Celebrity Section” in your newscast, but don’t pretend this kind of nonsense is local news.

Tend to business and give us factual, trustworthy reporting. It’s the only way that television news can recover from the news bug.

This past weekend’s Sunday talk shows offered very little solace to alarmed viewers confused about the millions of dollars in tax payer money awarded as bonuses to AIG executives. In fact, an air of flippancy emerged as an undercurrent in each show. Several guests suggested that the media is obsessed with the $165 million bonus pool, suggesting reporters should just move on and cover the bigger story: the solvency of the banks.

So, just as we’re following along carefully trying to understand how this bonus debacle could have happened, the conversation shifts. Journalists started to ask questions, for example, who is getting a bonus and why? How were the bonuses structured? Were they based on individual goals? But just as we were starting to get answers, the story shifted as commentators seemed to collectively agree that it didn’t have legs or their legs were tired.

This type of jump-start journalism, stop and start commentary is exactly what is alienating viewers and angering Americans. We get big headlines filled with outrageous, shocking information, then the media decides the story is over, and it goes away.

The Wall Street Bonus Boom is symptomatic of our financial crisis, and an explanation is due the taxpayer. No one is against making money and profiting from growing businesses, but let’s get the facts no matter how long it takes. Dismissing a story and moving to another gives viewers an incomplete. It’s like skipping a key chapter in a book, you never really understand the whole story.

Why is it so difficult for television news to report on a number of issues at the same time? Has the media become a one note industry? As soon as a big story breaks, all the cable networks scramble to surround the story with bold type and dramatic language and then the headlines quickly fade as the news media decides it’s time to move on.

Remember the calls from well-regarded business executives that President Obama was trying to do too much at one time? That crazy assertion must apply to the television news divisions at broadcasting and cable companies. Can’t you continue working on one story while covering a second? Can’t you put information in context for us all the time and tell us the whole story. That would be a bonus!