|
WE GOT A BIG 'OL CONVOY, ROCKIN THRU THE NIGHT!
My biggest pet peeve in the journalism I see is when news orgs don't push an issue enough. I think sometimes it's due to laziness, sometimes a perceived indifference by the audience and sometimes it's just a lack of resources. So, I get very excited when I see a news org or a journalist really push a story.
I'm thrilled over the Sun-Times' coverage of "Clout on Wheels: the Scandal of Chicago's Hired Truck Program". Tim Novak and Steve Warmbir have done a great job bringing a story that was lying there for several years out in the open. The Sun-Times has done a great job with follow-up coverage and editorials. Even the Tribune has to be commended for giving the Sun-Times credit for the story in a January 28th editorial: The Daley administration professed to be appalled at Chicago Sun-Times reports that many trucks for hire were doing nothing on the city's dime, with no-work contracts going to firms with political ties and mob ties. But once the series was out there and Goliath started to flinch, Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown tagged in and started whaling on the giant. Brown jabbed away at the story last week with five excellent columns that not only added exclamation points to the story, but advanced it as well. THIS is what I mean when I say that news organizations need to do more advocate journalism. It's one thing to stand around and tell me what is going on--anyone can do that. A news org that goes that extra mile and explains it all in detail, uncovering the evidence themselves and then putting the feet of those responsible to the fire day in and day out until something is done to fix the problem--that's the kind of news org that I'm going to follow. |
|
PREPARATIONS FOR REPARATIONS?
I'll admit that the first thing I thought of when I got to Neil Steinberg's column in last Wednesday's Sun-Times was: "Who cares what an upper-middle class suburbanite has to say about slave reparations".
Then I read it. And it made sense. And I felt bad about that whole pre-judging thing. The question that keeps coming to my mind is how much money would be needed to repair the historical wrong of slavery, and the obvious answer is that there isn't enough money in the world. My greatest concern is that the entire issue portrays African Americans in the worst light -- as harping on distant wrongs and setting themselves apart from a nation they have done so much to enrich. It just doesn't seem to be a healthy position, particularly as another minority group, the Latinos, hurtles past them in numbers, power and importance, a group which was also wronged by our country in history, yet which just seems happy to be here. I didn't feel bad for long, though. One good point out of thousands does not suddenly make me a fan of a writer who I generally don't like reading. On Friday's "Chicago Week in Review" on Channel 11, the Sun-Times' Dan Miller made a very good point about the reparations issue. I'm paraphrasing, but when the question came up about how far it will go, he basically said that he's not sure because the REAL opposition has yet to show itself. He's right. I don't think we've heard a lot of opposing viewpoints because those people are hanging back, waiting to see what happens with the legal system. It will only take a small amount of legal traction for the fervent opposition to come out swinging--and it would be an easy, but massive mistake to label all the opposition as "racist." A few years ago I was walking past the reception desk on our floor. The receptionist (a black woman) was talking to a guy from the accounting department (a black man) about something. Keep in mind that there are only about 25 people on our floor, so everyone is very acquainted with each other. Anyway, I don't remember the gist of their conversation, but it was definitely light-hearted, so I stopped to listen and perhaps join in. At one point, the guy points at me and in jest says "It's your people that have been keeping US down." I paused for a second and with a straight face responded, "My people?…..the POLISH?" To which we all had a good laugh. Looking back at my family tree where one pair of Grandparents and one pair of Great-Grandparents immigrated legally to this country and had a difficult time of it, I fail to see how we've had it so "easy". However, it seems to me that rather than asking reparations from the country that bought, received and owned the slaves; it makes some sense to be asking reparations from those African countries that enslaved people in the first place. At best, I see the Southern states as being guilty of receiving stolen goods rather than abducting and enslaving themselves. Think of it. Without the supply, there would have been no demand. Auschwitz and many other death camps are in Poland. So why hasn't the country of Poland paid part of Jewish Reparations? After all, not all Nazi's were German, but the leaders of Germany at that time were responsible for the holocaust. I think it's way too complicated to connect the Jewish-Nazi Reparations issue with the African Slave Reparations issue. Damn...this has piece gotten way heavy. Besides, who the hell cares what a middle-class white guy thinks about slave reparations. |
|
BREAK LIKE THE WIND
In his closing shot last Wednesday , Neil Steinberg wrote one of the dumbest non-Mariotti things I've read in a long time:
How long until TV stations drop weathermen? You can find out everything there is to know about the weather -- now, tomorrow, or the day after, which is about as far as science can accurately predict weather -- by logging onto the National Weather Service web site (www.crh.noaa.gov/). So why do we have to drum our fingers while Tommy Skilling and all the rest blather on about the dew point and El Nino? At least when they had sock puppets and lithesome Weather Gals there was a certain collateral interest to the process. Now it's just bothersome, dull and unnecessary. My prediction: gone in five years. Okay, so I'm going to assume that he wasn't kidding about this because I don't detect a sarcastic or satirical tone. Steinberg's contention that weathermen will become extinct because you can get the weather on the Internet is flawed on many levels. I'm an expert on this. I've worked in Television Research for 12 years. In 1995 I worked at a station in San Antonio, Texas that launched a Nine O'Clock Newscast and debuted with exceptional ratings thanks to the research done in the year prior to launch. One of the reasons for our success was our weatherman who was the #2 guy at the #1 station in town. His following at our station was substantial. There are several research companies who work with TV news departments, and they will all tell you that (with rare exceptions) the Number One reason that people watch the late news is to get the weather. This is why the newscasts all tease the weather until finally airing it halfway through the show. As soon as the weather finishes up, people start changing channels. The key to why people prefer the TV Weatherman has to do with several factors: It's live, it's visual, it's passive and it's Local. When you watch the weather report on a local newscast, there is a sense of it being up-to-the-minute even if the data you are seeing is an hour old. It's like the viewer has personally asked someone to tell them what the weather is going to be like. TV weather reports are the most visual of all mediums. In radio you hear the report, in newspapers you see a static image and on the Internet you may be able to see a few images, but no one is there to point things out. On TV a weatherman cycles through a succession of maps and satellite pictures and radar images, explaining what you are seeing and why the weather is happening. By the end of the report, you not only know that it's going to snow tomorrow, but you have a good understanding why and how the satellite images look. In some cases after watching Tom Skilling, you may even be eligible for course credit at a community college. The passive nature of watching TV has to be factored in. Every attempt at interactive TV has failed. Why? People just want the TV to give them information and entertainment without having to go through any effort. Sure a web site has tons of information, but not everyone wants to hunt and find what they're looking for. TV News reports are like having dinner at a restaurant while on the Internet you're hunting and trapping you own meal. Finally, there's the local factor. People want their news from a local source. This is why local newspapers outsell national newspapers in Chicago. This is why local newscasts have larger audiences than national newscasts and national news networks in Chicago. The Weather Channel is a 24-hour channel that does nothing but weather. But it's mostly a national channel. Few people watch for long. Are Chicagoans more likely to view a national weather Internet site rather than a locally created and updated one? I don't think so. There's also not much difference between getting your weather info off the National Weather Service web site and a newspaper weather page. It's not like newspapers have been cutting into TV News ratings. There's a reason why Tom Skilling is one of the highest-paid people in TV News. A ton of viewers love and appreciate his thorough weather reports. Without fail, when the weather gets rough, Channel 9's ratings go up. Even people who mock Skilling's reports as more thorough than necessary have to admit that he is Chicago's top weather expert. This despite the fact that everyone knows he isn't privy to any different information than any other weatherman. The Internet is a great place to find a wealth of information, but for American consumers, the package matters. There's no chance that Weathermen will become extinct because of the Internet because the packaging is different. If any news medium is threatened with extinction by the Internet, it's newspapers. Static text and images--yeah, the Internet does that well, plus it's all in color. Compared to Internet news sites, newspapers might be perceived as bothersome, dull and unnecessary. |
|
CME CONTEST: NAME THAT READER
Rare is the sight during my daily "L" commute of people reading the RedEye or Red Streak these days, but when I have spotted someone reading a Red, I've noticed a common trait.
They're all Mouth-Breathers. Seriously, they all seem to have the same zombified look on their face as they breathe through their half-open cake holes. Forget the demographics, and the income figures: if you are targeting Chicagoans who walk around breathing from the mouth then you need to advertise in the Reds! This got me thinking: If people who read the Reds are "Mouth-Breathers," then how should we stereotype readers of the other daily newspapers? Are Wall Street Journal readers "Cake-Eaters" or maybe "Tax-Cheaters"? Are Sun-Times readers "Meat-eaters" or maybe "Grade-Repeaters"? Are Tribune readers "Business-Leaders" or maybe "Lawn-weeders"? Are Daily Herald readers "Wal-Mart Greeters" or maybe "Livestock-Feeders"? That's your assignment...email me some more hyphenated adjectives (preferably ending in -ers) describing newspaper readers and I'll print the best ones in two weeks (anon submissions accepted). |
|
MUSINGS
Red Face ReturnsSome said it couldn't be done. Some said that it would violate every law of nature. Still others claimed that news of its return would be an affront to God himself. They were all wrong (except for the God one). The Chicago Red Face resumed publication last week and continues weekly. The return of the Red Face also marks the return of Jay Merryman. Woo-hoo! Ratings Sweep Alert Thursday is the start of the February ratings sweep, so we can all enjoy new episodes of Network TV shows from now until March 3rd. Coincidentally, local news stations will be running a slew of special reports. Four months until sweeps go away in Chicago forever. Breast Superbowl Ever! How 'bout that boobie? It's good to see that the 'lil Janet Jackson has grown into an ample woman, huh? I'll never watch reruns of Good Times the same way again. Ya know, it may have been inappropriate, but I don't think Janet Jackson's exposed Ya-Ya wasn't the most offensive thing during the Superbowl halftime show. More offensive: - Nelly and his obvious jock itch problem (or is it crabs?) - Steven Tyler showing his age by singing "Dream On" as a baritone - Scantily clad objectified women dancing around Sean Combs & Nelly - Kid Rock cutting a slit into an American flag and wearing it like a poncho - Kid Rock singing out to drug users and hookers The most offensive might have been the commercials. Let's see...CBS won't allow moveon.org to run an anti-Geo Bush ad, but several ads for erectile dysfunction-including one that warns of a 4 hour erection being a side effect-is very appropriate in their book??? I bet Les Moonves got all the free samples he wants in that deal, huh? Anyone seen Julie Chen walking around bow-legged? |
